Ship of Fools: Evil personified. Who needs an anti-Christ?

Thread: Evil personified. Who needs an anti-Christ? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029931

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oil company anti-climate change hypocrisy.
Greed. Fuck your philosophy of it includes the slightest bit of this. Yeah, I'm including me in this, so piss off.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Bill Cosby might be a fine candidate. Evil, posing as good.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Trump, Cameron, IDS and other politicians whose purpose is power, not care and consideration of others.

I do believe there is no need of a personified "anti-Christ" where there are so many people who are clearly evil in their own way. I am sure these people sleep at night believing that there is a concept that is more evil than they are.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Trump, Cameron, IDS and other politicians whose purpose is power. . . . I am sure these people sleep at night believing that there is a concept that is more evil than they are.

But there is. Sex trafficking and slavery, for starts.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am sure these people sleep at night believing that there is a concept that is more evil than they are.

Daesh?

And before that, Osama bin Laden?

[ 31. December 2015, 21:31: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am sure these people sleep at night believing that there is a concept that is more evil than they are.
Daesh?

And before that, Osama bin Laden?

But who has fueled them, helped recruit there armies?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

What I meant was a concept - something that would always be held up as being worse than anything they could do.

Lots of people are evil, and many of them find some justification for their evil. Daesh justify it by their faith (misguided, but that is their driver).

So many politicians of the last few decades have driven groups like Daesh and Al Quaeda. That is not to deny personal responsibility, or to say that everyone can always blame someone else, it is to say that their actions - continued actions - have major consequences.

Just because they are not the worst people in the world, doesn't mean that they are not evil. People who have died through the results of IDSs policies are just as dead as if they had been blown up in Paris. Just because some people are even more evil doesn't mean that these are not evil as well.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Lots of people are evil, and many of them find some justification for their evil.

Not just many of them. Most do. Thereby, ironically, acknowledging the primacy of good. Evil is nothing more than human vanity, egocentricity and bad faith in action. No need to posit some supernatural Dennis the Menace delighting in fucking with us. We're quite capable of doing that unaided.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oil company anti-climate change hypocrisy.
Greed. Fuck your philosophy of it includes the slightest bit of this. Yeah, I'm including me in this, so piss off.

Of course it's greed. Companies are designed to make money.

But also, companies that big are not monoliths. It's perfectly possible for the advertising, marketing and legal people to be busy hosing down the prospect of regulations around climate change right at the same time as the scientific and technical people are thinking about what to do about climate change.

I don't know that there was some evil genius somewhere laughing while engineering all this. Most likely there was a bunch of people each doing their own job in the company, and many of the ones mounting the arguments against climate change were engaging in just enough self-delusion to sell themselves the arguments they were also selling to the world.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not sure how that is less evil.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I figure computer viruses are proof of the existence of evil. There is no purpose to writing one - no cause or ideology or political/religious/societal belief to support - but to cause disruption for the fun of disrupting. Often there isn't even any money to be gained, no "gotta support myself somehow" excuse. Just random disruption.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bill Cosby might be a fine candidate. Evil, posing as good.

If, of course, he did what he has been accused of. AIUI, one of those matters is now before the courts and he's entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Otherwise, I'm with what Orfeo has said. A company as large as this has an enormous staff, and even were all the board members full time - very unlikely - various arms would be engaged in their own activities with little correlation.

As to the thread title; without condoning the conduct written about, is this evil in comparison to so much else of what's going on in the world? How would you rank this conduct against the ISIS fatwa setting out in awful detail the rules for having sex with your female slaves? Or the Norwegian man who killed all those people, or any other of the mass slayings that have occurred recently?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

This thread is idiotically named. There's plenty of heat to vent regarding the loathsome climate change-denying funded by Big Energy without a title that will also chum for spurious philosophical suggestions like "Bill Cosby" or "computer viruses" from the hordes of room-temperature-IQ¹ posters.

It's also wrong-headed. Instead of fruitless pointing fingers and wailing "big meanies", how about we point out the "other side" of the climate change "argument" actually agrees with us, and see about how we can overcome the remaining obstacles to actually get things done. Paris is the right spirit, but it's going to take a whole lot of shoulders against yokes to actually make progress.

¹ And I use metric, bitches.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bill Cosby might be a fine candidate. Evil, posing as good.
If, of course, he did what he has been accused of. AIUI, one of those matters is now before the courts and he's entitled to the presumption of innocence.

That's true, he is - from the courts. Not so much from individuals familiar with what's been reported about him.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I figure computer viruses are proof of the existence of evil. There is no purpose to writing one - no cause or ideology or political/religious/societal belief to support - but to cause disruption for the fun of disrupting. Often there isn't even any money to be gained, no "gotta support myself somehow" excuse. Just random disruption.

Actually, there is a lot of money to be gained. It is one road to identity theft. Low investment, self-spreading and profit even from a low percentage of effectivity..

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

It's also wrong-headed. Instead of fruitless pointing fingers and wailing "big meanies", how about we point out the "other side" of the climate change "argument" actually agrees with us, and see about how we can overcome the remaining obstacles to actually get things done. Paris is the right spirit, but it's going to take a whole lot of shoulders against yokes to actually make progress.

So you think Paris will mean shit? I hope it will. But American conservatives were spewing rubbish before the Paris meetings were over. Not all the shoulders will be on the same side of that yoke.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bill Cosby might be a fine candidate. Evil, posing as good.
If, of course, he did what he has been accused of. AIUI, one of those matters is now before the courts and he's entitled to the presumption of innocence.
That's true, he is - from the courts. Not so much from individuals familiar with what's been reported about him.

Not just from the courts, but from everyone, I'd say, unless and until a guilty verdict has been returned. It's one of the basic premises of those legal systems, such as the US, which descend from the English. And it matters not the extent to which some individuals may be familiar with what has been reported about him.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

I am not sure people are evil. Acts are evil. People (all people) do evil acts. Some people do more evil acts than others. But does that make them objectively evil as people?

Can we make windows into men's souls? Maybe even Kim Jong-Un thinks he is somehow doing good, that millions must dies to create a better world or something.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So you think Paris will mean shit?

I think Paris means that even the narcissistic dullards elected to governments recognize the importance that their people collectively feel about the environment. It's the right direction. Nothing more.

quote:
Not all the shoulders will be on the same side of that yoke.

Indeed. Many of those shoulders pushing the wrong way currently claim their reasoning as being based on reports from Big Energy. Perhaps we can help them switch sides.

Or are you proposing to just sit there, whining?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If there is a common thread running through all these people and their acts it is self-deception. They have convinced themselves that their policies, methods or acts are good when it is plainly otherwise.

Problems get worse still when they are gifted communicators or able to employ others to write speeches for them, for then they become dangerously influential. After all, once you have deceived yourself, it's a doddle to deceive others. In their evil, they are 100% sincere.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Bill Cosby might be a fine candidate. Evil, posing as good.
If, of course, he did what he has been accused of. AIUI, one of those matters is now before the courts and he's entitled to the presumption of innocence.
That's true, he is - from the courts. Not so much from individuals familiar with what's been reported about him.
Not just from the courts, but from everyone, I'd say, unless and until a guilty verdict has been returned. It's one of the basic premises of those legal systems, such as the US, which descend from the English. And it matters not the extent to which some individuals may be familiar with what has been reported about him.

Criminal courts are supposed to presume innocence until guilt is proven because criminal courts have the authority to deprive the accused of personal liberty. Civil courts can only deprive the accused of possessions and so have a lower standard of preponderance of evidence. The court of public opinion has less authority and therefore an even lower standard.

I assume he might be innocent and falsely accused even if that seems unlikely, but I don't have an obligation to assume he really is totally innocent as I form my personal opinion when I have no decisions to make that will affect him. It will be an entirely different matter if I somehow end up being a member of the jury for his trial.

The prosecution (who did not presume innocence) in O. J. Simpson's trial failed to prove to the jury that he was guilty of murder, but it's perfectly legitimate for individuals to be convinced of his guilt in spite of the jury verdict. In fact, it could theoretically be irresponsible of me to assume his innocence if I were ever to be in a position of deciding whether or to do business with him.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

Or are you proposing to just sit there, whining?

Seriously, WTF? I do not always agree with you, but you typically have at least a semblance of reason.
This does not.
Unless SOF has an action group I'm not aware of. Unless Hell has become a board requiring more than expressing anger.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If there is a common thread running through all these people and their acts it is self-deception. They have convinced themselves that their policies, methods or acts are good when it is plainly otherwise.

Problems get worse still when they are gifted communicators or able to employ others to write speeches for them, for then they become dangerously influential. After all, once you have deceived yourself, it's a doddle to deceive others. In their evil, they are 100% sincere.

I think that is completely right. It is also a commonplace, and probably true, that great saints and great sinners have much in common, it is just a question of how they direct their passions.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Which is why it seems increasingly nonsensical to try and disseminate between good and evil in the way religions and cultures have been at pains to try and do for three millennium or more.

Shit happens. When it does we, or the natural world, (if the two are different), try to clear it up. Does calling shit 'evil' ever help anybody or anything. I used to think it did, not so sure these days.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
This thread is idiotically named....

I would have named it "Hitler really only had one ball" (testicle). (Only offensive to your boss at work if (s)he isn't me and if you click on the song. Which everyone should, and all should also sing along, because it will make all of us feel so much better.)

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know that there was some evil genius somewhere laughing while engineering all this. Most likely there was a bunch of people each doing their own job in the company, and many of the ones mounting the arguments against climate change were engaging in just enough self-delusion to sell themselves the arguments they were also selling to the world.

The amoral tunnel-vision of capitalism summed up beautifully in a paragraph!

[ 01. January 2016, 22:35: Message edited by: argona ]

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Shit happens. When it does we, or the natural world, (if the two are different), try to clear it up. Does calling shit 'evil' ever help anybody or anything. I used to think it did, not so sure these days.

This is where intention matters. Shit happens all the time, but if you're intentionally shovelling it on your fellow humans, maybe that's where the term 'evil' is applicable. Unless you have an entirely determinist account of our existence of course, in which case everything is just "what happens".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The court of public opinion has less authority and therefore an even lower standard.

If the "court" of public opinion had the slightest credibility, we wouldn't need actual courts in the first place.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If there is a common thread running through all these people and their acts it is self-deception. They have convinced themselves that their policies, methods or acts are good when it is plainly otherwise.

If we are talking about oil companies studying the effects of their behaviors on climate and then burying those studies, it's not self deception. I worked in corporate America, sitting in on meetings at high levels. The questions openly asked were worded "can we get away with doing this, what is the likelihood of getting caught, what is the downside to us of getting caught, is the potential benefit to us larger than the potential downside for us?"

That blatant. No self deception. The sole goal is pursuit of profit - legality is considered irrelevant, morality is considered wholly irrelevant, and the effect on the world matters only if it affects the big boys negatively more than the project profits them.

In the case of the oil companies, there was probably no legal obligation to reveal how damaging their business was to planet earth, so why would they do that and threaten their own income?

Western capitalism is about money, often at the expense of people. Which makes it sort of the opposite of Christianity?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Western capitalism is about money, often at the expense of people. Which makes it sort of the opposite of Christianity?

About as opposite to Christianity as pre-reformation fat-cat monks who fleeced the peasant population. Nothing new under the sun methinks.

Now the wild fires, floods, violent storms have begun the oil moguls are the monks and we are the peasants.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If there is a common thread running through all these people and their acts it is self-deception. They have convinced themselves that their policies, methods or acts are good when it is plainly otherwise.

Problems get worse still when they are gifted communicators or able to employ others to write speeches for them, for then they become dangerously influential. After all, once you have deceived yourself, it's a doddle to deceive others. In their evil, they are 100% sincere.

In the original "Wizard of Oz" movie, the dying Wicked Witch (liquidated by Dorothy) cries, "What a world, what a world. All my lovely wickedness!" That struck me. She truly believed in her wickedness, and I felt a little sorry for her.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Western capitalism is about money, often at the expense of people. Which makes it sort of the opposite of Christianity?
About as opposite to Christianity as pre-reformation fat-cat monks who fleeced the peasant population. Nothing new under the sun methinks.

Now the wild fires, floods, violent storms have begun the oil moguls are the monks and we are the peasants.

That doesn't absolve the modern fat-cats. You can find any number of analogues in earlier times. But they're still evil.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

If you assume that Cosby is innocent, you have to assume that an awful lot of women are lying bitches. It's not a completely morally neutral scenario. I appreciate that the legal machinery has to work this way to protect human rights, but the way that some people hold up "innocent until proven guilty" you'd think that court verdicts had the power to go back in time and affect what is factually true or false about the crime. The reality is that at this stage he's either innocent or guilty of these crimes, and whatever verdict the court comes up with will not affect the truth of it one bit. And I very much doubt that there's anyone reading this who doesn't already have a suspicion one way or the other. I know I do. And what's more, if the court disagrees with me I'm still pretty damn unlikely to change my mind.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If there is a common thread running through all these people and their acts it is self-deception. They have convinced themselves that their policies, methods or acts are good when it is plainly otherwise.

Problems get worse still when they are gifted communicators or able to employ others to write speeches for them, for then they become dangerously influential. After all, once you have deceived yourself, it's a doddle to deceive others. In their evil, they are 100% sincere.

And which is really worse? To do something really bad (murder 6 million people say), but because you've talked yourself into believing it's a good idea, or to do something that on the face of it looks less bad (kill your child or murder your grandchild) while having no delusions at all about whether you're doing something good?

I find it easier to accept the existence of Hitler than of Stewart Greene or James Dearman.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... People who have died through the results of IDSs policies are just as dead as if they had been blown up in Paris ...

I think there may be a difference in intention. I no longer live in the UK, and I'm not sure which of Mr. Duncan-Smith's policies you mean, so I'm not qualified to judge whether they have (directly or indirectly) caused anyone's death, but it seems unlikely that was his intention.

To my mind, "evil" is embodied in people like Harold Shipman, the Manchester doctor who killed dozens (possibly hundreds) of his most vulnerable patients for his own gain, and because he could.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

More personal, perhaps, but more evil? Shipman left alone could not kill as many people exacerbated hurricane, as many as have died from being homeless, as many as died from asbestos after it was known to be deadly, from faulty cars, etc.
Why is not knowing your victims' names less evil? Why is not giving a shit about other people less evil?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, saying that 'I didn't intend it' is the biggest cop-out used today. Chomsky has written quite a lot on this in relation to Western military policy, where killing thousands of civilians becomes OK, because not intended.

The same with the effects of government policy, if it ends up killing people.

I don't understand how Shipman can be termed completely evil - it's possible for example that he was seriously mentally ill. Is that still evil?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Look at it this way. If and when the junior doctors strike in the UK, the government will go out of its way to find people who had appointments and operations postponed. If they can find someone who bled to death for want of a doctor, that will be a propaganda coup they can only dream of.

Meanwhile disabled people have been systematically deprived of their benefits forcing them to choose between heating and eating. Child poverty has increased, as indeed have wages for the better off. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen & women have to do more with less and if they get injured they have to rely on charity.

All this has been a deliberate outcome of government policies. The whole concept of a "duty of care" seems to have gone out of the window. And worst of all, to paraphrase my earlier post, they really think they are doing the right things the right way.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Is being evil a binary thing (is one either evil or not evil)? Or does it act on some kind of spectrum, where one can be slightly evil or very evil?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That doesn't absolve the modern fat-cats. You can find any number of analogues in earlier times. But they're still evil.

I'm not absolving fat cats form any era who get fat at the expense of other people's misery, merely sticking them all in the same cattery.

Going slightly AWOL here, it often strikes odd that history consistently treats the Romans in such a sympathetic way when really, by the standard of this debate, they were the biggest load of evil shitsters going.
Something not lost on the Python team.... "Marvellous Race the Romans" says the bloke tortured for years in a Roman jail.

People are very strange.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Romans: same as it ever is/was/will be. Current history tells us all that we are good and is bloody easy on us too. Are we so much different? We were all born on the banks of The Money River in the city called Entitled Sanctimony where our churchy dogoody attitudes have devolved into a narcissistic accessory where we protest injustice by liking something on Facebook while eating organic.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
we protest injustice by liking something on Facebook while eating organic.

Oh, don't get me onto organic. Quite apart from being a con trick on gullible Westerners, it's a less efficient form of agriculture thereby reducing global food supply while millions starve. Are organic foodies evil, or does their ignorance of the stupidity of this fad excuse them?

Seriously, this illustrates the difficulty of applying a term like 'evil'. Moral responsibility isn't so straightforward to attribute.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Are organic foodies evil, or does their ignorance of the stupidity of this fad excuse them?

I won't call your misinformation stupid, you could merely be ignorant. Organic can't feed millions of people, that is why ancient Egypt didn't use organics. The pyramids are granaries to store all the GMO crop.
GMO is wonderful, it is. GMO s an example of a technology which could be used for massive good, but instead is used to make billions whilst imperiling the people it claims to help.

quote:
Originally posted by argona:

Seriously, this illustrates the difficulty of applying a term like 'evil'. Moral responsibility isn't so straightforward to attribute.

Evil is difficult at times, but less often than many who would protest it so claim.
I posit it is our comfort and greed that excuses. We, as no other time in our history, have the information to know to a great certainty how our actions affect others. And yet we use excuse, ignorance and obfuscation to hand waive and say, "It is so complex". And then we do nothing.
That is wrong. That is evil.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That doesn't absolve the modern fat-cats. You can find any number of analogues in earlier times. But they're still evil.
I'm not absolving fat cats form any era who get fat at the expense of other people's misery, merely sticking them all in the same cattery.

Going slightly AWOL here, it often strikes odd that history consistently treats the Romans in such a sympathetic way when really, by the standard of this debate, they were the biggest load of evil shitsters going.

Yes, the point is there are always fat cats feeding off the misery they inflict on the masses. (And lots of lesser fat cats feeding off the misery they impose in their lesser sphere.)

The puzzle is why we continue to believe people with power (political, financial, corporate, military) are inherently good until we are surprised with yet another revelation of evil.

As to Rome, people identify in fantasy with the rich and powerful, not with the overworked servants they most likely would have been in Rome.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Who thinks powerful people are good? That's not the impression that I get; rather I see a widespread cynicism about power and politics. I wouldn't really say that powerful people are evil, as I'm not sure what that means, but it seems that a lot of them are liars and frauds.

I suppose that people are baffled as to how to make things better, as the replacements are often just as warped, yes, I'm thinking of Bliar.

I just realized that I'm talking across the pond, and maybe that makes a difference. The Brits seem very cynical to me.

[ 07. January 2016, 15:02: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Who thinks powerful people are good? That's not the impression that I get; rather I see a widespread cynicism about power and politics. I wouldn't really say that powerful people are evil, as I'm not sure what that means, but it seems that a lot of them are liars and frauds.

I suppose that people are baffled as to how to make things better, as the replacements are often just as warped, yes, I'm thinking of Bliar.

I just realized that I'm talking across the pond, and maybe that makes a difference. The Brits seem very cynical to me.

Nah, we're not cynics, but we are five-start whingers and when that is coupled with constantly harking back to a Golden Age that never existed it's inevitable that we will spend a lot of our time frustrated and disappointed. Look no further for the British disease of passive-aggression. We really should know by now and in the case of Blair, propped up by Mandelson (who I regard as the real snake in the grass), we should have seen the train coming. FFS, the headlight was bright enough.

Anyway all the talk about "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", "Ethical foreign policy" (RIP Robin Cook) and "Education, education, education" died pretty early. I expect it was at about the time Tony Blair first heard the phrase "Yes, Prime Minister".

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Who thinks powerful people are good? That's not the impression that I get; rather I see a widespread cynicism about power and politics. I wouldn't really say that powerful people are evil, as I'm not sure what that means, but it seems that a lot of them are liars and frauds.

I don't think recent history has erased the staggering cruelties advocated by Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney and others, most recently in Canada under Harper, Cameron in the UK, and I'm not entirely clear on a complete differentiation between Bushes and Obama and whether Trudeau's nice hair means anything.

Greed is good like that movie said, facts are stupid, everyone is more a victim than Jesus, who pilots my drone and rides my cruise missile. Personal sacrifice is dumb, public office is about your follow-up job on a multinational's board. The neocons and neolibs haven't finished trashing the world, while Canada's constructive engagement with Saudi chop-chop Arabia is to sell them $15 billion worth of military gear so Mohammed can ride along with our happy holiday friend Jesus.

But I find, in contradistinction, myself startled daily by the kindness and decency of average people. The beauty of their behaviour towards even complete strangers. Maybe we'll get the day when everything is beautiful and nothing hurts.*

(*this is someone's line from somewhere)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Are organic foodies evil, or does their ignorance of the stupidity of this fad excuse them?
I won't call your misinformation stupid, you could merely be ignorant. Organic can't feed millions of people, that is why ancient Egypt didn't use organics.

Organic may be able to feed millions, but the world population is currently measured in billions. Argona's contention was that such a population can't be fed without using industrial agricultural practices, and therefore that (by at least one standard espoused on this thread) anyone advocating a worldwide switch to organic would count as evil on the grounds that their policies, if enacted, would directly cause many people to starve.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It isn't a forgone conclusion that organic cannot feed the world.
Organic is a higher cost of labour, therefore food cost.

GMO feeds billions now at the cost of the future generations. Maybe even the next generation.

We grow more food than we need, worldwide. It is s distribution issue, not a quantities issue.

The earth cannot support a continually increasing population regardless.

GMO producers are akin to the twat who raised a life-saving drug by 700%. The product might be beneficial, but the producers still bastards.

[ 07. January 2016, 16:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Whether you believe that organics can feed the world often reflects more on your political orientation than on actual facts. I believe they can; there's a Berkeley study from last year that confirms this, but I'd like to see more studies.

It is false to think that the world should produce more food or more effiently to prevent hunger. The world already produces enough to feed 10 billion people. Not potentially but actually.

The reason there is hunger is not because the world doesn't produce enough food.

I'll say it again:

The reason there is hunger is not because the world doesn't produce enough food.

Finally, if you're really concerned with efficiency, there is an easy way in which the world can improve that: stop producing meat.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But I find, in contradistinction, myself startled daily by the kindness and decency of average people. The beauty of their behaviour towards even complete strangers. Maybe we'll get the day when everything is beautiful and nothing hurts.*

(*this is someone's line from somewhere)

A wonderful antidote NPFS...
Interesting as well that a SoF Hell thread pertaining to human evil has produced such a beautiful paragraph.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't a forgone conclusion that organic cannot feed the world.
Organic is a higher cost of labour, therefore food cost.

Most of the world's poorest people live on food that's "organic". They just don't put pretty labels on it and try to sell it to rich people (including me) who've come to rely on mass production agriculture.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't a forgone conclusion that organic cannot feed the world.
Organic is a higher cost of labour, therefore food cost.
Most of the world's poorest people live on food that's "organic". They just don't put pretty labels on it and try to sell it to rich people (including me) who've come to rely on mass production agriculture.

Pesticides and herbicides helped raise yields and lower costs. So most agriculture in industrialised nations is grown using them. Large farms won't go organic so, besides the label tax, you are paying for the higher cost of lower production.
Australia and the US could easily be all organic. Also, if people weren't so fucking particular, food waste could be lower and reduce costs that way as well.
The UK would be a bit more difficult as ~40% of produce is imported. However, that could be remedied as well.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Also, if people weren't so fucking particular, food waste could be lower and reduce costs that way as well.
The UK would be a bit more difficult as ~40% of produce is imported. However, that could be remedied as well.

Prior to WW1 much of UK agriculture was basic and border-line subsisistance. Which is why the dastardly Kaiser and that weasel who followed thought they could starve us into submission with submarines.
All that changed after WW2 with the Common Agricultural Policy. But then intensive agriculture brought BSE and other delights which made a lot of folk particular about what they ate.

That too now seems to have been forgotten, and and we're fast returning to simple economics where soon it'll be cheaper to get a pint of milk from India or China than it will be to buy it from a dairy down the road.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0