Basic Rights versus Earned Rights

Thanks @theskafish, everything I say is never completely original, I admit that, we just have our own spin on interpretation we have gleaned.

But this is not about forcing any business to do anything they do not want to do. So get that out of your head, this is not a suggestion of dictatorship. In business you make investments, some work out, others do not. This is a reasonable suggestion of how we can increase the consumer base, meaning greater profits to business, and eliminating the horrendous attributes of our world in the process.
Yes it costs, but as does every single investment one can gamble on, this is no different from a typical business opportunity, a calculated risk, but it is a risk we are taking on providing a kindness, that simply sweetens the deal.

Actually I’m 136 I.Q 4 points short of genius :)

@tigerturban, Because I am looking for people to prove me wrong before I make a jack-ass of myself and waste the time of people who are too busy to waste on idealism.

@tigerturban, @thelaughingfool, This is taken directly from this thread http://www.highexistence.com/topic/what-is-your-way-of-restoring-your-faith-in-humanity/

That is right, there is no right or wrong, good or bad, but there are these two distinct factors about everything: Contructive relationships and destructive forces in nature are the fundamental manifestation, but as that translates to human beings is as empathy/apathy, kindness/ignorance and love/fear. (to name the key factors)
In the causality of everything, we have what I think is best described as Yin/Yang because it does not place a possitive/negative connotation on anything, but they all correspond in the order I placed them because fundamentally they all share the same characteristics.
As in nature you can see that there are “bad” contructive relationships, an example would be cancer, and likewise there are “good” destructive forces, certain treatments of cancer could be interpreted as such, or how tornados wipe out trailer trash. (there are heaps of real examples of this, you may be able to think of some yourself)
But as there is this flip in the benefits of the roles of these things on in the natural world, it would only make sense that the same is true regarding the human aspects that I mensioned. But as we take explosives to destroy a building (you may be familiar with) in the early days of this technology the results were chaotic, but in time we discovered ways to control the blast in a way to have less collateral damage at the site. So it would make sense that we find a way to focus the destructive forces of the human aspect appropriately also.
Why kindness is preferential over ignorance is obvious, but for the hell of it: We as humans are a constuctive relationship and as long as that relationship is constructive, we would not want to destroy it. Then when you look at our very nature, you see we respond to those key emotions love and fear, that for the most part we find things like babies and puppies a passive and nice sensation, whereas regardless of the exhilirating enjoyment fear often brings us (an aspect of that flip in benefits, as before) a threatening situation is usually tense, heightened, alarming.
(I also seen this video on how most of our 52 genes are inactive but the emotion of love touches down on more points in the sequence than fear, as though we some how get more out of our dna by love than we do from fear, I suppose more does not inherently suggest “better” but it makes some kind of point on an emotion/science level)

I am not perfect or all knowing at all, if I were I would have no weakness, and clearly I do have weakness if you scroll through this whole thread.

Pretty much the only option is if we could organize enough people world wide to rally boycotts against any company that refuses to do it, well I can dream.
The thing is, there are probably about 50 or so companies that would really need to be on board, you would probably have to boycott them one by one, with tens of millions of people world wide collaborating. Not impossible to do, especially if it trends.

But considering there is the Kyoto protocol, that nations are signatories to, why isn’t there a similar pact for the elimination of poverty? Kyoto is actually against some of the big industries, but eliminating poverty is in everyones interest, especially the big industries, as it creates a larger consumer base.