Disregarding sources simply out of political bias is the method of the communist who defends North Korea.

They make horrible arguments

The latest one, gamer culture is a Russian invention, etc.

They are nuts

Also syndicalism, communism and socialism has no use for the arts or innovation. As the arguement goes something like how many farmers will it take to cure cancer. Or some such

I can argue aga8nst that Floki

Cnn is a horrid source because THEY disregard sources due to bias

You need to have biologists and doctors to keep the workforce healthy, and ensure production of food. You cannot avoid that.

there will always be poor countries. that is a feature of any system. even in the US, there are poor people. we can develop these countries, and get them close to our level, and they may even exceed our standard of living. in 1000 years, the Congo could be the most developed nation on earth if they work hard enough.

in regards to the environment again, I do believe that there is a factor it plays in environmental change, however it is not the only factor. climate change and the environment is a very complex issue with many variables in addition to industries. yes, humans do play a role, but how big of a role? how much of a role does the sun play? or volcanoes? or chickens? there are oodles of things that we have to account for to determine what is changing our world.

Also, Ender, I would disagree that people are not naturally equal, given the is/ought divide of Hume. We can say that reason is a slave to the passions. What one prefers, is automatically separate from what something is, simply because that is how it exists. If we are to say that the universe will experience heat death in a few trillion years due to entropy, this is true regardless of if we want it to be true. In the same way, a person's intelligence, or their condition, is only preferable relevant to an individual's emotional preference. That is why I always say that IQ is a meaningless measure of worth, because how a person acts could be preferable, or not preferable.

And no that 99% is a false idea based on the false claim of 80% scientists agree with manmade climate change, the report that lumped near all climate change reports together

If one is to follow a truly objective analysis of human beings, using the logic of Hume, one cannot say that any person is inherently, objectively more valuable than another.

I've written a paper on this recently.

No no 2 people are inherently equal

You have not refuted Hume.

You cannot just state a claim

Okay, preferrable or not preferrable. You would prefer to have the man who has a biology degree making kedication rather than a sociologist. They are not equal in that regard, but both have worth as human beings.

Intelligence caps, behaviour inclinations, physical charactoristics, ect.

Preference is only relative to the individual. There is no inherent, objective morality in nature.

Only way for 2 humans to naturally equal is for us to be cyborgs built exactly the same

You have not refuted Hume.

His basis is that 2 people are born exactly the same.

Genetics alone refutes hume

I could be a realist and argue that humans are amongst the cheapest resources at our disposal.

plus, what's the difference between a coop and a corporation? companies are in direct competition with one another, so they have to specialise their employees to make sure they are the best they could be at their job to ensure their company succeeds. you wouldn't want a burger flipper to do your accounting, which is why there is a division of labour. if you don't have the most efficient process, then you will end up with 100$ sandwiches and water will become scarce as you don't have enough competent people doing their jobs. without growth, humans WILL regress, unless it is the number of people that you have to start with... we will find out what happens in that case when we hit the growth limit in a few decades of 9 billion people.

Nature is objective in this as survival at its base is genetic.

How can you say that worth is not relative to individual preference?

You really need to read about Hume, he is an enlightenment philosopher.

https://aeon.co/essays/hume-is-the-amiable-modest-generous-philosopher-we-need-today?fbclid=IwAR1WMeL6Yg_9CAhQNZXrkj-9USic8urVgJfEK7m7wGZCWlMV63bzk2DVCPo

Worth in survival is not individual preference

If I need a service, I only want the best person providing that service.

I would recommend reading "an enquiry concerning human understanding" by Hume.

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki

A person born with the evolutionary instinct that fire is bad. Naturally has more worth in nature than one born without

In nature worth is measured by survivability

Goblin, you're not refuting my arguments, you're just re-stating your point in different ways.

You need to address what I said.

I just did

What you said does not make much sense, if he did not address it.

"How can you say that worth is not relative to individual preference?"

It isnt individual preference in nature when measured by survivability

What do you mean exactly?