Money is killing us

I will split my next argument between the original topic and the religious angle which pro brought up. 1. Pro is clearly making an argument for widespread altruism and which I have noted the reasons for why it doesn't happen in my previous arguments so you should reread the concept of utilities and opportunity cost. 2. As I have noted "true" altruism doesn't exist because the benefit you gain by sacrificing resources to charity is the positive feeling when you go to sleep at night and this feeling is not the priority of many people. 3. Competition is inherent in nature, life, society to find the best method we measure them against every other and what comes out on top is deemed the best it is how we as a species have survived up to this point. Every human is motivated to be better than his kin to go farther, to reach higher that is our primary motivation. 4. Pro also seems to be making an argument against technological advancement when he remarks on the planets health. Indeed the environmental health is suffering because of developing economies and their economic growth policy. Environmental Protection is an issue that only crosses the mind of the developed nations. Countries such as those in Africa, South America and the most blatant offender of the last decade, China. China in its effort to catch up to the west economically produced and consumed resources without fail to reach their current stature and it is that which hurts the environment. So to put it bluntly, the prosperity of those in poverty is directly linked to the damage done to the environment. Technological advances are how we create the best medicinal treatments and these things don't get made for free because people aren't motivated to work for free they will put the most minimal of effort because that is all that is required of them. The Soviet Union faced a similar issue with its ultra communist configuration. Now onto part two where we discuss religions impact and whether or not it is the answer to the problems listed above. 1. I would like to point out the irony of mentioning religion in the same conversation of helping the impoverished. We will look at Uganda again and see what bringing the Bible's teachings to that land has done. Ugandan Christians have used the Bible to justify passing a bill in which they can summarily execute a man for being a homosexuality. Even before the bill could go into effect many Ugandan Christians committed extrajudicial killings of not only homosexuals but all people who protect or sympathize with them. That is what the Bible has done for the impoverished of that country. 2. Even in the context of religion true altruism doesn't exist. People follow the teachings of the Bible because they believe by doing so they can go to heaven and live a better life after this one. So no, religious people are no different. In fact you could say the current state of many impoverished countries were a consequence of religion. When missionaries were on the rise, exploring and colonizing in the name of God was the predominant activity in which the European powers competed. When these missionaries landed they would preach their gospel and exploit the natives of the lands for their resources. This continued well into the 20th century and after the end of colonization the effects and consequences still hold down these countries due to the actions of some gospel spouting preachers. 3. Who has authority over life? Well for each individual their life is theirs to decide how they can use. There are actually no rules in this world if someone wanted to steal there is no higher power preventing then from doing so the only things are our self created security measures and laws to threaten and penalize offenders. 4. "And 1 last question, hypothetically take every luxury out of this world so that all you are left with is our planet with all of us and our resources and intelligence in it .(not money) and we still have to work. Is it possible to feed and give water to every human beingin this scenario? People have to come first. " pro puts in the condition "but we still have to work", why do we have to work? In such a scenario most people would work just enough to survive and then carry on with their lives, what you are describing is ancient tribes and those tribes most certainly would not share and in fact would very likely steal from other tribes to better the lives of the people in their tribe. Pro then goes on to say "People HAVE to come first." and to that I say no they don't people prioritize themselves because how can I worry about the world's problems when I can barely make it through each paycheck. Unfortunately contrary to what many people think we humans do not have a special connection to one another other than the same kinds of connections other animals have. 5. Finally, we must doubt the validity of a 4000~ year old text of fiction. Why must we listen to this book? Was this book written by my fellow man to con me? Can the things described in this book even be real? Why should I listen to this book and not that one? Who is God and what if he's actually evil? All these are valid reasons to doubt the Bible not to mention the aforementioned consequences of the Bible on the world. And so ends the debate I encourage everyone to reread our arguments and decide for yourselves whether or not pro or con is right. Remember money is just a reflection of our desires it is not money that controls us but rather we that choose to pursue it because it betters our lives and helps us in our pursuit of happiness.