If things actually change, for the better, based on her speeches and actions wouldn't everybody win?Originally Posted by peteronfireee
If things actually change, for the better, based on her speeches and actions wouldn't everybody win?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Eh, I guess. It’s a complicated issue. And there’s nothing new being brought up, it’s just bringing back the negativity and division.
We need unity.
But in the end,
Rationalization aside, we are a divided country and the dominant, more popular thought will win out.
Imagine taking a child's political views seriously. Twitter did this to us, where we think everyone's opinion is equal.
Take from that what you will, people with no education challenging scientific consensus or a child lecturing world leaders.
She's just a mascot for a political movement, its all theatre.
Her type seems ESI. Lots of ethical judgment going on yet very little expression.
No, you can't have winners without losers even if we don't care about the losers they still exist
Nah, you definitely can get win-win situations. That is, for example, cooperation is clearly a "natural" behavior that evolved to benefit every party involved, more or less.
Well yeah the parties involved wins but someone else loses
For example if two companies cooperated to make a new product and that product was a success both companies wins but their win means their competitors get less customers and profits thus the competitors lose
Still, let's take a look at the situation of non-controlled global warming: some may survive, but extinction is possible. Survival will either result in conditions similar to Fallout or will take us several centuries back (we may never develop this much again, actually). Some may benefit from fossil fuels for now, but eighty years later they (and their descendants) may be as well dead because of their actions, and despite spurious immediate profits.
If we go extinct, we all lose; if life goes extinct (excluding some very simple forms), and with the (pretty high) possibility advanced organisms are just an evolutionary fluke (1/x chance that may not happen again), it is a lose-lose situation. The whole concept of winning and losing is a quasi-objective human (a high IQ animal) concept and applies mainly to humans; we lose, nobody really wins. You make an assumption we have some competitors (by the way: we need closed systems to talk about losing and winning imo, but that's another thing; in the companies case, you should assume that the market ~doesn't grow, there is no way the loser company can benefit, and the "watching period" is finite), the reality can be more gray.
Tl;dr global warming sucks, please do something, this is bad.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote