qualitative ranking: you decide

[th!nkstyle]

qualitative ranking may be silly, but it is very used in applied social science.

There are a few qualitative questions that really show a lot about a sample populaion, for example, for you I have the world economy vs. the world natural environment

treat it as an actual ballot in your locacl country.

the q: what deserves higher priority in this country: our economy or the our natural environment?

I know the reasons for choosing either cause vary a LOT, but just choose one, and if you can't decide, dont vote : P

[Heleuiski]

Environment.

[Krill]

Economy.

If damage to the environment hits a point where it interferes with the functioning of the economy, the environment becomes something important but, and I emphasize, only as an means to achieving our ends (the economy).

The economy is important because I believe humans are valuable in themselves, unlike natural resources (i.e. our environment). If one assumes a 'good economy' is one wherein human conditions of living improve then it follows that having a good economy is more important than the environment (which is only valuable for serving humanity).

[th!nkstyle]

Economy.

If damage to the environment hits a point where it interferes with the functioning of the economy, the environment becomes something important but, and I emphasize, only as an means to achieving our ends (the economy).

The economy is important because I believe humans are valuable in themselves, unlike natural resources (i.e. our environment). If one assumes a 'good economy' is one wherein human conditions of living improve then it follows that having a good economy is more important than the environment (which is only valuable for serving humanity).

egocentric (pro-economy) vs. exocentric (pro-environment) thinking.

I personally have more faith in the environment, as much sense as it might make TO be on the side of the greaterness than I am directly part of.

[Krill]

egocentric (pro-economy) vs. exocentric (pro-environment) thinking.

I personally have more faith in the environment, as much sense as it might make the voucher for the greaterness than I am directly part of.

Speaking of sense, the underlined section didn't make any to me. Do you think you could clarify?

[th!nkstyle]

Speaking of sense, the underlined section didn't make any to me. Do you think you could clarify?

the = to,

[Krill]

the = to,

Ahah, thanks a lot.

(It's been 50/50 almost constantly it seems)

[venerationOFrabbits]

Environment.

We are micro-isms of the earth, albeit the most developed species when adapting to it. It should be kept in mind that despite this, we will never be completely free from the laws of nature.

Are we merely insects? Where does empathy play into our existence.

With a healthy respect for the environment, we ought to be making provisions which alleviate unnecessary human suffering at the hands of nature.

[Krill]

With a healthy respect for the environment, we ought to be making provisions that will alleviate unnecessary human suffering at the hands of nature.


Wouldn't this be inherently disrespectful to the environment? I mean we're messing with the natural state of things to save lives.

[venerationOFrabbits]

I'm thinking more in line of population control.

Organic farming is sound, IMO. Some argue the problem is that it can only feed the few who can afford it.

I say, just because someone can pull a profit feeding the poor masses around the world doesn't mean they should.

Nature will have her way, it's not going to be pretty.

If something terrible does happen to our environment effecting our ability to feed ourselves, then yes, only the rich will be able to afford to feed themselves.

[Mr Pink]

Humans are nothing, the rest is everything else.

[PiccoloNamek]

Environment. There won't be much of an economy to speak of if it's like Soylent Green outside.

http://www.stomptokyo.com/img-m3/soylent-b.jpg

[th!nkstyle]

its amazing how people can have such fundamentally different value systems..

well, at least it keeps it interesting

http://www.scienceandart.org/wallpapers/rainforest.jpg

[lbloom]

*drinks in the view*

[Rhu]

I'd only say economy if it was a sure thing that the world is going to be populated by robots--robots that will need us to mine out and refine as many resources as we can before they take over, so their eradication of the human race can be as swift as possible.

[Stoic]

Average quality-of-life over both of them. Sometimes that means environment over economy, somtimes vice cersa.

[Rohsiph]

I think the creative capacities of any population rely on surrounding environments--thus, any advance in civilization will find reflection via the type of environment around those producing the advance.

That is, if a population is trapped in an unhealthy environment with a healthy economy, the advances this population would foster would reflect their unhealthy environment.

[INThoughtPolice]

balance.

[Architectonic]

balance.

Exactly.
I don't like the logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) in this thread...

[Krill]

its amazing how people can have such fundamentally different value systems..

well, at least it keeps it interesting

*snip*'

Blech! That's ugly!

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~kleinman/mar15/Guilin%20bright%20lights%20big%20city%20(Nat).jpg

:wub:

[Ghost-Girl]

The tree-hugging liberal says:

Environment.http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs7/i/2005/207/a/a/Tree_Hugger_Emoticon_01_by_phantompanther.gif

[MyDogHasFleas]

This is a false dichotomy.

[demagogic_schizoid]

The way I see it these things work themselves out - the world is a resource for humans, and if we outgrow it then that that means nature has designed us to do so, and we will be able to find somewhere else. It would be wrong to carry on living a lie, living on a planet which is holding us back - it would be unnatural, we would be retarding our own progress. If we're not meant to outgrow this world, we won't, but we shouldn't hold ourselves back deliberately.

[booyalab]

This is a false dichotomy.
definitely.
no one kills the goose that lays the golden eggs if they own the goose.

[charred_heart]

Economy.

If damage to the environment hits a point where it interferes with the functioning of the economy, the environment becomes something important but, and I emphasize, only as an means to achieving our ends (the economy).

The economy is important because I believe humans are valuable in themselves, unlike natural resources (i.e. our environment). If one assumes a 'good economy' is one wherein human conditions of living improve then it follows that having a good economy is more important than the environment (which is only valuable for serving humanity).

one constant leftover from dead ancient civilisations is always a desert. think aboutthat for a minute.

[Ellipsis]

I would say enviroment but the economy should not suffer becuase of a bunch of wakos who want to save what is it now? The ground hog? I believe that humans come first but then again some of the worst economic problems where cuased by pollution. So as soon as one of us INTPs develops I don't know...warp drive or repilcators...the better. We should solve the enviromental problems first and foremost. Thus, leading to a better economy...