Kill Count

Irae - Harshlands

I would like to get an accurate Kill Count of all people killed by Harshlands players. Of course I don't mean PVP kills, I'm referring to the number of African children starving because of our greed. Obviously we can't determine the number of people with X gear that cost Y amount of money, but let's just assume that everyone has R8, which they do, which is 72 gold. According the the Bureau of BR Statistics, this means the number of R8 players on Harshlands is the cash equivalent of approximately $300,000 USD. Add the number of R9 players, at the cost of approx. $2000 each to get $400,000. Now let's take this number of people and add the refine cost (75 gold) to triple the cost, reaching $1.2m.

Now we take the average cost of a meal in Africa (<$1.50 including grape drink imported from America) and divide it into 1.2m. This is a quite a large number. So the the obvious solution is to start a Charity from our opulent player base. I will obviously be in charge, since I care the most.

Now I'm off to play some Golf, please contribute constructive suggestions in my absinthe.

Eoria - Harshlands

Irae is a pro troll.

Burnout - Harshlands

Your suggestions are a bit erroneous, since it's just not possible for everyone to win in a zero-sum world. The world's resources are limited. Giving food to one person means taking away happiness from another. Are the two equal? Depending on whether you value a human life for economic or sentimental reasons, the conclusion you reach is different. However, thinking that if everyone in the US were to give up their leisure time in order to feed the needy and still assume that the US could progress as fast as it has is just foolish idealism.

The amount of leisure time a society partakes in is directly equivalent to their sum ability to progress technologically. As less time is invested in meeting the basic neccessities of life, more time can be devoted to developing technology. The US public school system is basically just a mass "forced leisure" farm, where children are sent and forced to spend their leisure time in a way that is most economically efficient. You might not think of school or research as "leisure" in the strict sense of the word, but they are optional and our public school system exists only because our technological progress has made available to us a large amount of leisure time. Starving families do not send their children to go learn, they send their children out to obtain food.

The reason African mothers have so many babies is because they KNOW most of them won't make it. A mother who has 11 children only really expects 3 to survive, and the ones who DO survive are forced into "labor", in which they cultivate the land, draw water from wells, and other activities that only amount to meeting the basic necessities of life. In this example, the child would give anything to be able to go to school, and the US is capable of providing him this leisure, but only at the cost of losing some of their own leisure, and thus lose some ability to progress technologically. The fact that some people spend this "leisure" on economically unviable activities like PWI is just a necessary deadweight loss because of the fact that everyone in the US has a similarly large amount of leisure time.

When the US decides to give these "11" children aid, more survive than the mother orginally expects to survive, but since aid is not a "guaranteed" thing, those children who survive grow up to also have 11 more children, since they would rather take the safe route and have some of their children survive just in case they don't receive any aid. So by just giving random amounts of aid to Africa we're only contributing to the problem of overpopulation.

If we could somehow guarantee to one mother that all her children would survive, then she would only have 1 or 2 children, just like most economically advanced countries like the US or Europe. But then that would be "discrimination" or "playing favorites/unfairness" right? Another problem brought up by our foolish insistence on US idealism.

I would continue with this economics fun but since this is a troll thread and im running out of time I need to stop here b:surrender

_blood_rain - Sanctuary

I admit, sometimes I come to this subforum just for the entertainment. You guys probably have the most win trolls in the game.

Irae - Harshlands

Burnout - Harshlands wrote: »

Your suggestions are a bit erroneous, since it's just not possible for everyone to win in a zero-sum world. The world's resources are limited. Giving food to one person means taking away happiness from another. Are the two equal? Depending on whether you value a human life for economic or sentimental reasons, the conclusion you reach is different. However, thinking that if everyone in the US were to give up their leisure time in order to feed the needy and still assume that the US could progress as fast as it has is just foolish idealism.

The amount of leisure time a society partakes in is directly equivalent to their sum ability to progress technologically. As less time is invested in meeting the basic neccessities of life, more time can be devoted to developing technology. The US public school system is basically just a mass "forced leisure" farm, where children are sent and forced to spend their leisure time in a way that is most economically efficient. You might not think of school or research as "leisure" in the strict sense of the word, but they are optional and our public school system exists only because our technological progress has made available to us a large amount of leisure time. Starving families do not send their children to go learn, they send their children out to obtain food.

The reason African mothers have so many babies is because they KNOW most of them won't make it. A mother who has 11 children only really expects 3 to survive, and the ones who DO survive are forced into "labor", in which they cultivate the land, draw water from wells, and other activities that only amount to meeting the basic necessities of life. In this example, the child would give anything to be able to go to school, and the US is capable of providing him this leisure, but only at the cost of losing some of their own leisure, and thus lose some ability to progress technologically. The fact that some people spend this "leisure" on economically unviable activities like PWI is just a necessary deadweight loss because of the fact that everyone in the US has a similarly large amount of leisure time.

When the US decides to give these "11" children aid, more survive than the mother orginally expects to survive, but since aid is not a "guaranteed" thing, those children who survive grow up to also have 11 more children, since they would rather take the safe route and have some of their children survive just in case they don't receive any aid. So by just giving random amounts of aid to Africa we're only contributing to the problem of overpopulation.

If we could somehow guarantee to one mother that all her children would survive, then she would only have 1 or 2 children, just like most economically advanced countries like the US or Europe. But then that would be "discrimination" or "playing favorites/unfairness" right? Another problem brought up by our foolish insistence on US idealism.

I would continue with this economics fun but since this is a troll thread and im running out of time I need to stop here b:surrender

Wow, you couldn't PAY me to read all this, so I'll just hope that you agreed with me

Burnout - Harshlands

Nope, it was basically an explanation of why the US won't give more aid and instead lets volunteer organizations do it (and why you shouldn't bother too).

This is the stuff I got fed basically before they agreed to let me have an economics degree. It is from one of the top tech universities in Georgia (don't ask why I got a BS in econ from a tech school), so the economics professors have an "inferiority" complex and want to prove how smart they are to the engineering and math majors.

Besides, the US spent its entire social security "trust fund" ages ago, and it's there in name only. It's funded by current workers. So us regular citizens got other stuff to worry about besides giving aid to some poor sap in Africa. Like saving for retirement and getting full R9 + 12 gears.

Paimage - Harshlands

holy shet, Im a murderer and never knew! fmlb:cry

Irae - Harshlands

Ok, so from reading what you said, we need to abandon the notion of helping African children, and instead focus on developed countries with white people who have higher survival rates. What to call that charity I wonder?

Longknife - Harshlands

Valhalla is going for the children kill count HIGH SCORE.

Irae - Harshlands

Valhalla is actually a Charity group that, after seeing the hopelessness of the African situation, decided to divert its cash resources into playing PWI. This explains both why they have good gear, and no experience.

Burnout - Harshlands

Irae - Harshlands wrote: »

Ok, so from reading what you said, we need to abandon the notion of helping African children, and instead focus on developed countries with white people who have higher survival rates. What to call that charity I wonder?

If we're gonna help them, we need to help them with specific aid, not just "giving food to a bunch of people". We need to give them assurance that aid will come reliably, so they can stop hedging their bets by having multiple children, and also educate them on proper sustainable farming techniques, how to run a governent that isn't corrupt beyond belief, and etc...

Just giving some money randomly is NOT going to do ****.

Give a homeless guy some money, what's he gonna do with it? In all likelihood, buy some crack.

alkhemist

This sounds familiar

Oh wait

Peter Singer said something similar this 30 years ago....stop stealing from other people Irae.

Halt - Harshlands

I get banned for sayin Nig.gas and he doesnt get a warning for this? Oh well. Most epi **** ive ever read irae, ****ing LOL

zbzkda

Longknife - Harshlands wrote: »

Valhalla is going for the children kill count HIGH SCORE.

I...



ROFLOL'd b:pleased

Irae - Harshlands

alkhemist wrote: »

Peter Singer said something similar this 30 years ago....stop stealing from other people Irae.

Peter Singer played PWI?