Could food shortages end civilisation?

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 28 Apr 2009, 07:38

ziggy12345 wrote:Morals only apply to those who can afford it

What does this mean exactly? It sounds like nonsense to me.

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 28 Apr 2009, 08:17

foodinistar wrote:
ziggy12345 wrote:Morals only apply to those who can afford it
What does this mean exactly? It sounds like nonsense to me.

What it means is that if you are cold and hungry and destitute, you will not have many morals. If you are warm and well-fed (as we all are) and live in a nice house, with a nice car and nice music system and nice luxuries all around us (like most of us do) then we can afford to spend our time being moralistic! And generally I agree with Ziggy - the more we can afford it, the more we do it.

C'est la vie!

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 28 Apr 2009, 09:40

Food, I'm still waiting for you to clairify what you said

Crude, morally bankrupt and dumb.

Are you saying you predict that what Fifth said WILL NOT come to pass, or are you saying that it SHOULD NOT come to pass.

Its quite an important distinction.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 28 Apr 2009, 13:57

snow hope wrote:
foodinistar wrote:
ziggy12345 wrote:Morals only apply to those who can afford it
What does this mean exactly? It sounds like nonsense to me.

What it means is that if you are cold and hungry and destitute, you will not have many morals. If you are warm and well-fed (as we all are) and live in a nice house, with a nice car and nice music system and nice luxuries all around us (like most of us do) then we can afford to spend our time being moralistic! And generally I agree with Ziggy - the more we can afford it, the more we do it.

In the past, religion was used to get the masses to behave in a way deemed moral by their "betters". Uneducated people will believe pretty much anything they're told, so if you tell them they'll burn in hell if they don't do the right thing, most of them will toe the line.

Our sense of guilt for our wrongdoing comes from the codes laid down by the society we live in. In the 1950s it would have been shocking to get divorced merely because you and your partner had got bored of each other. Now it's the norm. Who can say which code is the more moral?

Conversely, in Christian ages, it was instilled in people that it's immoral to save oneself while leaving one's neighbour to suffer. Even in quite extreme circumstances, people would often display display self-sacrifice that most in our secular age would deem foolish. Whatever you think of religion, the fact is that most noble acts, these days, are committed by rare individuals with some kind of religious faith.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 28 Apr 2009, 15:58

Ludwig wrote:the fact is that most noble acts, these days, are committed by rare individuals with some kind of religious faith.

You could call that self interest then, it's hardly "Noble" if you do it because you think you'll burn in hell otherwise.

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 28 Apr 2009, 15:58

I don't think you're quite right about religion, basically I don't think a religious moral code is actually effective in influencing positively people's actions, if the going gets tough. Its a bit of a myth that in ages past people were that well behaved in "Christian" countries!

I agree that its largely due to religious teaching (Christian, and many other religions too) that individuals perform extraordinary acts of self sacrifice for the benefit of others. Practically though those black/white, either/or situations are rather rare. If I have food, and my neighbour does not, it probably won't kill me to share it with them. Of course that can only go so far. Ideally you'd go from that point to working together to get enough food for you both. An act of kindness breaks down barriers and opens up new possibilities for cooperation.

But if said neighbour wanted to kill you to get your food, I think most religious folk would support your right to defend yourself.

Shira · Post by **Shira** » 28 Apr 2009, 18:34

I'd take the 2 extra kids and throw the fat bloke over. He can float

Charming. Does it ever occur to you that OMG FATTIES READ POWERSWITCH TOO? Or does it not matter, because fat people don't have feelings, or something?

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 28 Apr 2009, 20:29

Shira wrote:
I'd take the 2 extra kids and throw the fat bloke over. He can float
Charming. Does it ever occur to you that OMG FATTIES READ POWERSWITCH TOO? Or does it not matter, because fat people don't have feelings, or something?

That was humour for what is likely to be a harrowing experience for those who have to experience it. Humour is likely to be very necessary.

Here's one for you then Shira:
I'd throw two SKINNY blokes over. If they float we could make a catamaran out of them.

Shira · Post by **Shira** » 28 Apr 2009, 20:49

I get that humour would be necessary - it's how I have got through and continue to get through some pretty awful stuff on a daily basis. I just don't think jokes which amount to "hur hur, fatties" are funny, and making jokes about skinny people doesn't make it any better, for various reasons including that they're also not funny. There's so much stuff that *is* funny, there's no need to resort to what is, at base, body-shaming.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 28 Apr 2009, 20:55

Shira wrote:
I'd take the 2 extra kids and throw the fat bloke over. He can float
Charming. Does it ever occur to you that OMG FATTIES READ POWERSWITCH TOO? Or does it not matter, because fat people don't have feelings, or something?

Of course fat people have feelings, just not as many per kilo as thin people

ps/ I'm allowed to say that because I'm a fat b'stard

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 28 Apr 2009, 21:47

Shira wrote:There's so much stuff that *is* funny, there's no need to resort to what is, at base, body-shaming.

Maybe you're right Shira.
One thing you've made me think about though, is that life is going to get a lot rougher for many people. I suspect that the level of civilised discourse and what's appropriate and what's not is going to rapidly devolve back to "I'm stronger than you and I make the rules".

I don't look forward to such a future but I think it's coming.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Apr 2009, 22:48

Shira wrote:
I'd take the 2 extra kids and throw the fat bloke over. He can float
Charming. Does it ever occur to you that OMG FATTIES READ POWERSWITCH TOO? Or does it not matter, because fat people don't have feelings, or something?

So the 2 kids have no feelings

?

Shira · Post by **Shira** » 28 Apr 2009, 22:49

fifthcolumn wrote:
Maybe you're right Shira.
One thing you've made me think about though, is that life is going to get a lot rougher for many people. I suspect that the level of civilised discourse and what's appropriate and what's not is going to rapidly devolve back to "I'm stronger than you and I make the rules".

I don't look forward to such a future but I think it's coming.

I agree with you totally, and I'm very nervous about it, given that I fall firmly into quite a few of the groups which already have a hard time of it. Still, I will keep making my civilised points whenever it seems appropriate (and safe! there are definitely times when it's better to keep quiet - growing up with a psychopath taught me that) because they'll be no less true when brutality is the order of the day.
The doomer friend who encouraged us to move to Ireland as he did several years before us is fond of reminding us that "you're in a civilised country now", and our landlord (one of the nicest men I've ever met) thinks - completely contrary to our belief - that people will actually get more friendly and community-minded as times get harder. I thought all the talk about people being more laid-back and friendly over here was a load of guff, but it really does seem to be true. I just don't think it's going to hold. People will take longer to get nasty than they would in the UK (partly because there are only 4 million here and partly because they do indeed seem less aggressive), but it'll still happen. There's only so much civilisation in a country where women don't have bodily autonomy.

Shira · Post by **Shira** » 28 Apr 2009, 22:52

RenewableCandy wrote:
Shira wrote:
I'd take the 2 extra kids and throw the fat bloke over. He can float
Charming. Does it ever occur to you that OMG FATTIES READ POWERSWITCH TOO? Or does it not matter, because fat people don't have feelings, or something?
So the 2 kids have no feelings ?

Nobody was randomly bringing previously unmentioned and totally irrelevant kids into the equation in order to make a joke about throwing them off a boat.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Apr 2009, 23:33

fifthcolumn wrote: You bad girl.

Coicidentally I remember the old nike ad with the two blokes looking at a lion and the line "I don't need to outrun the lion. I only need to outrun you."

With that ad in mind while camping in the rockies and being given the "how to avoid being eaten by a bear" presentation I looked around the room to guess which of the dads I could beat up quickly and leave as bait so me and my boy could get away. More or less evil than your idea?

Hehehehe nice one and I'm crap at running, too

Doesn't mean I'm going to get on my high horse (erm...unless it can move faster than that bear...

)