34 sats \ 2 replies \ @Malachi17 4 Sep \ parent \ on: SN saved me last night alter_native
It will be inevitable so long as the values are contrived and fake. The bowl of rice is worth the whole cruise ship if you happen to be starving. When you place the value first on humanity, then the inequality in the sense of raw needs vs luxury is greatly checked. Usually, this is where charity is supposed to fill the gaps, but you also have rich lunatics running charities.
You are not wrong about that, things have the value that we ourselves give them. In an apocalypse the only thing that has value is water and food and ironically the resources are wasted and the earth is destroyed in the end for nothing. I have a very unpopular opinion and it has even created debates between my husband and I, it is about gold, I understand the value of this in society, but I also think, is it worth destroying ecosystems, destroying the planet to get gold? If in the end gold does not quench thirst or hunger, what is the use of so much gold if we do not have a planet to inhabit? Perhaps with this I am going off topic, but it is one of the things I think about in silence.
reply
It is a valid question. I think Solomon had 666 talents of gold not coincidentally. The best use of it was for that period for the purposes of God. Beyond that, I'd say you are right.
reply