|
|
|
A Nuclear Weapon and Poverty discussion 1 Year, 10 Months ago
|
Karma: 3
|
|
'I would like to form a discussion about whether or not governments should be focusing their time and attention on improving their nation, or the human race.'
The UK government spent 20 billion on the nuclear weapon system known as 'Trident', admittedly, it is argued that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent which prevents the launch of such devices by an enemy state, thus keeping the citizens of the United Kingdom safe. Ignoring the question of whether nuclear weapons and the like are morally justifiable, should this 20 billion and the other billions which go into war be spent in such a way as to bring about an improved life for as many people as possible.
I find it absurd that in the 21st century there are people who suffer from hunger and malnutrition when states are spending money on weapons which cause more suffering.
If you were leader of a nation with 20 billion at your disposal, would you spend that money on relieving suffering or on creating weapons that have the potential to aggravate suffering.
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:A Nuclear Weapon and Poverty discussion 1 Year, 10 Months ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
I think government (or any individual) should be focusing on improving the life of their own people (or closest relatives), rather than building offensive weapons or building things that save people on the other side of the planet. For example; In the film 10,000BC there's a saying; "draw a circle around your family, and your families will draw a circle around theirs (and the circle will get bigger)", (the prosperity will bleed to their neighbours as well). -My point is; industrialize nation like the US and Britain are having an economic crisis, and yet, they still (appears to) wanting to solve the problem that is offshore, far from their home, rather than solving the one that is on their doorstep. imo...
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/07/03 22:17 By Msafwan.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
JK713
Expert Boarder
Posts: 351
|
|
Re:A Nuclear Weapon and Poverty discussion 1 Year, 10 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Do you think it is more important for a state to improve the quality of life within their borders or to improve the quality of life overall? Using the U.S. as an example, do you think the government should use its resources to improve Q.O.L. within it's borders, or to improve the Q.O.L. of the entire human race? Assuming all nations acted similarly, which approach do you think would be most effective overall? I realize this is a game theory question, but I'm interested in what others think in this specific situation.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Twain
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:A Nuclear Weapon and Poverty discussion 1 Year, 9 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
The state, being a fairly recent social construct historically speaking, is an abstract dividing line between them and us and therefore encourages in the culture this very same perception. The state requires us to be geographical in our considerations. We have, as a result, a manufactured conflict between them and us. This is unfortunate that a person across an imaginary line has less intrinsic value then someone on my side of the imaginary line.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:A Nuclear Weapon and Poverty discussion 1 Year, 9 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
Interestingly enough, vastly more was spent on
social welfare over the same time period.
I'm just saying that for an apples-to-apples comparison.
However:
Chillingly, the atomic bomb was invented
as a cost-effective way to kill millions
of people. It is that..compared to regular
bombs delivered by air.
Now:
Rather than say "it doesn't matter, therefore",
I could ask not "is the money better spent against poverty",
but, "could we have spent the intellect against poverty?"
We live with expansionary economic models, for instance
(capitalism and communism). An economic model that provides
for more people without needing expanding consumption
of resources would be better. Otherwise, the rich and
poor seperate more (the zero-sum game) , and more people
aren't actually worth anything.
Instead of planning details (failed), or allowing money
to explode into gambling looking for things to process
(now failed), the proper incentives should be set up
to reward cutting consumption for the same life.
We are short on money and food, but that is because
the world is short on vision these days.
Why is it imagination and breakthroughs only happen
when our lives are threatened by weapons?
Our lives are threatened every day now: by our
own consumption.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:A Nuclear Weapon and Poverty discussion 1 Year, 9 Months ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
Few hundred years ago, there was zero Caucasian on the New World, then, few hundred years later; there was million and millions of American people!. My point is; expansion is inevitable, people increase by numbers- spreading into spaces, consuming resources, and create a living. -If our planet kept its same size and spaces, then there will be no more places to expand, no more spaces to allow our biological need to continue its course... I propose we look for new spaces, new land... in space... or in other planet.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
