:cheerleader:
Remember: every little bit helps :)
Printable View
:cheerleader:
Remember: every little bit helps :)
The free market will solve it.
Who even makes this claim? Economists surely don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
LOL "ecological debt" the hilarious things liberals come up with.
I seem to recall you as a keen proponent of the "nation state as a household" analogy (shitty as it is) when discussing economical policy, how about seeing the planet as a household? Your income is 1370 watts per square meter. Right now we're blowing through dad's savings account in the form of oil and gas, but you know what happens when you blow through savings accounts, right? Now it's up to you to feed the household of 7 billion people (and change) 3 pork tenderloins every single day, on 1370 watts per square meter. Go on, mister wizard, we're all waiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Explain yourself, i want to know what a young-earth creationist finds "hilarious"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Interesting idea. I find the concept logically dubious but emotionally compelling.
I've been trying to find some pro-nuclear environmental groups to contribute to, but can't seem to find any.
In a nutshell, creationists believe only GOD can end the Earth and/or mankind. Since GOD created all things -- universes, planets, suns, stars, and all life.....only GOD can end them. In His infinite wisdom, GOD wouldn't have commanded Man to go forth and prosper, using fruits from air, land, sea, or other creatures....that could turn out to be Man killing Mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Creationists don't seem to have an explanation for the things Man has created which threaten multiple species, or the planet. Not limited to nuclear bombs or biological weapons. GOD gave Man dominion over Earth. Drill Baby, Drill.
You're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
So who exactly owns this nature and will be reimbursed if it's damaged? In fact, explain to me how exactly the free market will solve this? Because I've heard similar things about polluting etc, and I'm, well, skeptical to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But pollution problems of yesteryear have been resolved. :o Please quote the biggest pollution scare stories of 100-200 years ago and compare them to today's scare stories. Are they the same or not?
Please compare doomladen ecological predictions from centuries past and compare to what's actually happened today and let me know how many have come true?
*blinkers* Indeed the price of Earth-stock has historically always tended to rise *blinkers *Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Doomladen prediction are mostly shit anyway, so that's no surprise. In the meantime, however, fine particle air pollution kills hundreds of thousands every year, which has decreased, by the way, due to heavy regulation on coal industry, not because of capitalism. And keep in mind that happened to a lot of toxic pollutants as well. Why do you think, say, cadmium pollution has decreased? I'll give a hint: government regulations. Why do you think there hasn't been as much smog in London since the great smog, as opposed to, say, big cities in China or Mexico? Maybe something to do with the clean air act that followed it? In LA the number of worst smog incidents decreased from hundreds to a few, thanks to... strict regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And "pollution problems of yesteryear have been resolved" my arse - since the 1980s the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico has roughly doubled, while the one in the North Sea is improving because of environmental policies; in New Zealand pollution by farmers has lead to a river being too polluted to be touched by humans, according to health regulations; you can't eat fish caught in the Sydney harbour because it contains too much dioxins, and is expected to last for decades, and that is after a clean up; those dioxins were released, coincidentally, by Union Carbide, which also was responsible for Bhopal, which, by the way, still isn't cleaned up thirty years later (and the boss is still wanted in India, but isn't extradited by the US); and you have tonnes of plastic floating around the oceans for years. Yeah, everything is obviously fine and dandy.
Also, come to think of it, I'm not really familiar with any pollution scare stories from 200 years ago, to be honest, considering the industrial revolution was still going on then the situation is also not really comparable to now, is it?
So, since you failed to answer my questions, who owns nature? I suppose the government is responsible there, and has indeed filed lawsuits to compensate their expenses for cleaning up chemical spills etc. But if they are responsible, surely they also have the power to regulate emissions into it. Besides, doesn't this make it fair game to dump whatever you want in the ocean in international waters?
Second, since you haven't answered how capitalism is supposed to combat pollution.. I assume the rationale is that if a company fucks something up, the affected can sue em to get compensated. This will lead to companies pre-empting this by preventing major pollution in the first place, right? If you can agree to that, I can outline a long list of problems with that ;)
PS I know I shifted towards pollution, but regarding resources, the only thing capitalism addressed (together with scientific advancement) is replacing a used up resource with something else. Using the budget analysis, we spent all our savings, but luckily we can still mortgage the house..
Rand and I may see this differently, but capitalism combats pollution by adapting to new circumstances. Some of those circumstances can be outright phaseouts/bans of pollutants that society truly wants to ban. We've been able to do that with a number of ozone-depleting pollutants.
But these kinds of phaseouts are much more effective than all these taxing schemes, which I increasingly suspect are popular with bureaucrats simply because they see money.
Comparing a nation to a household is simplistic but more or less accurate. There are only so many things you can do with debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
1. Pay it. (Works like a household).
2. Let inflation eat away at the real cost of the debt.
Have yet to hear a serious politician state that their plan to deal with the debt is to devalue their currency and make the dollar weaker. Liberals actually support this plan but I have yet to hear a serious Democratic candidate for president put forth that position.
You didn't actually answer the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Good post :up:
Pinning hopes on "free market capitalism" to address and solve environmental issues has inherent problems and conflicts-of-interest. First of all, 'free markets' is a misnomer, because they can't function 'free' of regulations or laws. Secondly, 'capitalism' means those with the most capital (money) also have the most power and leverage over politicians and legislators. Deep pockets can buy lobbyists, lawyers, even 'expert scientists' who will distort or deny science itself. :bulb:
That corporate capital also flows to information via journalism, news media, social media....and before ya know it we have fights in a propaganda war, instead of addressing real issues with long-term, global impacts. It'd be nice if the extreme right would stop denying there are environmental problems caused by man, that man should address, and it'd be nice if the extreme left would stop hating on man so much that we're considered an interloper species, and destroyers of the planet.
So you're saying capitalism doesn't go against pollution at all, but it's great at adapting to new circumstances like a ban? I guess that shows that government bans are a-okay then!Quote:
Rand and I may see this differently, but capitalism combats pollution by adapting to new circumstances. Some of those circumstances can be outright phaseouts/bans of pollutants that society truly wants to ban. We've been able to do that with a number of ozone-depleting pollutants.
But these kinds of phaseouts are much more effective than all these taxing schemes, which I increasingly suspect are popular with bureaucrats simply because they see money.
I would also like to point out the vast majority of government interference to combat pollution are not tax schemes but regulations and bans, on things like emissions, dumping waste, etc., and that it's also not that unreasonable to tax pollution considering the government tends to be the one footing the bill on it, and the main reason it's used in the first place is as an economic incentive as an alternative to regulations and bans, to have capitalism find the solution, not the other way around.
Capitalism doesn't "combat" pollution at all. If it were doing so it wouldn't be capitalism.
Capitalism targets problems and deals with them, you just need the right incentives.
If the problem is a lack of finite resources (as this OP campaign is about) then capitalism is great at resolving that issue and finding either more or better ways to exploit resources. It is totally ignorant of history and reality to presume that scientific and technological developments won't be able to develop further.
Luddites :rolleyes:
You do know that our earth is actually finite? As in: Has known mass, radius and thus also finite resources?
That's not "luddism", my dear. Maybe you should look up the term as you're not knowing what it means.
There's this joke of a man who jumps of a skyscraper. He has fallen 200 meters and thinks to himself: "Well, up to now everything has been just fine! No reason to worry, I'm sure the rest of the way will be equally good."
No one is saying we need to dismantle electrical looms to preserve jobs, but there is still a finite amount of electricity to be had on this here Earth. You, quite literally, seem to believe there is a magical solution to generating infinite amounts of power and chemicals, just because that's what capitalism calls for. The Komsomol couldn't have done a better job at brain-washing.
I do like the cute smilie, though.
Edit: God damnit Khen don't tell him about the etymology of luddite :mad:
Don't worry. Just like Lewk doesn't really get Christianity, Rand seems to be equally incapable of understanding Luddism. :p
Or the simple experiment of a bacteria colony on a petri dish, but the free market will fix it.
Yea, and I verily say to you my brothers, put verily forth thy faith into ye free markets for they verily shall fix everything! Hallelujah!
/edit: Not enough verily
Where incentives = profits right? Because it wouldn't be capitalism* if incentives = good of humanity, but no profits, or even a net monetary loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
*It could still be capitalism, but it would be a poor application of it.
Quorum SensingQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I'm not sure whether that's free markets or fascism.
I'd like to think that humanity is more intelligent than a bunch of amoebas but frankly, given our track record, I'm not that sure.
You need look no further than Randy and his magic market elves to find depression and disappointment in your species.
That's extraordinarily naïve and presupposes that there are perfect solutions--that are PALATABLE to us--to which we can arrive through capitalism. What you're expressing is just another version of the same faith that "informs" the religious and it is a faith that is totally removed from a reality in which we often find ourselves to be "too late" or find ourselves fatally constrained, eg. by the physical world, by ethical considerations, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And that's without even getting into the "right incentives" handwaving :rolleyes:
Technically capitalism will fix the resource problem, just in a non-palatable way. As a resource becomes scarcer, its price will increase due to lowered supply and either stable or increasing demand. As its price increases, fewer people will be able to purchase it, leading to less of it being used. Eventually as it become incredibly rare, very few people will be able to afford it. So a few hundred years from now only eccentric rich people will be loading helium into party balloons instead of expensive medical equipment or scientific devices. This is of course a funny hypothetical situation, not an actual statement on helium scarcity in the future.
Y'all are so bad. 20 years ago liberals were complaining that we were going to run out of oil to use. Still going strong. Even if oil runs out it just means we'll use another resource. We are centuries (if not further) from having a true shortage of materials needed to create energy.
Liberals 30 years ago talked about the mass starvation just around the corner. News flash - we are still making plenty of food and now have record levels of population.
Every time liberals have claimed sky is falling bull shit the free market has solved the issue. Enough with the fear mongering and just relax.
And which other resource besides oil will we use? Do you even know what oil is used for besides combustion engines?
And how efficient will this other resource be? You're deluded.
I'm curious how he plans to replace water. Hes from Texas right? Where 30 cities are planning to be dry by the end of the year because of fracking
Seriously even you can come up with a better argument than that can't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If you really want to go down that route (I don't) then yes the Earth's mass is known. It is 5.972E24 Kg
Since we're past this overshoot how much are we over-using that mass by? If you really want to go down that route? How long would it take to even make a nudge in that figure?
Luddites are those who oppose technological progress which is what we are achieving. Apparently according to the muppets who sprout crap about "overshoot" we're using more resources than can be supported but there's some magical reason why technological progress is going to halt? Despite all progress already getting made let alone future developments :rolleyes:Quote:
That's not "luddism", my dear. Maybe you should look up the term as you're not knowing what it means.
I suppose you and Nessus and anyone else who is sprouting this ideology and refuses to countenance the idea and usage of progress (pretty much the definition of Luddism yes) believe that anyone working is scientific research, education, technological developments, R&D, business development etc, etc are all wasting their time?
Maybe you believe we should get rid of all those scientists etc as we can't have any more progress and they should be doing something you consider productive like farming for more resources?
Personally I think that'd be silly but its all you seem to respect.
No, scientific solutions. I hate to break it to you Farmer Joe but Science isn't Magic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
No the doomsday scenarios which have time and again for centuries been shown to be bullshit and rely on the idea that centuries of progress will grind to a complete and sudden STOP are no different to the doomsday religious "The End Is Nigh" scenarios which have time and again for centuries have been shown to be bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I don't believe in religious garbage, or pseudo-scientific garbage that relies upon science coming to a halt.
We already have alternatives being researched. Sorry that you think scientists are wasting their time when they could be farming for the Party comrade but I respect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No, but when you use the phrase "Science will solve it" in the same way you'd use the phrase "a wizard did it", then it shows that you're confusing one with the other.Quote:
No, scientific solutions. I hate to break it to you Farmer Joe but Science isn't Magic.
Not when science has been solving it for centuries. When your argument relies on sciencing coming to a grinding halt without providing any evidence as to why you want to believe that then that is not credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This term of Earth Overshoot Day is new having been coined in recent years, the concept behind it has been misused for centuries though. There is a far older term not from the 21st century, not from the 20th century or 19th century but back from the 18th century. The Malthusian catastrophe.
When you want to go for centuries claiming "the end is nigh" then I'm not going to take you seriously. Come up with some evidence that something's changed - some evidence that science has stopped developing and you believe all scientists are redundant. But nobody will. Because its not true. So we'll just repackage old paranoia's and cry the end is nigh once again and just IGNORE science.
There has been no truth in the theories of Malthus for centuries and there isn't now. It is not from a right-wing capitalist viewpoint Friedrich Engels criticised it and I agree with his criticism dating back to 1844: "[Scientific] progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population" - that has been true since it was written 169 years ago through to today.
First of all, you didn't even get Luddism right. But Nessus has forbidden me from explaining it to you and, frankly, you probably won't understand the distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Secondly, pray tell me where we are "opposing" technological progress.
I mean, I studied and am teaching Chemistry and Physics, both areas stuffed to the brim with technology. I am also one of the technological advisors at my school, one of the guys my colleagues turn to when they want to know which new tools have come up. This should give you a hint that our opposition to your arguments does not exactly stem from an opposition to science and technology.
Hint: If you told us that we'd reach Alpha Centauri in the next ten years, we'd also tell you that you're an idiot.
We're telling you that there's in all likelihood a limit to what technology is able to achieve without upsetting the current order catastrophically. I mean, I'd like to think that we'd get FTL drives and cornucopia machines and whatnot, I'm not opposed to that technology at all. It's just that we won't reach that level.
At the moment you're looking rather foolish. I mean, do you accuse your wife of being a luddite just because she tells you that your car won't make that next curve in the road if you're driving faster than 80 km/h?
Well I'm glad RB has decided that austerity is unnecessary and that science will solve all problems associated with govt. deficits etc.
If I was driving at just 50mph and told me that my car wouldn't make the next curve in the road on the motorway because of that then I'd want her to stop back seat driving as it would. :p
Yes there may be a theoretical limit but we've not shown any hint of reaching such a limit. There has been no evidence provided AT ALL in this thread that this Malthusian nonsense parroted for centuries in one form or another is scientifically accurate now with regards to reasonable future technology.