/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1228067]

Okay children, listen up:

1. Human beings are net assets to social wellbeing. We need more humans, not less.

2. Nation-states are unnecessary, unsustainable parasites on civil society. We need less statism and more emergent competition among competing forms of governance.

3. Aging is not inevitable. The slow decline in human health and appearance known as ‘aging’ is a biological problem that is effectively curable by maintaining cellular repair.

4. The Earth is not alive. Humanity must and will exploit the resources available on Earth until they run out and by which point we must be advanced enough in mass space travel and terraforming to spread throughout the galaxy.

5. Everything is ultimately subjective or intersubjective, epistemologically speaking. Value is subjective. Perception is subjective. Happiness is subjective. You don't know what's good for other people better than they know themselves.

[Anonymous No.1228070]

that's ok Ron Paul

[Anonymous No.1228073]

>points out problems without offering solutions

easy mode, OP

[Anonymous No.1228081]

okay so, you guys, look here's the fridge - c'mon pay attention guys - so yeah, we're going to eat everything in here, okay? yeah and then - when we ate everything, and at one moment in time we get hungry again, then we will probably have advanced to a stage where we can eat our own poop. okay, got that? let's start going!

[Anonymous No.1228087]

>>1228073

Solutions:

1. Have more children. Help make child-rearing more socially acceptable. Decrease costs of child-rearing by increasing economic freedom and growth i.e. (2).

2. Help move forward ideologies of autonomism, libertarianism, federalism, anti-statism. Help elect anti-statists.

3. Google Aubrey de Grey. Spread awareness. Invest in SENS.

4. Get nation-state governments out of monopolized space travel and enable competition to drive innovation in transatmospheric propulsion.

5. Spread epistemological understanding. Educate. This is happening anyway.

[Anonymous No.1228090]

>>1228081
no, here's reality. the things we currently use we call "resources." when any individual resource becomes scarcer, demand increases for alternatives or substitutes for the USE that resource had to fulfilling subjective demand. viva price mechanism.

[Anonymous No.1228092]

>>1228090
yes that's exactly how it works.

*looks at world, retarcts statement*

[Anonymous No.1228100]

>>1228092
It is how it works. See Julian Simon vs. Paul Ehrlich. Simon won.

Think e.g. of oil shales. As other sources of oil become scarcer, it becomes economically feasible to extract oil from oil shales, which incidentally has a huge amount of potential oil for humanity.

[Anonymous No.1228101]

>>1228087
lol @ the time we crammed everybody into space shuttles and we dont know where to go, also you say: solution to a better world is making all the people agree to visions i endorse. also you must be a troll or no older than 15 and im willing to bet money on this

[Anonymous No.1228103]

>>1228101
I'm a published economist.

[Anonymous No.1228104]

Nutrition is an asset to health.

Therefore there is no upper limit to how much food is good for you.

[Anonymous No.1228105]

>>1228101
>where to go
see terraforming

>space shuttles
The government space programs are not representative of the potential innovation in space travel technology. See the economic laws of scientific research.

[Anonymous No.1228106]

>>1228100
yeah, let's heat up this planet~ it's so warm, where's all the water lol? im really thirsty and dieing. what are all these people doing here? where did the borders go? why is everybody disregarding rules and raping and stealing!? HELP!

[Anonymous No.1228108]

>>1228103
you're a naive idealist

[Anonymous No.1228109]

>>1228103

Good stuff.

Economics is a science.

[Anonymous No.1228111]

>>1228104
Nutrition per se is necessarily an asset to health. Food =/= nutrition. Food potentially contains nutrition.

However you are talking about the experience of a closed system - one human body - over one human lifetime. Humanity in the universe is not a case of a closed system. It is effectively an open system dependent entirely on human capacity for innovation in exploiting reality i.e. resources.

[Anonymous No.1228114]

>>1228109
Microeconomics is a science. See Vernon Smith. Macroeconomics is a joke.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1228115]

>Everything is ultimately subjective or intersubjective, epistemologically speaking
l2epistemologicalskepticism faggot, epistemologically speaking
Also, would you mind not putting that so objectively LOL

[Anonymous No.1228117]

but what if we use too many resources feeding the markets and then we don't have any left to make space ships

[Anonymous No.1228121]

we need a lot of people and they should all live happily next to each other, focusing on one goal: sucking dry + leaving this motherfucking planet! now here is how we will do it: [insert unreliable concepts of future technology completely disregarding available resources/ knowledge]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1228123]

>Human beings are net assets to social wellbeing. We need more humans, not less.
>Value is subjective

>Nation-states are unnecessary, unsustainable parasites on civil society. We need less statism and more emergent competition among competing forms of governance.
>Value is subjective
Also, so much ideology

>Aging is not inevitable. The slow decline in human health and appearance known as ‘aging’ is a biological problem that is effectively curable by maintaining cellular repair.
no such thing as aging or decline or increase in health according to you;
>Everything is ultimately subjective or intersubjective, epistemologically speaking

>The Earth is not alive.
Neither are we by the same token, moral of the story is you're misusing the label of 'alive', or having an arbitrary cut off point for what you consider 'life'
Also,
>Everything is ultimately subjective or intersubjective, epistemologically speaking

Kill yourself you contradictory, inconsisent slugshit

[Anonymous No.1228124]

>>1228115
See Wittgenstein.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1228128]

>>1228124
If you had read him you would know to keep your fucking mouth shut because there is nothing to talk

[Anonymous No.1228129]

>>1228111
Technically, yes.

Humanity has populated the Earth at the limit of its capacity to feed and provide for itself for quite a while now. Do you remember what living on "easy" credit got us a couple years ago? A huge-ass global recession.

Do you know what the population equivalent is? A couple billion people starving to death. Let's talk about adding another couple billion mouths AFTER we've got the fundaments of a post-oil infrastructure in place.

[Anonymous No.1228130]

>>1228105
>The government space programs are not representative of the potential innovation in space travel technology. See the economic laws of scientific research.

I'm still lolling at this? are you a real person expressing these opinions!? god-damn hhahahahahahahahaahhahaha

[Anonymous No.1228131]

>>1228067

Just want to say, the girl in OP's picture is beautiful

=(

[Anonymous No.1228132]

>>1228123
On the basis of subjectivism, you build intersubjective consensus on logic and empirics. You do this automatically the second you start writing out an argument. See performative contradiction, communicative rationality, naturalized logic, etc.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1228134]

>>1228132
Cool dawg but that doesn't address or refute a single thing I've said

[Anonymous No.1228135]

>>1228129
it's funny how there are people in this world staring up at the sky stating "that's where we need to go" completely ignoring the puddles of blood and shit they are building their houses on. fuck this gay earth

[Anonymous No.1228137]

>>1228129
The 'easy credit' was a direct result of nation-state monopolization of the means of exchange (money). Indeed I am not putting forward a priori a timescale. Whatever comes first comes first. However the top-down theories of marginal human cost (e.g. overpopulation alarmism) and Earth-centric environmentalism and so forth make exactly that error, as you would be doing by supporting a proxy (state) to circumvent the spontaneous post-oil infrastructures when and if they become necessary to best fulfilling subjective human demand.

[Anonymous No.1228140]

>>1228067

So you're looking for a discussion in which you will use your no doubt formidable intellect to dismantle the arguments of some poor sod who would rise to the bait?
Fine, I'll bite.

1) In the dawn of sedentary societies, more humans was indeed a good idea (some extinct mammal species in north America and Oceania may even argue against this). More humans catalysed the food production process, which gave rise to tribes, chiefdoms and eventually states. States are also the natural progression of a species that produces a surplus of food to sustain a class of citizens which doesn't participate in the harvest.

Today is a different matter. Undoubtedly, in an ideal, equitable world, where upwards of 75% of the resources weren't used exclusively by a mere 20% of humans but redistributed to all, more humans is a good idea. The reality is that areas where there are scarce resources are also those in which more humans are born into daily.

Striking the correct balance between discovery of new ways to exploit the planet's energy and food resources AND the increase in human population is essential. Too much of the latter and not enough of the former is bound to create a host of problems in the relative short term. See how the reckless burning of fossil fuels is affecting the planet as a whole, and threatening the livelihoods and lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. See how the more humans consume, the more waste they produce. Ever heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? It's jokingly called 'the Eighth Continent' in some circles. This in turn threatens fishing, depletes food stocks, etc.

Point I'm trying to make is that MORE human beings is not a good idea at this critical point in human history, where population rates still in the throes of an explosion that started in the 60s. Later, when rates have been stabilized, will humanity probably benefit from this.

[Anonymous No.1228142]

>>1228067

I'll never obtain a woman that beautiful :(

[Anonymous No.1228143]

people in africa are tackling the wrong problems. this is what they need to do:
- make more babies
- ignore all nation-states
- be more autonomous
- have less aids
- eat more

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1228152]

guys isn't 'intersubjectivity' such a lovely way to say "still not objective"?

[Anonymous No.1228156]

>1
No. You're retarded. The fuckin planet doesn't have the resources to support an unlimited number of people.
>2
People who identify with each other will inevitably form states. Asking to get rid of states is insane. As for alternate forms of government, they may have some merit, but we have yet to see anything other than a democracy succeed in practice. China might be on its way to being a first, but I don't think we could call it a success right now, given its living conditions.
>3
Theoretically possible, but show me the science that could actually make it feasible to stop aging on a grand scale.
>4
Hahaha. What guarantee do you have that we'll have advanced so far by that point?
>5
I'm admittedly not knowledgeable about epistemology, but I'd say we often do know better than the people themselves what's good for them. For instance, we can tell people to stop eating junk food and get more exercise, but it doesn't mean they'll do it. The issue is whether we have the right to force them to do it, and to me that depends on the specific case.

[Anonymous No.1228174]

>>1228140
>States are also the natural progression of a species that produces a surplus of food to sustain a class of citizens which doesn't participate in the harvest.

Sort of. However states depend on legitimating ideology which for most of their history was that of religion and today is that of nation-statism. States are top-down in function. (technically, everything that has happened has been part of the "natural" progression of humanity). States emerge spontaneously from the popular ignorance/denial of spontaneous, emergent order in human society. They can be scientifically (see Vernon Smith etc.), empirically (see James Scott etc.), and logically (see microeconomics) be analyzed as such and found net counterproductive to the human welfare claims they are dependent on for legitimacy.

[Anonymous No.1228175]

1. no
2. no
3. no
4. yes
5.yes

[Anonymous No.1228176]

still pretty sure OP is trolling. don't get upset guys, you'll give him exactly what he wants....

[Anonymous No.1228183]

>>1228140
(cont.)
There's a law in chemistry (physics) called the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. On a larger scale of time and space, our planet is no different. Humans create more entropy than any other species to date. Entropy is a form of energy that is useless for work or heat. Uranium stores won't remake themselves. Petrol shale, coal sediments, gas pockets - they won't remake themselves until hundreds of millions of years have passed. At which time humans will have left a non-negligible trace on the planet, but possibly as relevant as the 160 million years of dinosaurs.

4) The Earth is not alive. The planet will keep on spinning, whatever happens on its surface. This is true, but again, you overestimate the potential of space travel. Sure, science fiction is cool, but it remains fiction. Unless we are taught interstellar travel that takes less than light-years by an alien race, we won't be going anywhere, ever. Best we can hope for is observation of other planets where life-forms have evolved. The age of space-colonization is gonna require a bit more logistics than Cortès' conquest of Mexico. So, talk about terraforming all you want, but we're stuck here for the foreseeable, unforeseeable and probably rest of our future. Might as well make it a pleasant place to live in by conserving biodiversity, natural habitats and using the resources wisely so that future generations can also use them. As it stands, there are four "infinite" sources of energy on Earth. Heat in the mantle, heat from the sun, wind power and tidal power.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1228187]

OP's argument: see x

[Anonymous No.1228196]

>>1228187
but where is x!? teh future....?

[Anonymous No.1228198]

>>1228137
You're putting forward an implicit timescale: until the Earth can't support us. That's a long timescale on paper, but very short (hopefully!) when contrasted against the future existence of mankind, especially if continuing exponential population growth is your MO. We NEED a timescale to deal with problems like feeding people and post oil energy. And for that we need organizations whose primary concern is NOT short term individual profit, but long term altruistic planning.

And the fact is that even at the limits of current theoretical science most humans born on Earth will never go into space. I hope we spread to the stars, but that will be done by tens of thousands of people on colony ships, not billions. (Unless you go the post-human mind upload route, but that really isn't currently theoretically available science.)

[Anonymous No.1228199]

>>1228140
>Undoubtedly, in an ideal, equitable world, where upwards of 75% of the resources weren't used exclusively by a mere 20% of humans but redistributed to all, more humans is a good idea. The reality is that areas where there are scarce resources are also those in which more humans are born into daily.

Distribution is a logically inappropriate concept to apply to human consumption of resources. A resource is such because it is valued by human beings. Value is subjective and interpersonal value comparisons are logically and scientifically impossible (see eg. Kenneth Arrow's Nobel-winning proof). What we can do is (1) positive and (2) normative analysis based on the absolute measurement of revealed preference i.e. voluntary human action.

That said, the absolute poverty and even some of the monetary inequality is directly caused by nation-statism. See the work of David Friedman, William Easterly, modern development economics, etc. The artificial borders of nation-states enforced via ideologically subsidized proxy (the coercion of the state) cause all kinds of problems, including mass poverty on the part of those stuck in relatively more statist nations.

Nevertheless, human beings remain a marginal good, globally speaking, and in opposition to counterproductive statism. It's true this is largely muted in places like North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. A caveat could reasonably be added along the lines of: human beings are net assets to social welfare to the degree the marginal human is free.

[Anonymous No.1228200]

>>1228174

I agree on your first sentence. However, I'd like to see said studies which show they are counter productive. Note that ALL (and I really mean, all) inventions, and thus inventors have arisen from societies with the most complex state, simply because these societies developed writing before everyone else, simply because they became a state (larger, more secure and richer than tribes and chiefdoms and bands).

And inventions are, bar a few, what have made the conditions of living of humanity get generally better over the last 13000 years. So I ask you... are you not looking to pin something on entities (states) which are actually trying to bring solutions to the root problem: too many humans?

[Anonymous No.1228204]

Guys..I really..really want that woman in OP's pic.

That's my take on this whole argument.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1228205]

>>1228176
>+ 44 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click Reply to view.
you're a tad late

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1228209]

>>1228199
>see eg. Kenneth Arrow's Nobel-winning proof
>Everything is ultimately subjective or intersubjective, epistemologically speaking

Keep shitting up your own argument bro this is hilarious

[Anonymous No.1228211]

>>1228199

Sorry, you're getting too technical for me. I can't keep up because I don't have the references nor the jargon to understand your argument or counter-attack with some of my own

[Anonymous No.1228213]

>>1228211
he's being stupid as hell. it's ok if you don't speak stupid

[Anonymous No.1228218]

this food here has no value for me but the fact that everybody likes it. we merely eat because others want us to eat

[Anonymous No.1228220]

>>1228204
eh, that scarf kills it. it screams pretension.

[Anonymous No.1228225]

>>1228200
The root problem is not at all too many humans. It is the institutions ideologically created by humans that retard the most efficient human consumption of resources according to intersubjective human value.

There is much confusion in the archaeological and anthropological lit regarding the definition of states. A complex stratified society entailed the prereq for what we would call civilisation (writing etc.). However that is not the relavent definition of a state. See e.g. 'The Myth of the Archaic State' by Cambridge archaeologist Norman Yoffee.

Define states in the Weberian sense as a monopoly on ideologically legitimated *proactive coercion* for profit in a fiat land claim, and it is clear that civilization predates states. Furthermore see the staple 'Economic Laws of Scientific Research' on the recent historical trends in state vs. non-state involvement in invention.

It is a mistake to confuse complex society with a state for the purposes of OP.

[Anonymous No.1228226]

>>1228199

This is easy to say because our world went from bands of hunter gatherers to bordered nation-states. We've only seen one side of the problem. Are you claiming that you can assert with utmost certainty that an alternative development route would have seen everyone better off?

Egalitarianism <=====> Kleptocracy.

[Anonymous No.1228229]

>>1228220

This looks like it might be in France? Can anyone confirm/infirm?

[Anonymous No.1228232]

>>1228220

Which I find very, very attractive.

Nothing in the world better than plowing a woman who has an elevated notion of self-importance.

At least, nothing sounds better, /sadface.

[Anonymous No.1228243]

>>1228232
i can see that. it'd love to see her on her knees, being bukkaked by guys while wearing only that scarf.

[Anonymous No.1228244]

>>1228229

That's exactly what I was thinking.

I want to visit now.

Oh wait, transportation is fucked, because the French are lazy fucks who are scared of working an extra year or two before they can retire.

Nice!

[Anonymous No.1228245]

>>1228226
>our world went from bands of hunter gatherers to bordered nation-states.

No, it didn't. Nation-state didn't appear on the scene until a few hundred years ago, their characteristics being that they (1) were legitimated by nationalism/social welfare claims as opposed to religion and (2) made fiat claims to vast tracts of land. The property acquisition criteria applied to states by the masses is entirely different from that applied to all other human organizations. This is key.

The vast majority of human history (and quite recently in many places) was not only free from nation-states, but did not have anything one would reasonably call a state. Examples include Ireland and Iceland for 1000s of years, much of the colonial US, etc.

[Anonymous No.1228246]

>Furthermore see the staple 'Economic Laws of Scientific Research' on the recent historical trends in state vs. non-state involvement in invention.

Ok, I see what you mean, I think. To be fair, I was arguing under the impression that you wanted total communism (no state) rather than just an end to large nation-states. Is this what you're calling for? Splitting up states into small self-governed communities?

[Anonymous No.1228249]

>>1228220

Get with the program, she's French.

[Anonymous No.1228251]

>>1228246
>Splitting up states into small self-governed communities?

Yes, prettymuch. Though hey may be very small (an individual or household or small village) or larger, the functional difference is the way in which those communities acquire property - it is not subsidized by a mass ideological legitimacy projected onto mass proactive coercion. That is the hallmark of the nation-state.

[Anonymous No.1228257]

>>1228245

I suggest you read "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond, in which he demonstrates how states basically arose in the last ten thousand years in areas where agriculture became widespread. Almost hand in hand. Perhaps not based on nationalism/social welfare, but states nonetheless. With a bureaucracy, capable of fielding a professional army, etc.

P.S: since when was colonial US not a nation-state? Perhaps you meant pre-colonial US?

[Anonymous No.1228260]

>>1228243

That'd be incredible.

I'd go a different route and just gain personal (sexist) pleasure from listening to her spout her silly, misguided notions of political and economic theory that she herself doesn't understand in the slightest.

Then I'd take her home and fuck her from behind.

[Anonymous No.1228266]

>>1228244

I'm french (the one who suggested she might be french - note I don't know whether this is the case. It's just the people around her look a lot like generic french student rioters/protesters - I should know, I've been one of them). I'm sorry about that. I don't actively protest these days because I've been disillusioned by the left in France, who are a bunch of buffoons.

[Anonymous No.1228269]

>>1228257
Diamond has a wonky definition of the state. I'm not opposed to states by his definition. He is not the standard in anthro on this topic. He's just a popular author.

Indeed, states and proto-states existed for thousands of years. Nation-states did not. And those previous forms were not globally dominant in the same way nation-states have become in recent years.

Historical stuff aside, the central point is that nation-states and all states by standard Weberian definition are counterproductive to human wellbeing.

This claim is based on logic, microeconomics, experimental behavioral science, systems science, etc. See Anthony de Jasay's 'The State," James C Scott's "Seeing like a State." David D. Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom," etc. along these lines.

[Anonymous No.1228271]

>>1228266

>buffoons

Yeah, I read The Coming Insurrection and got that impression pretty quickly.

[Anonymous No.1228272]

>>1228266

Me again. I'd really like to get to the bottom of this (and to hers as well). Can anyone make out what the flags and bandoleers say?

[Anonymous No.1228274]

im not reading this long, surely brain cell killing thread but i just want to thank libertarians for making us communists look rational.

[Anonymous No.1228285]

>>1228269

Ok, let's assume they're all right, and that a solution would be splitting these nation-states into smaller entities. How would you go about it? Have you taken into account black swans and human nature? What's to say the world can't slip back into the present state because one community suddenly became cancerous and decided to expand, to gain more land for it's increasing population (which you suggested in point n°1).

Way I see it, nation-states arose for nationalism/social welfare AND to protect an elite's interests against other proto-states who got too aggressive. You seem to be thinking waaaaay too ahead of humanity's level of enlightenment. Perhaps you should come back down and tackle the problem from the grass roots?

[Anonymous No.1228289]

Everyone arguing ITT needs to open OP's pic and assist in the identification of the dazzling young woman's country of origin.

I believe in all of you.

[Anonymous No.1228300]

>>1228289

Frenchie here again - I see a black guy who doesn't look African American but actually African, and he's a student. You get those in France, they're not uncommon.

I see a lot of typical French facial traits, but that could be any Mediterranean state and in a time of globalisation, cities have become full of foreigners anyway.

In the flag on the left, there is the ending of a word which can be seen behind a fold. It is written in read. I see the dot of an "i", the top of a letter that could be an "a", then definitely an "n" and a "t". This could be the end of the word "étudiant" which means "student" in French.

[Anonymous No.1228302]

>>1228285
>Have you taken into account black swans and human nature?

Yes, though I don't like the term or book so much, Taleb makes the same argument for decentralize autonomous society. He is opposed to nation-states because they are not "robust" whereas networks of autonomous communities and corporations would be moreso.

>nation-states arose for nationalism/social welfare AND to protect an elite's interests

The nationalism and social welfare claims are simply the legitimating ideology for the 'elite' who benefit from statist distortion of civil society. The state creates elites in that sense, and is in a positive feedback loop with their increasing parasitism on the market.

>You seem to be thinking waaaaay too ahead of humanity's level of enlightenment. Perhaps you should come back down and tackle the problem from the grass roots?

Though it's more vulgar than I'd like, the "Tea Party" stuff is somewhat grass roots on this level, as is Seasteading, and other left and right movements. Pluralism in human societies is kind of a big tent given its natural appeal to diverse groups. However, I'm a theory guy more than an action guy. A big part of changing the world is affecting popular ideology. Ideas rule everything.

[Anonymous No.1228305]

>>1228289


Her mouth opens really wide.

[Anonymous No.1228313]

this thread is way too smart for 4chan

[Anonymous No.1228316]

>>1228300

If you were a wise Frenchie, you'd dedicate your life to discovering this woman's identity.

[Anonymous No.1228326]

>>1228300


>written in red*, pardon me.

I have found determining proof I believe. The flag in the background has a logo and some writing written on the other side to us. Reading backwards, the yellow letters spell: SNU. I googled that and it comes up with the SNUipp, a teacher's union in France.

Check out their webpage, the colours of the letters, and more importantly, their logo. And praise me.

http://www.snuipp.fr/

[Anonymous No.1228328]

>>1228316
Done refer to >>1228326

[Anonymous No.1228336]

>>1228326

You are a god among men.

Brb, learning the French language, saving up several hundred thousand dollars, and moving there for university as soon as possible.

[Anonymous No.1228342]

OP lives in a fantasy world in which resources are infinite and everyone is super nice to each other and super educated.

[Anonymous No.1228359]

Tuition fees in France, my friend, amount only to a couple hundred euros.

>http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/public-services/higher-education/fees/

Girls however, cost significantly more, especially the mouthy type like the one on the picture, who is (or thinks she is, but I don't judge) intelligent and ballsy enough to realise she should exercise her right to protest a crooked government.

She will require banter, and quite a lot of it, unless she's still in the mindset of 1968 and fucking guys left right and centre.

[Anonymous No.1228365]

>>1228342
resources are effectively infinite...

[Anonymous No.1228367]

I've never seen a crowd that photogenic at any British protest - I too assumed France.

Anyway, I'm not sure how reasonable it is to blame nation-states for everything when nation-states and their coercive systems are to a great extent and have been since their genesis an apparatus squabbled over and commanded by groups of rich people - generally, these days, international finance. Their legitimising ideology seems chiefly significant in how transparently dishonest it is.

[Anonymous No.1228372]

When the rest of the world functions like Scandinavia, we will have peace.

Ridiculously overpriced lives, but peaceful ones nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.1228373]

Damn, that chick is the shit. Something about them scarfs. I wish I lived in NYC or Europe.

[Anonymous No.1228374]

>>1228359

Does that tuition apply for international students?

Plus there's the actual living costs of purchasing things in France, which I've always imagined would be quite high, considering the luxurious life style of its average citizen.

[Anonymous No.1228376]

>>1228374

It would only really be costly as you transition from using the dollar as your base currency to using the Euro as your base currency. After that, it's just like living in America--you can live cheaply if you so choose, but you can also live a posh lifestyle for more money.

[Deep&Edgy !WHMmaMOjBs No.1228384]

ppl in that crowd look like they haven't seen a day's worth of hard work in their lives. Burn those fucking petit-bourgeois scum, burn'em all.

[Anonymous No.1228393]

>>1228374
Yes, you'd have to dig around to find the exact amount and procedures, but universities (not Grandes Ecoles, those are the ones where you work batshit insane) in France are heavily subsidised by the state. If you count in social security, your fees won't amount to more than 500-600 a year, I think.

Accommodation depends on how comfortable you want to be, keeping in mind that basic amenities in France (and Europe) DO NOT have the same standards as in the US.

Certainly, when compared to the USA, the same amount of money will get you less than in the US. However compared to the rest of Europe it's fine, and food-wise, you probably won't find anything better than a real French market, which open up even in large cities. Clothes might be a bit more expensive, but aside from that, be a cheapskate and sang up the best deals when you can, really. no different from anywhere else in the western world.

[Anonymous No.1228398]

>>1228384

And?

I'm the average middle class young American who's had to work since he was 14 and a half, yet I desire to live in France simply because of the culture and emphasis on education.

Plus it would be impossible to infer how much a single one of them have worked just from one picture.

[Anonymous No.1228401]

>>1228384

>implying you wouldn't leave your Kansas farmstead to go live in Paris an benefit from subsidised education and free healthcare.

[Anonymous No.1228406]

>>1228393

Grandes Ecoles? Are those like the Ivy League in the United States or something?

[Deep&Edgy !WHMmaMOjBs No.1228407]

>>1228398
>Plus it would be impossible to infer how much a single one of them have worked just from one picture.
ok mang thx for addressing an issue no-one raised here

[Anonymous No.1228409]

>>1228407

Anyone ever requested that you fuck-off before?

[Deep&Edgy !WHMmaMOjBs No.1228418]

also, wish I could be french 2 and hate on all the postcolonial ugly darkies who came over after we stopped raping their countries, co-operate with nazis and be the cultural embodiment of chickenshit

[Anonymous No.1228420]

>>1228418

Christ I hope you're not an American.

People like you tend to make our country look so damn ignorant.

[Anonymous No.1228424]

>>1228406

I... am not really familiar with the distinction between Ivy League unis and "other" uni in America. However, in France you have universities, in which you spend 3-4-5 years for your degree (a Masters) and then you can stay for a Doctorate. You can do any degree you want basically in a uni (called "FAC" in France.)

Or you can try two-three years of "Classes Préparatoires" which basically hammer you into a system where the all encompassing selective tool is mathematics and Cartesian thought, at the end of which you have a COMPETITIVE exam. your rank will determine which "Grande Ecole" you can enter. There's a hierarchy of these places, with at the top the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Polytechnique, Physique-Chimie Paris, etc). It's all based on prestige and rankings and whatnot. I'm glad I escaped to England. I'm lucky I have a rich and generous grandfather to pay for the tuitions fees over there (£3.200 a year).

[Anonymous No.1228428]

>>1228420

I think he's a bored fuck-up trying to be an e-thug. Also he gets a kick out of our replies.

[Anonymous No.1228437]

>>1228424

Prestige is the only real distinction for Ivy League.

Do you have a generally high impression of French Universities? Are some(or all) more pomp than substance?

Meh, what am I saying. At age 18, it'd be ridiculously frightening living in a foreign country. I probably couldn't handle it.

[Deep&Edgy !WHMmaMOjBs No.1228443]

okay guys this is a decent enough thread (even if all it comes down to is two shit-flinging chimps who love ridiculous notions like 'intersubjectivity',accusing something of being ideological (lol, as opposed to what) and engaging in what amounts to boring ol language games) so I will stop posting shit in it.

[Anonymous No.1228445]

1.Limit children to one child per male/female for all niggers and mexicans.Any child had after that is against the law and will be forcibly aborted.

[Anonymous No.1228446]

>>1228443

thanks.

[Anonymous No.1228461]

>>1228437

While there are some prestigious universities (like, regular FACs) in France, I would say (but here this is the elitism of my social class talking more than anything else) that the best education is systematically to be had in "Grandes Ecoles" for Science and Engineering and Literary Studies, and in "Sciences Po" for Political Sciences.

That doesn't mean that regular facs aren't good, by a long shot. They all offer a good education education. I have many friends in my home town of Aix en Provence who are studying law, and they have their time divvied up into lectures where 600 people sit in the same lecture theatre, and smaller classes of thirty/forty. Like I said, if you really feel like going, do some research. Most towns of more than 100.000 have
a vibrant student scene.

I understand your fear, particularly since you'd need to master a new language; though.

[Anonymous No.1228462]

Philly Fag here. I'd fucking love to visit and possibly live in France for a bit. The food is really good, I like the history and culture, and Ligue 1 is my favorite soccer league.

I don't speak a lick of french though and I'm terrible at learning languages. I think they'd hate me for that and for being an American.

[Anonymous No.1228468]

>>1228462

Haha same. I've always had the impression that many French look down on Americans...which, living in the south, I can sadly understand a bit why.

[Anonymous No.1228474]

>>1228468

They dislike Americans as a whole, but like individual Americans.

Also,
>implying people in the American south are any worse than people elsewhere in the states

[Anonymous No.1228478]

>>1228474

I'm from Alabama, and witnessed (for 15 years of my life) the Southern mind. Your argument therefore is invalid.

[Anonymous No.1228481]

when i was little (like 4 years old) we had a french foreign exchange student staying at our house.I seem to recall that she was a huge snob.

[Anonymous No.1228480]

>>1228474

> They dislike Americans as a whole, but like individual Americans

Spot on, /b/ro. We love your TV shows and your music. If you go outside Paris, people are mostly welcoming (not as much as in the Sates but good enough).

[Anonymous No.1228484]

>>1228462
American soccer fan here. I like Ligue 1 as well. What team do you support?

[Anonymous No.1228486]

>>1228484

Not who you're talking two, but being born there, I support Marseilles, naturally. Best fucking team in the world.

[Anonymous No.1228493]

>>1228486
Me too, but I started supporting them because I really liked their ultras. Weird reason, I know.

[Anonymous No.1228495]

>>1228484

I've been supporting Marseille for about 5 years now. Kind of sad Niang and Ben Arfa are no longer on the team. Im hoping Remy proves to be a worthwhile addition to the team.

What do you support?

[Anonymous No.1228506]

Awesome 3 Marseilles supporters in a row. Shit is so cash right now.

[Anonymous No.1228508]

france is not going to exist in a few years.The french people will be wiped out by the islamic jihad invaders unless they do something about it.

[Anonymous No.1228510]

Pirating Rosetta Stone as we speak.

Amidoinfrenchrite?

[Anonymous No.1228512]

sauce on pic please

[Anonymous No.1228519]

>>1228512

Get your own French woman.

[Anonymous No.1228524]

> ITT SCIENCE! WILL SAVE US

[Anonymous No.1228542]

>>1228512

Probably recent riots in France, my guess.

[Anonymous No.1228560]

I've found our lovely French beauty in another picture by googling "French Student Protests." The media must've taken quite a liking to her.

Source Article

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/10/15/student_protests_intensify_in_france/

[Anonymous No.1228573]

>>1228560
me too!

[Anonymous No.1228576]

>>1228573

Is it sad if I think I'm in love?

Probably, oh well.

[Anonymous No.1228579]

>>1228560

Suddenly I realize why otherwise sane men go to protests.

[Anonymous No.1228603]

>>1228579

Apparently she's only in highschool, according to the article's caption.

I'm a bit surprised.

[Anonymous No.1228625]

>>1228603
I'd go back to high school for that.
Read her a book in English to swoon her.

[Anonymous No.1228635]

>>1228625

So shall it be done.

[Anonymous No.1228674]

>>1228067
hahah oh wow

I bet that chick thinks she's real hardcore, alright

>mfw I saw the iphone taking a picture of her

I'm sure they'll be comparing this La Liberté guidant le peuple

[Anonymous No.1228683]

the french are upset over an increase in the retirement age? What the shit! They're fucking ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.1228684]

>Human beings are net assets to social wellbeing. We need more humans, not less

I almost feel bad laughing at him.

>Aging is not inevitable

OK, now I don't feel bad anymore.

[Anonymous No.1228685]

>>1228674

I think you're missing the point here, which is she's hot as shit. Which contrary to connotation is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.1228695]

>>1228685
she's alright, I guess. Though I'd have to reserve judgment until I saw her tits

[Anonymous No.1228698]

>>1228560

shopped, check the lighting

[Anonymous No.1228699]

>>1228695

I would enjoy having consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of pro-creation with her.

Know what I mean, niggas?

[Anonymous No.1228700]

>>1228698

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/10/15/student_protests_intensify_in_france/

Why would they shop?

[Anonymous No.1228705]

>>1228700

they might have gotten the pic from somewhere else

regardless, do you not agree that the lighting on the girl is off?

[Anonymous No.1228709]

>>1228705

The lighting seems odd sure, but I'm certain that's easily explainable by anyone with basic knowledge of photography (ie not me). You can see some of the same people in the crowd from the first and second picture, so it really isn't shooped.

[Anonymous No.1228714]

>>1228709

The lighting doesn't just seem odd, the sun would have to come from 2 different directions

Also look at the sharp edges on the hair of the men standing right below her. Good evidence that she's been cut into the picture.

[Anonymous No.1228715]

>>1228462
>>1228462

If you're in Philly and want to have a french good time, check out Cafe L'aube on south street. I just moved away from philly and boy do I miss that place.

[Anonymous No.1228722]

>>1228698
if it is shopped, where is the original. I would like to see it :D

[Anonymous No.1228725]

>>1228722

it's not shooped.

[Anonymous No.1228742]

>>1228722

the fuck would I know where the original is?

where is the original for this?

[Anonymous No.1228778]

>>1228742

Found it :D

[Anonymous No.1229763]

i agree with this

[Implying !!OwMMiDsuHLo No.1229773]

ITT: Certain anons reveal themselves as virgins by falling in love with some girl whom they've never met and never will meet

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1229778]

I don't think there are enough resources left to sustain us until we are technologically ready to colonise another planet.

[Anonymous No.1229787]

AND HERE I WAS, THINKING HER FACE LOOKED LIKE A MAN'S

[Anonymous No.1229788]

>>1229773
I'll hazard a guess that you yourself are a virgin and your crippling shame is what makes it difficult for you to distinguish between "she's beautiful" and "I love her".

[Anonymous No.1229797]

>1. Human beings are net assets to social wellbeing. We need more humans, not less.

Naah, not really. We've technologically advanced to the stage where we're all a lot better off if theres a whole lot less of us.

>2. Nation-states are unnecessary, unsustainable parasites on civil society. We need less statism and more emergent competition among competing forms of governance.

Wow. Naieve much? We still need moats and keeps. They're jsut nuclear now.

>3. Aging is not inevitable. The slow decline in human health and appearance known as ‘aging’ is a biological problem that is effectively curable by maintaining cellular repair.

While that may be theoretically true, actually doing it would be ethically immature. Grow up.

>4. The Earth is not alive. Humanity must and will exploit the resources available on Earth until they run out and by which point we must be advanced enough in mass space travel and terraforming to spread throughout the galaxy.

If this were a story you were writing, you'd have a continuity problem on the order of Teen Jesus. There is currently exactly a 0% chance that we will have fucking intergalactic space travel and the ability to terraform a goddamn planet before we suck this one dry. Here's hoping though!

>5. Everything is ultimately subjective or intersubjective, epistemologically speaking. Value is subjective. Perception is subjective. Happiness is subjective. You don't know what's good for other people better than they know themselves.

People who spout this kind of shit are usually interested in taking things that they value away from people who also might value those things, and trying to convince them that they didn't really value it in the first place.

All in all, you strike me as a rather immature individual of mediocre intelligence and a low level of self actualization.

[Implying !!OwMMiDsuHLo No.1229799]

>>1229788
You make poor guesses, young virgin.

Stay in school.

[Anonymous No.1229802]

>>1229797
>no arguments, just assertion

[Anonymous No.1229811]

>>1228067
>No arguments, just assertion

O U

[Anonymous No.1229815]

>>1229797
>ethically immature

[Anonymous No.1229825]

>>1229815
mad detected

[Truman Capote !kwxizAOFlk No.1229840]

>>1229825
>>1229825

AHAHAH LOLOLOL UMAD LLOL LXD XD XD HAHAHAHAHAHA LOLOL SO MUCH BUTTHURT HAHAHAHAHAH XDX XD XD XD LOLOLL XD

[Anonymous No.1229857]

market anarchist here, you seem like a troll but i chuckled nonetheless