say no to fur

[bigfoot1942]

of-course ecoomy goes first.
if money wasnt invented we would all still be killing (or growing) our own food...
and still only the poorest people do these things, so if they would simply make more money, they would do these things less easily.

It is because we are rich we care about animals, we can afford to.
if i would be making $ 1,- per week and could double it by skinning those animals alive i would.
So i think we should just let the economy evolve, and eventually they'll grow out of their "dark ages".

the same goes with the environment/pollution.

 

[Jostyrostelli]

Do you really think so? How long have poor continents like Africa been poor? For a long time, it only gets worse by the day.

There are 1.3billion people who live of ? 1 per day. And we, as a world community, spend 1 billion euros on guns.

You tell me that economy goes first...money is spend on the wrong things. I know you can't say, we stop buying guns, cause people and governments just keep doing that.

It's easy as a nations government to say we spend 100.000 euro on new rockets, but if someone like Bush, Chiraq or Schhroder has to decide where his own 100.000 euros goes to I bet he won't choose for guns.

It's so easy to "sail with all winds", follow the mass.

 

[bigfoot1942]

i dont really get your point.
If i were a dictator (no "sailing with the mass") then i would still spend money on rockets and guns. i owe those people in africa nothing, and the problem in africa lies with corruption, war, criminal activities and stuff like that. Almost every single case of famine in africa is a result of war.

If people start being productive their wealth will improve. Just look at China these days. Or a small country like taiwan, home of corporations like ASUS and MSI.

of-course not everyone from africa is to blame. If you neighbor starts a war you're likely to get involved. But i think the best way to help africa is by sending peace-keepers (that are actually armed for once) to conflict-area's. It'll prevent famines, and those famines combined with aid (food) destroy the local economy. i mean, who would grow crops if you know food is likely to arrive for free in a month or so? you wouldnt be able to make any profit out of it.

 

[Ultra_Kool_Dude]

of-course ecoomy goes first.
if money wasnt invented we would all still be killing (or growing) our own food...
and still only the poorest people do these things, so if they would simply make more money, they would do these things less easily.

It is because we are rich we care about animals, we can afford to.
if i would be making $ 1,- per week and could double it by skinning those animals alive i would.
So i think we should just let the economy evolve, and eventually they'll grow out of their "dark ages".

the same goes with the environment/pollution.

Yes, I agree.

I don't think that the poorer countries have to evolve at the same rate as the rich countries (over hundreds/thousands of years), but I agree that this would probably solve the problem (and a few others ).

It's funny how a discussion about fur can become one about economic policy. I always find that the economic liberals think that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor will solve the problem, instead of making everybody rich. The reason that developed countries are so rich is because food production and other essentials are so efficiently and easily produced. It is the difference between spending all your time hunting and gathering for food, and spending only a few minutes a day getting food. The less people that it takes to provide food for the whole population, the more people can spend their time in entertainment, luxuries, and other non-essential functions.

 

[jasonchiu]

Ultra_Kool_Dude is right and i was saying that before.

haha also the ppl will definatily sell the leathal injections and carry on skinn the animals alive most definatly