
Originally Posted by
Zealot
You still present a zero-sum outcome game (these people die so these people live), your insistence upon such being almost a parody of your Kings-era obsession at this point. Between the two of you, Spicy presents the more favorable ultimate goal of a free and happy world, his issue is he shares your impression of real human lives as abstractions that can be broken down into numbers and if millions are better off for longer later, it justifies millions suffering and dying in the short term.
Given society's current shape, the goal should be using the neo-liberal order and the tremendous excess of wealth and material resources it has generated to end suffering and conflict by cutting off the lack which is usually at their center. The current world order does a fairly good job at maintaining peace on a global scale, but has decided that horrendously bloody regional conflicts and the occasional genocide are a reasonable price to pay. Also for all of the effort put in to simply maintain what we have, societal infrastructure worldwide has deteriorated to the point that fascism and dictatorships are becoming more commonplace, and a world governance structure beholden to economies which rely on China, India, and Saudi Arabia are geared specifically toward allowing it to happen in the name of greater economic stability. U.S. hegemony did little or nothing to stop China from making financial inroads across the Middle East and Africa which will shake up the entire basis of the global economy in the next 10-20 years, and our systems in place are designed to simply roll with it since some people will be getting wealthier and no one will be going to war.
The calculus of your system may save the most lives but the question of if they will ultimately be worth living continues to get murkier.
Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk