The World Economic Forum believes that capitalism needs to be reinvented.
When you look at the world’s problems, it’s hard to disagree.
The only thing is, why should we listen any more to the very people that have created these problems?
They are in fact calling for more of the same, on steroids. More privatizing of the profits, and socializing of the costs. Their profits, our costs.
Unfortunately it’ s much more dangerous.
The changes to be made involve an attack on the depths of the human condition.
The freedom to express and spread ideas.
The freedom of movement and travel.
The freedom to interact with other human beings and to generate the memories and experiences that define us and that make us, as individuals, what we are.
We are witnessing the greatest attack on human beings, especially on those who define themselves as Western civilization, in the last centuries in an attempt of technological slavery.
Peoples opportunities, wealth, health, education, freedom of speech and so on, in the west, have been unmatched by other economical cultures.
Niall Ferguson is an apologist of imperial projects past and current, see
Don’t use hollow words with no substance
and no manipulative argument techniques like “guilt by association” and similar.
Either respond in a correct way or don’t bother.
This topic is not meant to be for politics, I suggest as before that mods take a firmer stance on off-topic and inappropriet posts. A few comments above should be moved to off-topic including some anti-vaccine conspiracies.
The quote is from the article. Did you read the article? I don’t know what exactly you mean by “guilt by association”, but Niall Ferguson, by writing an admiring biography of Henry Kissinger, definitely associates himself with Kissinger. I don’t know if you know who Kissinger is, but many people consider him to be a war criminal. This is relevant because you posted a video of his biographer.
It is when you for example trying to misscredit someones opinion by for example telling others that the person wrote a book about someone who in some groups are not considered likeable, morally wrong or similar.
Peoples arguments should not be defined or judged by who they write books about, it is their opinions who should be challenged in a fair way.
Writing a biography and writing an admiring biography are different things. I believe Niall Ferguson wrote an admiring biography of Henry Kissinger, and so he subjects himself to criticism based on Kissinger’s record.
Very subjective assessment, don’t you think?
I believe its an admiring biography, and so its relevant to a discussion of the video.
Only with yourself unless you know that your audience agrees with the qualification that it was “admiring”.
From https://safenetforum.org/t/american-politics/32831/839 :
“How many shooters were on the grassy knoll? I forgot what the prevailing online view is.”
So when you use invective like that example and this more recent example, I know that your aim is to censor, not discuss.
Come on, tag, show some humor.
You should be thankful, @VaCrunch just gave you a free lesson in rational and logical argumentation.
It does not matter what hes motives might be, if any, it is all in your subjective head. VaCrunch showed you that he was correct in his argumentation. You making similar mistakes as earlier, you judge what you think is motives instead of the arguments which you should focus on.
I will try to keep my sense of humor
World Economic Forum? DAVOS? Vaccines & Murderous Eugenicists? Great Resets?
I’am afraid about the world population growth. Modern medicine and agriculture have given exponential growth in world population, in bacterial numbers like billions. History solved overpopulation
with wars, famine or diseases. Pushing world natural resources beyond it’s limits and an continuous human population growth is a reciepe for future horrible events.
Either the world might become unhabitable by overuse or a large part of the worlds population might suffer horrible future events. If the price of a unhabitable earth becomes to large and a probability for such event becomes too high, then I will be afraid. By not supporting and trying to stop an unsustainable human world population growth, people might indirect be responsible for future horrible events that affects a large part of world population, or the whole world and all population ceases to exist.
If there are calculations for future scenarious that includes creating for example an viruses to reduce world population, I would not be surprised if such calculations exist behind close doors. It might only be loigcal as having caculations on how to respond on future scenarious like global nuclear weapon attacks.
The possibility of such scenarious is another question, it might be 0.001% or 50%, I don’t know.
But let’s play with a scenario in a fictional way:
If the probability of the whole world goes up in flames and all population ceases to exist and if that could be countered with, let’s say a fictional number of 30% world population reduction, then the calculation would look something like this.
critical probability of the world goes up in flames * world population = 1/3 of world population
1/3 of world population / world population = critical probability of the world goes up in flames
2.8 / 7.6 = 0,368 = 36.8%
Concllusion : If an world ending event have a 36.8% or higher probability, and that event could be solved by in a fictional scenario reduce world population by 1/3, then it would be logical correct to act on such solution.
This wouild be similar calculations that goes on behind closed doors for a number of future events like example nuclear wars and similar, there are also other complicated game theories in play. My numbers calculation might be wrong, I have not done such in a while, but others will for sure correct them if they are wrong.
" UN Population Division expects world population, currently (2020) at 7.8 billion, to level out at or soon after the end of the 21st Century at 10.9 billion (the median line), assuming a continuing decrease in the global average fertility rate from 2.5 births per woman during the 2015–2020 period to 1.9 in 2095–2100, according to the medium-variant projection."
“Africa’s** share of global population is projected to grow from 17% in 2020 to 26% in 2050 and 39% by 2100, while the share of Asia will fall from 59% in 2020 to 55% in 2050 and 43% in 2100.The strong growth of the African population will happen regardless of the rate of decrease of fertility, because of the exceptional …”