bocajuniors

do you really believe that germany has a higher percentage of impoverished people than the us?i would think the lowest american salaries are lower than german welfare

i have to swim over an ocean to do that, but i do think that for a long time after the transformation from hunter/gatherering to farming a lifespan of 65 was quite rare.and a leap from hunter/gathering to industrialization is a lot to ask(: if their chances of being 65 had been that great here in europe do you really think they would have taken their chances in those ships(to reach america)?

wouldn't most people in our society act quite different from how they act today if expected lifespan was 35-40 years instead of 75-85?

yeah, from an article in the economist: during 20th century every large group of european immigrants(italians, germans, swedish...) in america have had iq:s of about 90 shortly after arrival which in all cases have risen to 100 after a couple of decades when they have been fully integrated into society.this also explains why there are other groups who have failed to experience this rise.they have failed to integrate, or society has failed to let them integrate

yeah, in sweden an iq of 70 suggests that you are unable to participate in a normal school and you are labelled as mentally retarded.most refugees from countries with these supposedly low iq:s attend normal schools in spite of their disadvantages regarding language.

if today had been before 1939, yes

but it is a well established fact that the standard of living in norway, denmark, finland, germany... well exceeds that of america.do tou really think that any of these countries are more capitalistic than america?

but still, not even america is a purelely capitalistic society,you do have some socialism in the blend.and the 20 or so western nations with higher standard of living are even less capitalistic.so in the trade off between the two ideas i think america should move towards socialism.of course there are other nations that should do the opposite

it's only yours if society accepts it as yours

some individuals are wealthy enough to pursue war. i really do think this is a very serious problem with unlimited capitalism. examples:al quaida,blackwater

i didn't say that a purely socialistic society is any better.and, as long as you make more than 100k/year(which is enough to fullfill your physical needs), it really is your relative income that counts.

i think it's very obvious that a purely capitalistic system produces a lot of very poor people.that is it is a bad system.

natural resources are used in the process of creating wealth.they are not unlimited. america uses a lot more natural resources than it's entitled to(europe as well). and:if you make 200 k a year in a country where avg income is 500 k i'd say that your a lot worse off than if you make 100 k in a country where the average is 100 k

i think it is quite clear that a purely capitalist society is unjust and oppressive.

of course you are free to define intelligence how you wish, but i think for the definition to be useful creativity should be included in it

even better:kayakflyfishing

i think one of the best things you can do for your health is to pick up flyfishing.if you avoid fishing when it's too sunny.

you have to include the effects on yourself as well.so in the case of the bottled water you don't have to drink poissoned water instead of bottled water in order to act morally.

if you cause harm to others, and are aware that you do so, you act immorally.

because they think that it's a good thing for a language to be difficult.i think it is quite the opposite.according to newlisp.org users of commonlisp make the same mistake.i suspect they are wrong.but i don't know. why is common lisp a better language than newlisp?