Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I don't think happiness is the main goal of live and adoption is an option.

Surely, happiness discussion might get very broad. What I want to stress is having decent chances for happiness, love.

I appreciate your concern of life in nature, and of exploited human lives. But is there anything could and should be done? What is here the "right" conservative attitude? Why protection of fetus could be enforced, while protection of nature and human dignity not?

How fair conservatives should decide which problems and threats require common attention and contribution? If it is becoming clear that human suffering increases with forced supply of cheap cheap labour force, and that the Earth is suffering from hyper-consumption by humans (and perhaps overpopulation), why stick to stubborn creeds that evidently magnify bad troubles and risks? That does not look ethically intelligent.

I wonder what happened to the notion of conservativism   as the attitude not to be over-enthusiastic with new ideas or enforcement possibilities. In this light, Krugman's "quarter" size determination is pretty conservative: make first limited steps, see how that works in America, and then - why not - possibly go another "quarter" further. He is not advocating Germany to shift by 3 quarters towards American social relations, is he?

It is the European pro-corporate reformists who look more like some "progressive follies" than conservative. European social networks were not breaking - why to reform so eagerly? Is globalization competition really that vitally overwhelming and sustainable?

(As for free market reducing international inequality, there are different opinions of it; see here and here.)

by das monde on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 02:16:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

DoDo 4


Occasional Series