Forums → Forum Games → Count to 100: Mods Allowed To Count

004. Short? This is short.

Random three words.

(5) short posts? Up to how many words can a short post have?
I want to make the longest short post possible
YAY!

6. Sometimes, I go and admire the CT100 that took almost a week to win.

7. Is this short?

8. Probably, but don't over do it.

Over Rated Tournament.

9. Short post, short post. Shortest post possible.

10. Now a short one... sorry.

@kalisenpai

And, honestly, the only real solution for this problem is natural selection: you don't have access to food, you die. I know it's really harsh to hear/read this (it's really harsh for me to think about it, actually), but it's the only true solution I found for both, poverty and overpopulation.

Money is nothing if there won't be resources. Money is nothing if amassing number of starving people grab weapons to strike at choking with food aristocracy. Look what happened in 1789-1799 in France for instance (one of many over the centuries). If the gulf in number between poor masses and obscenely rich few will extend to extreme level the history might repeat. This time the only difference would be that army can stand in defence of aristocracy. But as I said if there's too huge gulf, and until robots don't replace labour in 100%, aristocracy would have to kill a great part of food industry workers.

Instead of wasting money people also can put it into technologies that provide food (and other resources) and better existence on the whole. It is being made all the time - that is because there are actually people both smart and rich that have a huge influence. A great example is the solar power industry.

Charity + constantly developing technology and organisation = fall in the number of hungry people in the world ( statistics ). And that isn't caused by their deaths due to starvation, because in these regions where the poverty and hunger were the most significant natality was the greatest, not to mention that the number of people is constantly growing in these regions, like on whole planet. It is the help of smart and wealthy people that know that it is important to keep the balance in the world at the very least. And adding some more to "keeping the balance" they know that it is important to help people that are less fortunate.

The Mars - it will start with tours of wealthy people. Enormous amounts of resources need to be used to make our way into the space. And in world as it is resources = money. Rich people will pay for the future colonisation of other planets by making their trips and buying territories on them.

And, honestly, the only real solution for this problem is natural selection: you don't have access to food, you die. I know it's really harsh to hear/read this (it's really harsh for me to think about it, actually), but it's the only true solution I found for both, poverty and overpopulation.

That seems like a point of view right from the Middle Ages. Optimal natality in places where the poverty and hunger are the most significant seems like a better solution than: "you don't have access to food, you die." Also now it's more like "you don't have access to food, we will help you producing it." That's what being made: developed countries are today instead of giving fish, giving the fishing rod. Look they are cooking fish and chips themselves:

There would be poor people on Earth and Mars (for instance), always.

That's obvious. And to fill this thought with what I argumented by this point: enough balance = extremely rich, wealth and poor people. It's not possible to skip this fracture of society. But not enough balance = starving people and extremely rich people – that’s something that would happen if your dystopian view of colonizing other planets would start to materialize. Smart and influential people will try to prevent that from happening.

Regarding this point, smart people, sadly, are nothing if they're not rich or have a patron.

Being smart is a very wide concept, don't you think? "I'm smart, because I know every single word in Klingon language and I'm nothing." Said once a nerdy nerd.

To add to PLGuy's reply on this comment:

[...]: rich people would have access to resources, and poor people will starve till death. There would be poor people on Earth and Mars (for instance), always. And, honestly, the only real solution for this problem is natural selection: you don't have access to food, you die. I know it's really harsh to hear/read this (it's really harsh for me to think about it, actually), but it's the only true solution I found for both, poverty and overpopulation

1. Wow, discussion is getting interesting

given that being born in a rich or poor environment, or an environment that favors being rich or poor, has nothing to do with your actual aptitude in life.

I agree with that part, I mean, most of the things that you get in life come from your personal effort in my opinion (or the lack of it), I do believe in that because of things that have happened in my own family even before I was born

002. I disagree with everything stated, they are all false assumptions.

3. @HahiHa I think that these are great points. I wanna add an example to 2) that is from my country from times of Romanticism. I'll try to keep it short xD

Poland wasn't independent at that time - it's territory was divided between 3 countries. So there were two poets living in the same time. To be exact born in the same year, living in the same city: Warsaw. Their names were Juliusz Słowacki and Adam Mickiewicz. First was a son of a rich professor of literature. Rich professor of Polish literature under annexation, right? It was obvious he does anything what annexationists want with curriculum, stifling young rebellious students. And at that time literature was a very powerful medium.

Adam Mickiewicz on the other hand derives from a very poor family. Juliusz Słowacki and Adam Mickiewicz had the same goal: to become the most patriotic poets, in meantime becoming super famous. Juliusz Słowacki due to his background was always in the shadow of Mickiewicz. Moreover he was judged negatively without reading of his works. There’s much to talk but I’ll go to the essence. Mickiewicz achieved his goal. He was extremely successful, he died as a happy and fulfilled person with a great fortune in his manor in Constantinopole. And Juliusz… died alone in an asylum in Paris, in complete poverty, on tuberculosis. After he died nurses threw his manuscripts to a furnace. He wasn’t known at all at that time – only decades after his death people appreciated his poems, most of them signed with a nickname.

So what I mean is that background is for sure influential but the wealth in which people are born doesn’t determine how their lifes go. Mickiewicz from poverty to wealth and Słowacki opposite. There are many factors which determined what happened and yet look how Słowacki's life wasn't determined from the beginning. He could have stayed with his father, how much easier his life would have panned out. But he didn't he tried and he failed. That's life. Now he has an eternal fame in Poland and aficionados of his poetry regret that they can't go back in time to stop the nurses but... if only he could have known about that when he was about to die...

Maybe saying that environment has nothing to do with aptitude is a bit extremal, but it's much closer than saying that upbringing in a rich family gives a warranty for a success.

004. WALL OF TEXT

5. I don't know what you are talking about but I will say this: scions of rich families have way too many responsibilities, man, a lot of stress they have.
Yellowcat, I do not understand.

6. This is slowly becoming more and more intense.

7. ^ Drama, suspense, what more do you need?