More stuff, to put it simply, i.e. the larger families will have more time, collectively, to work, and so will generally have access to more resources than smaller families.

Well, that's not the only thing about our society that is elitist, arrogant and undemocratic, because there are far worse scenarios than that, but you are correct about the principle though. The thing is that we should learn to live so that we take each other into consideration when making decisions, but that's difficult because the power to make these decisions is never local to the places it's being used on, so it's kind of hard that way. And even if it is local, a few well placed donations to the right places gets things done regardless, because there are always multiple parties of interest, and most of them benefit from such decisions, so they will make sure that they are approved.

I think there are far worse cases of subjectivity violations like I said, and I sometimes wonder how do you manage with all that, because every time I start to think about problems, they pile up to enormous heights and then tumble down on me, crushing me to moody depression.

Yes I'm aware of the nature of the problem, but as we both know, it's the result of the capitalist profit oriented paradigm that causes these ecological problems, because management of natural resources only hinders production volumes, and proper waste disposal and transportation costs money, so that is often left to bare minimum, but you know this already, so it's kind of pointless when we talk about things we are both aware of. I don't think many people here even try to understand what you are on about, but you persistence is admirable. If were I in your place, I would have a weekly mental breakdown, because I get so easily frustrated.

Then again I do not possess enough knowledge on the matter that I could check if it were actually possible to get these things done without causing inappropriate amount of stress to the environment. Granted there are many technological things that I do not care too much about, but it matters not in the grand scheme of things what I think, because as long as any product can be sold with large volumes and thus profits, it will be done, no matter if it's not even useful or necessary in any way.

But once again, I ramble on about things you already know of. It's not really fair when the truth is stacked against me, because the system itself is so terrible, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done in a better way, though that's something I can't be sure about.

You are really good with the inconvenient facts, you know that? All of these problems are of such large scale, that they are often ignored because they seem impossible to fix in our current system. Anyhow, even inconvenient truth is still the truth, and my intellectual integrity requires that I do not try to argue against it.

I see your point, but the Na'vi rely very heavily on equality and community. Though I suppose that could be skewed in certain situations. Then again, Neytiri didn't seem much more well-off than any other, and she was the leader's daughter.

Consensus is impossible without true understanding, though. The Na'vi have come up with a rather interesting way of getting around that - tsaheylu - which affords them communal knowledge and the ability to make informed decisions. I'm sure decisions about cell towers (though this really applies to any issue) would be a lot easier if everyone understood where each other were coming from.

But humans are stuck with democracy and majority votes instead of consensus, unfortunately, which means that it's inevitable that someone's going to be unhappy with any one decision.

You're referring to bias and bribery, and those definitely exist in humans. Nothing's really what it seems in politics, because most things are at least a little corrupt.

I think this is actually a really, really important point that needs to be emphasized. Capitalism and greed drive humanity to stick it to the environment.

Me too.

And there are better ways of doing a lot of things in society, but they are all more expensive, and greedy corporate giants could care less about the environment - which I think is awful.

I think it's important to note, though, that these problems are fixable, but nobody wants to fix them because the economy tends to take precedence over the environment and public health. And I have a big problem with the fact that the economy is placed first, but that's an argument for another thread.

We're all pretty accepting here, though (correct me if I'm wrong), so you should feel free to post your thoughts if you want to.

The thing about consensus is that it's difficult the more there are people like me for example, because I'm stubborn, but complete consensus is rather difficult in every possible scenario regardless, so we use the majority excuse to hide that little problem.

Even if we had a similar mind sharing system akin to the Na'vi, most people would still disagree with each other, because they would still have differing opinions, but instead of assuming why, now they would know why they have such opinions, but do you think that would stop people from arguing about it? Like when people do irrational things based on their opinions, I still don't agree with them even when I understand their reasoning.

Lately I've been having to disagree with myself a whole lot because I'm currently in the conflict between rationality and feelings. It's quite hard to balance out because the other stands on firm ground due to its inherent truth, while the other plays unfair by pulling the emotional strings. So no amount of mind sharing is going to solve these problems because even one mind can't get along, so how could many different? Then again perhaps I'm not the best candidate to use as a norm.

In a world where money gets you nearly everything, corruption is always ever present, no matter what.

Of course there are better ways of doing things, but the way things are done now couldn't really be much worse. And this is why it's so difficult for me to justify my techno obsession because it's mostly just for fun and in no way necessary, but I want it anyways, so in order not to be hypocrite, I should be able to do way much better than what is currently being done to justify my vanity. If it wasn't for vanity, then I'd only have to do a bit better, but even I enjoy my personal share of technological vanity.

They probably are, but I have no idea how much cool stuff I would have to give up to get to such middle ground. Then again I think it would have to go way over to the other side, because of the fact how messed up everything is these days. I guess I get to enjoy my techno stuff as long as this horrible system lasts, and hopefully get to enjoy a better world when I have to give up my gadgets. Then again I think I will loose both my gadgets as well as healthy planet if this keeps up, so what am I supposed to do? Not that it matters anyhow what I do, because I'm just another internet nobody whose impact on the world is infinitely small.

It's not that I don't agree with Aurora, I would just like to keep my gadgets because I've got uses for them, but it would be irrational of me to demand something that conflicts with something that I essentially agree with. I know many of the things I enjoy in the technological spectrum are not necessary to our well being as a species, and that their production is detrimental to nature, while I know all that, I still want, so it's making me crazy.

It's like ultimately complicated when the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but also the enemy of my friend, who is also my enemy while still being a friend.

(I've shuffled this conversation off to another thread, FYI.)

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Humans aren't rational in the majority of times/places, after all.

It's this, "humans are irrationally greedy" thing again, I'm afraid. I'd like to get rid of it, but don't know how. :P

Humans are not irrationally greedy, they are rationally greedy, because that is the only way to play the game of financial success in a broken system.

AFAIK, rational greed would actually dictate maintaining the environment. In the (misremembered) words of Captain Jack, "a night of rum every ten years forever is still more than a lifetime's rum."

I would say that what we have now is the rational kind of greed, because greed is inherently a bad thing, so even if it is the rational kind of greed, it still produces unpleasant results. Then again I think it's not even possible to have rational greed, because they contradict when you look at it from the ethical perspective. To put a simple analogy, it's like saying that this water is hot and cold, because it can't be both at the same time when looking from a fixed perspective.

Rationality doesn't have any judgement on "good" or "bad," though. It only evaluates "efficient." It's certainly more profitable in the long run to run a eco-friendly business forever than it is to run the Earth into the ground.

And how well have humans done in the past when it comes to looking things in the long run? I'm not really big on history, but the fact alone that people who usually make decisions are just individuals looking to cover their own asses rather than to work together towards a better future.

We are short sighted morons for the most part, which is ironic in the sense considering how intelligent we are, but we often lack the wisdom to correctly use said intelligence.