| > Utopian thinking has always, and will always, lead to disaster. There will never be a 'perfect' world for humanity, we have enough historic evidence to show how foolhardy it is to try. Two responses to this: 1) Please don’t communicate in absolutes (always, never, etc); you’re speaking for yourself only and I don’t share your limited imagination. Attempts to set arbitrary axioms like this is a dialog-shutdown tactic and I don’t share your perspective. 2) Perhaps you’ve intuited this, but you didn’t respond to my actual argument (that the GP is arguing in favor of the status quo); so instead you have to invent a straw man where I’m an idealist with his head in the clouds, so that you can have something you’re qualified to respond to. Congratulations! > On the other hand, optimizing for a better balance than we have currently is possible. Why say this if you’re going to spend the rest of your post talking about how any change to adjust the status quo will be undermined by “global elites” (your phrase, not mine)? I’m not sure you’re actually interested in this beyond a rhetorical feint. You’re making the same argument as GP, know you have nothing new to share, yet still insist on browbeating anyone who points out the system isn’t producing good outcomes. > The fact that we have interconnected most of the world in the way that we have means that any disruptions to the system are global and everyone suffers. How convenient! Spoken like an ant, excited to watch the grasshopper starve. |