Topic: What is the opposite of "Fuck you, got mine?" (Read 13385 times)

Are you saying this bad or good?  I would say that it is desperate and hopefully could be avoided but sometimes people should be able to make these types of messages.  Sometimes through acts like this, you see real awareness, discussion and hopefully progress.

Not to mention wealthy countries that have good reproductive healthcare and comfortable living tend to have zero, or even decreasing population growths. No need for anyone to die; just make whether to have a child or not more of a choice.

Self Immolation:
If you help people, they may help you back some day.  Not so with lighting yourself on fire.  Completely selfless political action.

I am fascinated by this thread because the central issue is something I have been meditating on for many years. I tend to agree with capn noe here but I'd like to step back and look at the big picture and the modern setting in which FYGM has gained traction.

For one, we're living in the age of peak everything. Whether we are at peak oil now, is not my point, only that we are at peak production. Meaning we are at the point (and have been for almost 20 years) where adding more population (i.e. human labor) does not increase world GDP in terms of purchasing power. Which means the average income per capita in terms of purchasing power has been falling steadily for quite some time. In addition to this backdrop we are witnessing in our lives a colossal shift in world wealth and power from the west to the east. I remember back in 2006 or 2007 I hypothesized China would get an aircraft carrier in 2012 and I was laughed off usenet. Lo and behold I was right -- I was right because I lived here (in Asia) and I knew what was going on. I could see it. These are big changes. In general in the 80s the picture was, 10% of the world's wealthy was in America and 10% was in Europe. In another 10 or 20 years it will be, 20% in China/Asia and 10% in Europe and America combined. This is a huge colossal shift. And what I am hypothesizing is that the population is going to go into drastic decline. Maybe through famine or poverty. War isn't working these days, it's not fast enough.

So back to FYGM. The negative connotation stems from a notion of fairness and equality among human beings. This is a very tempting viewpoint to have. But it is by nature unsustainable. It is a morality which served us well as a species in our formative history (the last 6,000 years). But it has now become our undoing. The issue is really what we can control and what we cannot control.

We can't control energy. Once it's gone it's gone. A massive shift to wind, solar and geothermal might be our last chance, but there are cost and sustainability issues with that too. We can't control food and (for the most part) we can't control weather. Maybe to a degree we can use fertilizers and modern farming methods but my point is that there are limits.

There is one thing we can control though -- population.

And this is where we are forced to realize that we must cut off our right hand so that the left does not know what it is doing.

Look at all of the things we think are helpful and good:
 - Feeding the poor
 - Disaster aid/disaster relief
 - Volunteer work
 - Housing the homeless
 - Advanced medicine, elective surgery
 - insurance of any kind

These things have become a serious problem because they are a threat to the human race as a whole. We are approaching a tipping point -- that is undeniable -- where the human race must stop growing in number. Think about it. Somehow, versus today, millions and millions of babies must stop being born. This is not a joke. Maybe not today but definitely within the next 10-30 years we will witness this live.

It will require a massive shift in perception, consciousness, morality, an across-the board change.

And what is even more likely is that it won't just be babies not getting born, it will be that people as a whole need to start dying.

This is shocking and against all known human morality. It is against our nature to think this. This is not what 6,000+ years of evolution of human history have taught us.

So I propose a simple test for those family lines who are to survive the coming crisis (or not). It's simple. If you understand that FYGM is pretty much the demarcation line between who is going to live and who is going to die, then you deserve to survive. It's not a happy thought but it's pretty much undeniable at this point. In the future, no matter what we feel is right or wrong, at least half the people on the earth -- right now -- need to die.

And there is nothing you or I or anyone can do about it.

I hope I'm wrong...

This is anecdotal. Chatting to a small sample of maybe 10-20 Brazilians, all have been blaze' - "It's a big place". It's taken for granted because it's home. I try to communicate that our Europe was covered in forest too - that was big too and now we have very little. Basically none indigenous, this is the last place left and we can see it happening on Google Maps at the most zoomed out level.

Many Brazilians I've met though have appeared kind but also with an undercurrent of arrogance and selfishness or snobbery even I find hard to swallow - perhaps this is the difference between a less class enforced society and not so lucky. Online gamers I've only met cheating. Guess it's culture.

How ironic/strange/confounding is it, that Bitcoiners are labeled as FY;GM types who are only interested is getting rich at the expense of others, and yet our community has donated over $4,000 to charities through the public Bitcoin100 organization, and has given away a lot of money through less public means via tips, direct donations, and gifts...

I have an idea, let's add "Fuck you, Pay me" into the mix:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/12/09/a-note-to-you-should-you-be-thinking-of-asking-me-to-write-for-you-for-free/

Maybe he doesn't feel like educating you.

Is this an admission that you don't really know? I think a few sentences with the same word count as your response would have been sufficient. Instead, you posted what you did - which is a huge red flag that you don't know, which basically invalidates a lot of your previous statements.

I know what it is. You know what it is. It doesn't matter to the OP topic, and doesn't matter to anyone else reading this, and it doesn't matter to me what you think about it. Just as anything I say regarding ownership and stewardship of private property apparently doesn't matter to you.

It does matter. Please explain your understanding of it.

Yep. I'm aware. It doesn't matter though. You still think that a forest is better off when no one is in charge of it.

Rassah, are you familiar with old growth forests vs secondary growth forests? Perhaps you've heard of the spotted owl controversy? Do you understand what that was all about?

The company which you used as example does not cut just few trees. It is necessary a great quantity of trees to produce paper and pulp. You are also not aware that certain trees needs more than a century to grown and replace the cut tree. Moreover, you presume that when a tree is cut the biodiversity will not be affected while the new tree develops.

http://www.junglephotos.com/amazon/amplants/trees/trees.shtml


No, recycling is not a form of conservation. The biodiversity cannot be "recycled".

Trees never fall in FirstAsshat's forests, animals never die, and it's always spring. It's all unicorns and rainbows.

 
Because when you cut down a few trees, immediately replace them with new saplings, and don't affect the overall surrounding forest or the forest as a whole, it still conserves the local nature, biodiversity, or what have you. In the same way that recycling is a form of conservation.


This being a human problem was kinda where I was going with it, too (but didn't want my really long post getting any longer). Yes, I agree completely, people are, generally, the same, whether they are employees, business owners, CEOs, or government workers. Thus, they can all be "corrupted" by the same things, like greed and power. And at that point, it really all comes down to incentives: do you get wealthier and better off for doing the right thing, or for doing the wrong thing? If you own the property, you get poorer for destroying it. If you're just in government and no one really owns it, you get wealthier by letting someone else screw with it. Or you go to jail, but that's unlikely, since the laws really are written or screwed with by those with money.
And, seriously, it doesn't even have to be a law that blatantly allows pollution, it can just be a law that adds an extra layer of protections so convoluted, it makes the whole thing impossible to understand and worthless.
BTW, the big key to this gov v.s. private is that government doesn't pay much. Because of that, it typically attracts lower skill workers. Anyone with good enough skills will go to higher-paying private sector. Because of that, companies in private sector who deal with government are very adept at outsmarting it, while those in government struggle to keep up. And those in government who do figure things out, are oftentimes recruited away by private companies, and are put in charge of going around government restrictions, since they know how things work on the inside. That is largely apparent by the recent oil, banking, investing, and other business scandals we've had in the last few decades (century?), where the private sector screwed up big, the government was caught completely by surprise, and then not much really came out of it.

Why do use the word 'regrown'? That word isn't really associated with forest conservation.

^^ Good luck! If it works for you, then it works for you. We just haven't had a very good run of it up here in the states. If things start to go bad, though, take a look to the west of you, in Chile, where the most vibrant forest is owned, maintained, and regrown by Empresas CMPC, the largest paper pulp company in Latin America

I am sorry for you folks, but the Brazilian state and the Brazilian people are not interested to let the private initiative take care of the rainforest's biodiversity.

In other words, "fuck you, got mine ours":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/brazil.climatechange

I'm arguing that biodiversity is a general concept that may generate value, but until it is limited to a certain area, broken up into specific items, and the value potential is quantified, it is not wealth. Not any more than the moon is wealth, despite its plentiful resources and tidal benefits. Besides, an area vastly contaminated with various weapons-grade flesh-eating bacteria by a long-abandoned, derelict bio-weapons lab would be a good example of biodiversity, but it definitely wouldn't be considered of value or wealth.

I'm not arguing that government is the problem, I am arguing that government is incapable of solving the problem, because government by it's very structure distributes and bureaucratizes all responsibility (e.g. who is responsible for the greatest catastrophe of early 2000's, the Iraq War?), while following the exact same incentives it's supposed to protect against, namely greed, for tax revenue, for private lobbyist dollars, and for power. Like the anti-Occupyer statement goes, "Want corporations out of government? Get government out of corporations." The more strength and power over private business a government exerts, the more that business will be forced to influence it, and, newsflash, government doesn't pay as much as those corporations.

Regarding property owners, if they are ignorant, and they are people who read and see the same stuff as everyone (everyone) else does, why do you think the people in government will be any different? Especially when the people in those government organizations try their best to avoid or bury responsibility? If a land owner screws up, they are broke or dead. If an EPA agent screws up, it's either the fault of whoever else was up the chain who provided him information, or, at worst, they're fired. Who do you think has a bigger incentive to give a shit?