|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 16, 2019 1:16:28 GMT
Okay... Let's travel 100 years into The Earth's future:
The world is at peace. Man lives a carefree and peaceful existence.
People live long and content lives in a harmonious shared goal.
The catch?... It's only for 90% of the population.
The other 10% are forced into slavery beneath the surface of the earth to work all of the machines.. Their lives are a short, weary existences filled with strife and misery and darkness.
90% of the world now lives in a paradise.... the other 10% live in abject hell.
The question:
IS THIS A BETTER WORLD?
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 16, 2019 6:15:36 GMT
VEGAS!
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 16, 2019 7:20:53 GMT
H.G.Wells didn't think so.
The makers of the Hollywood movies of the "Time Machine" realized that such a scenario is unlikely, and shows capitalism in a bad light.
Personally, I believe the scenario is unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 16, 2019 11:15:10 GMT
VEGAS!
I also would have accepted: 
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 16, 2019 11:33:30 GMT
H.G.Wells didn't think so. The makers of the Hollywood movies of the "Time Machine" realized that such a scenario is unlikely, and shows capitalism in a bad light. Personally, I believe the scenario is unlikely. You know... You make it really hard to not make fun of you.... How do you fuck up a yes or no hypothetical exercise? Do ya?... Do ya really.....? ....think that a world where 10% of humanity living under ground serving the other 90% is unlikely?  You know...We can't really travel 100 years into the future, right?.... This isn't a real field trip.   - "What do you mean 'the one man always lies'?... How could such a person even exist?"  
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 16, 2019 11:53:33 GMT
I also would have accepted: I thought of Metropolis too; but in that movie, it's not 90% living in the upper city and 10% living in the lower city. More like the other way round.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 16, 2019 11:54:25 GMT
Okay... FOLLOW UP QUESTION:
For those of you answering "Yes".... What percent difference does it have to change to for you to change your answer?
Would it still be a better world if the were completely swapped - 90% in misery to ensure the upper 10%'s paradise? 20/80? 30/70? 40/60? 50/50?  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 16, 2019 11:59:51 GMT
I also would have accepted: I thought of Metropolis too; but in that movie, it's not 90% living in the upper city and 10% living in the lower city. More like the other way round. You beat my follow up question by, like, 30 seconds..... 
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 16, 2019 12:15:21 GMT
Okay... FOLLOW UP QUESTION:
For those of you answering "Yes".... What percent difference does it have to change to for you to change your answer?
Would it still be a better world if the were completely swapped - 90% in misery to ensure the upper 10%'s paradise? 20/80? 30/70? 40/60? 50/50? Let's suppose for the sake of an argument that such a scenario occurs. Then I still don't have enough information. I would need to know the answer to the following questions. - Do the inhabitants of the lower city have the possibility to move to the upper city?
- If yes: Do the leaders in the upper city welcome immigrants from the lower city, or do they threaten to build a wall around the upper city and say "the lower city will pay for it"?
- Are people in the lower city still better off than people in developing countries today?
If the answer to all three questions is "yes", then this hypothetical is better than the world of today. Regardless of percentage. If the answer to all three questions is "no", and we have 10% upper citizens and 90% lower citizens, then this hypothetical is like the world of today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 16, 2019 12:25:14 GMT
That can't be answered without knowing the really relevant factor here:
Is my grandparents' neighborhood in the 90% or the 10%?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 16, 2019 12:34:35 GMT
Let's suppose for the sake of an argument that such a scenario occurs. Then I still don't have enough information. I would need to know the answer to the following questions. - Do the inhabitants of the lower city have the possibility to move to the upper city?
- If yes: Do the leaders in the upper city welcome immigrants from the lower city, or do they threaten to build a wall around the upper city and say "the lower city will pay for it"?
- Are people in the lower city still better off than people in developing countries today?
If the answer to all three questions is "yes", then this hypothetical is better than the world of today. Regardless of percentage. If the answer to all three questions is "no", and we have 10% upper citizens and 90% lower citizens, then this hypothetical is like the world of today. Well... In this world that I just (unoriginally) made up, I referred to the bottom 10% as "slaves"... So, no... I don't believe there is any chance of upper mobility. The upper city pays for nothing. In the lower city, lives are "short, weary existences filled with strife and misery and darkness "
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 16, 2019 12:53:55 GMT
I think things are pretty good where I am.
Of course if you watch the news you'll believe the world is ending.
If the news didn't instill fear it wouldn't be doing it's job.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 16, 2019 18:17:31 GMT
I think things are pretty good where I am. Of course if you watch the news you'll believe the world is ending. If the news didn't instill fear it wouldn't be doing it's job. No fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 17, 2019 13:20:29 GMT
Let's suppose for the sake of an argument that such a scenario occurs. Then I still don't have enough information. I would need to know the answer to the following questions. - Do the inhabitants of the lower city have the possibility to move to the upper city?
[/b] [li] If yes: Do the leaders in the upper city welcome immigrants from the lower city, or do they threaten to build a wall around the upper city and say "the lower city will pay for it"?[/li] [li] Are people in the lower city still better off than people in developing countries today?[/li] [/ul] If the answer to all three questions is "yes", then this hypothetical is better than the world of today. Regardless of percentage. If the answer to all three questions is "no", and we have 10% upper citizens and 90% lower citizens, then this hypothetical is like the world of today. [/quote]Just having a piss here.. in a sad attempt to bump the thread... but... You do realize that, as per your qualifiers, it is impossible for the answer to be "No" to all three questions, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 17, 2019 14:18:47 GMT
Let's suppose for the sake of an argument that such a scenario occurs. Then I still don't have enough information. I would need to know the answer to the following questions. - Do the inhabitants of the lower city have the possibility to move to the upper city?
[/b] [li] If yes: Do the leaders in the upper city welcome immigrants from the lower city, or do they threaten to build a wall around the upper city and say "the lower city will pay for it"?[/li] [li] Are people in the lower city still better off than people in developing countries today?[/li] [/ul] If the answer to all three questions is "yes", then this hypothetical is better than the world of today. Regardless of percentage. If the answer to all three questions is "no", and we have 10% upper citizens and 90% lower citizens, then this hypothetical is like the world of today. [/quote]Just having a piss here.. in a sad attempt to bump the thread... but... You do realize that, as per your qualifiers, it is impossible for the answer to be "No" to all three questions, right? [/quote]That is correct. An oversight on my part. But maybe the government of the upper city wants to build a wall anyway. The point is that if there is mobility, and people can choose, then this world is an improvement over today. But you said that this was not the case, so that point is moot anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jan 17, 2019 14:27:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 17, 2019 14:44:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 17, 2019 20:42:28 GMT
Yes, if we can get some sort of Matrix-like computer based reality to work
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jan 18, 2019 1:15:52 GMT
90% enjoy utopia and 10% live in misery? Yes that would be better. The planet is headed for the inverse of that presently.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jan 18, 2019 18:06:34 GMT
micro breweries: 1 / u.s. military death machinery: 0
|
|
