>> |
Anonymous
>>438845 are we included in that 6 billion? (I'm pretty sure current population of the planet is pushing 7 billion, so even if we are, a good 700 million are being left out) I don't really think of american's as uncivilized, and the idea of a lead is to lead his people, which is americans in this case. Thusly, I don't percieve putting other, non americans, before americans to be the best of traits for the next president. That being said, the president of america is a world leader, or should be, as well. So i don't believe he should just fuck over anyone that isnt from america. hopefully he'll find a happy medium in satisfying both of those responsibilities. >>438854 I find it cute that the previous poster has "tragically liberal logic" where, as far as I can see it, instead has a much more humanist logic. I might add that while people are inherently greedy and self-interested, they do benefit (individually even) from helping each other out. Other "tribes" realize this. I might also add that it does, infact, benefit other tribes if one of a sufficient size, or one in use of sufficient resources DOES wipe itself out. Its simple logic to see that if more resources are freed up for the remaining people they are better off. i.e. more is received per individual and thusly each individual can do more with their resources. Finally, every species wants to carry on its genes, and those genes that produce best are those that are carried on most successfully. It WOULD take a few steps in logic, but you can conclude that in a case where the entire species is harmed from current population and resource crunches, that it would be beneficial if 1.) resources are redistributed; or 2.) there is less population and thus, better success at passing on genes/survival.
|