Did a quick search, but didn't find any discussions on this topic. Wanted to get a feel for what the Mises community had to say:
Jevon's Paradox
Does this imply some sort of inherent insatiability in our current social structures?
Why is this a paradox? And why would this imply some sort of inherent insustainability of our current social structures?
If an energy source becomes cheaper - through more efficient supply and/or use - then the initiation and expansion of certain enterprises will be seen as more affordable (all other things being equal), leading to increased consumption of the energy source. But this, in turn, would raise the demand for the energy source, and the increased demand would raise the cost of the energy source back up.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Gotlucky,
It is a paradox because increases in efficiency lead to increases in consumption.
I'm asking if it does, because no matter how efficient processes become, consumption of resources will forever increase, which is unsustainable. I was wondering what the community had to say about this.
Autolykos,
Doesn't the increased resource cost spur research into higher efficiency? That would just start the cycle over again, until the resource is completely exhausted.
Capital accumulation and advances in technology drive down the cost of production -> it becomes possible to profitably sell whatever you're making for a lower price -> more and more people can afford your product, and so more and more people buy it.
This isn't a paradox; this is capitalism. The whole point is to make what people want as cheaply as possible - to drive that which is scarce towards non-scarcity.
Jackson LaRose:It is a paradox because increases in efficiency lead to increases in consumption.
It can lead to increases in total consumption, yes. But the per-firm consumption could actually decrease.
Jackson LaRose:Doesn't the increased resource cost spur research into higher efficiency?
It can also spur research into alternative energy sources.
Jackson LaRose:That would just start the cycle over again, until the resource is completely exhausted.
See above. Also, when would e.g. coal be completely exhausted?
Jackson LaRose: It is a paradox because increases in efficiency lead to increases in consumption.
Why is that a paradox? Think about it in terms of gas and cars. When the cost of gas rose, people drove less. When gas prices go down, they drive more. Why is this a paradox? If something costs less to use, then - depending upon the good - people will use more of it. They might not use more if it is something that is fixed, such as the amount of insulin a diabetic requires, as he gains nothing by purchasing more of it. But there are things that people would like to use more if they can, and energy is one of those, as energy enables them to do more things.
I just don't see the contradiction here.
Jackson LaRose: I'm asking if it does, because no matter how efficient processes become, consumption of resources will forever increase, which is unsustainable. I was wondering what the community had to say about this.
You are missing some extra variables here. Autolykos already mentioned one, which is that as more people demand the resource, the price goes up. Even if it is a resource than can be mined super cheaply, if the demand increases, the price will increase. However, I think you are asking about over a long period of time, such as one or two hundred years. But this point still stands. If there is not a lot of coal left, the price will go up because the supply is lower. This will slow down the use of coal.
This leads me to my next point. When the price of a resource rises, the result is that other resources become more profitable to make. This leads to people finding other sources of energy. And as the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. If there is no need to use other resources, then there really won't be any research into using these other resources.
This is one of the main problems with subsidizing corn and ethanol. It's not really cheaper to use ethanol as a fuel, but because of the subsidies, people waste resources into making and using ethanol as a fuel. There is no necessity in using ethanol as a fuel source, and it is currently a waste of resources to use it as one. What people need are a reason to come up with other energy sources, and that reason can only come from wanting to spend less money on energy. But you can't dictate what should be the next energy source. Subsidizing energy sources only wastes resources and time for looking into something that isn't profitable. If you want there to be a real solution, subsidies need to be eliminated so that entrepreurs can see what solutions are profitable (and therefore not a waste of resources). Anyway, this paragraph is quite the tangent.
Basically, coal will not be a main fuel source forever. There will be research and technology that allows us to use other sources of energy more efficiently. People are already doing this, but the subsidies distract entrepreneurs from profitable (i.e. not wasteful) uses of energy towards unprofitable (i.e. wasteful) uses of energy.
Increased efficiency leads to increased assumption, that sounds like common sense not a paradox.
consumption of resources will forever increase, which is unsustainable. Consumption of resources isn't elimination of matter. Consumption therefore implies transformation. Why is transformation of matter unsustainable? EDIT: Also, it appears Jevon didn't understand economics (plus I didn't read the entire wiki). Increased demand for a resource will cause, to the extent possible (much greater extent without government intervention), increased production of that resource, which as the resource is used up will cause increased exploration into alternatives. It seems he, along with most other economists, are guilty of the fallacy that we are stuck with a certain structure and no technological progress will solve the problems, but that's just plain ignorant of history. The problem of course is government intervention; government is the primary impedement to production of scarce resources and exploration into alternatives.
DOUBLE EDIT: As expected, the wiki doesn't discuss the fact that as a resource becomes more used, its producers become more rich and capable of expanding production and seeking alternatives. Apparently, they assume static production? Static production in the face of increased demand, that's the paradox, and the answer as always is to remove the roadblock: government.
gamma_rat,
Does your statement imply that capitalism is unsustainable given a world of scarcity? Does the "end of capitalism" necessarily equate to a complete satisfaction of desires? Does this presuppose that "what people want" is necessarily material?
gamma_rat:The whole point is to make what people want as cheaply as possible
Does market failure contradict this statement?
Addressing the alternative sources argument:
If we remain on energy, I can't fathom how this is sustainable. Any sort of fossilized hydrocarbon energy source (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) is essentially stored solar energy (sunlight > photosynthesis > plants > fossil fuel). We have built our entire economy around this stored energy. It's almost as if industrial civilization runs on this huge battery.
Much like fossil fuels, renewables have the sun as their genesis (solar, biomass, wind, etc.). The problem with this is that it is rather daunting to match renewable production levels with current non-renewable consumption levels. Only so much sunlight hits the planet, only so much of it can be harnessed, and the current conversion methods (pv cells, plant photosynthesis, etc.) are not very efficient, and we need somewhere to do everything else, so it would be tough to devote the planet entirely to energy production. Also, allowing for market failure, and the NAP, it become difficult to envision everyone single-mindedly acting towards this goal.
Addressing the conservation of matter argument:
This assumes current industrial production is cyclical, which it isn't for the most part (see: landfill). Also, when resources are exploited, the landbase typically degrades (soil erosion, groundwater pollution, species extinction, etc.) meaning that the second go around is rarely as productive as the first (Jordan was a forest once, for instance. Now it is a salty desert.). Even if that were to change to a completely cyclical method of production, due to the impossiblility of perpetual motion, there still must be an external energy input. This leads back to the second paragraph of this post.
Jackson LaRose: If we remain on energy, I can't fathom how this is sustainable.
If we remain on energy, I can't fathom how this is sustainable.
Well that's the beauty of innovation. Just because you can't fathom increased efficiency of energy sources (and making use of currently unprofitable sources) doesn't mean that someone else out of the billions upon billions of people that are currently alive and yet to be born can't fathom it too.
How poetic. Seems to completely disregard the whole physics of the issue, though.
Not really. There are oil wells that have refilled, despite people believing they were near empty. There is a lot of information that we just don't know. Why are you assuming we know everything now?
LOL, no. My epistemological skepticism has been hashed out here in the past. But this seems like a goofy escape hatch into utopianianism. Imean, who knows? Maybe Jesus and Krishna will head on down and turn the world into a swingin' luau! We must presuppose some constants to have any sort of discussion, so how about it? This just seems like a big red herring.
Jackson LaRose:Addressing the alternative sources argument: If we remain on energy, I can't fathom how this is sustainable. Any sort of fossilized hydrocarbon energy source (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) is essentially stored solar energy (sunlight > photosynthesis > plants > fossil fuel). We have built our entire economy around this stored energy. It's almost as if industrial civilization runs on this huge battery. Much like fossil fuels, renewables have the sun as their genesis (solar, biomass, wind, etc.). The problem with this is that it is rather daunting to match renewable production levels with current non-renewable consumption levels. Only so much sunlight hits the planet, only so much of it can be harnessed, and the current conversion methods (pv cells, plant photosynthesis, etc.) are not very efficient, and we need somewhere to do everything else, so it would be tough to devote the planet entirely to energy production. Also, allowing for market failure, and the NAP, it become difficult to envision everyone single-mindedly acting towards this goal.
In the course of a year, Earth receives 3.85 x 10^24 joules of energy from the Sun.1 As of 2008, human civilization supplied only about 5.18 x 10^20 joules and used only about 3.53 x 10^20 joules in the course of a year.2 Assuming a solar-cell efficiency of 14% (and not counting other energy-conversion inefficiencies)3, a single square kilometer of solar cells would generate, "on average"4, about 1.06 x 10^15 joules of energy per year. Nearly 333,000 square kilometers would then be needed to be covered with solar cells in order to generate enough energy for current human needs. A square with sides a little more than 577 kilometers long would form such an area. This area represents less than 0.07% of Earth's surface.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Energy_from_the_Sun
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Energy_supply_and_end_use
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#Comparison_of_energy_conversion_efficiencies
4. The phrase "on average" is here used as shorthand for dividing the total yearly solar energy input to Earth by Earth's surface area.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, no. My epistemological skepticism has been hashed out here in the past. But this seems like a goofy escape hatch into utopianianism. Imean, who knows? Maybe Jesus and Krishna will head on down and turn the world into a swingin' luau! We must presuppose some constants to have any sort of discussion, so how about it? This just seems like a big red herring.
Well, first I'd like to say that Autolykos made a great post right above. There really are alternative energy sources to natural gas (nuclear and solar come to mind), and as Autolykos showed, theoretically we could supply current human needs with solar power. But at what cost? That is the important point. Solar power is simply too expensive with the current technology. As there are advances in knowledge and technology, solar power will probably continue to get cheaper. I don't know how much cheaper, but surely it won't remain as expensive as it is now forever?
Second, I'd like to quote a little bit from Michael Crichton's lecture Aliens Cause Global Warming. I know that the main subject is off topic, but what I am about to quote is not:
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about. Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it. So, I understand that you might like to straw man my position and talk about Jesus fixing the world's problems, but that's not really what I'm getting at, which is quite clear in the quote above. LibertyHQ and its awesome forum. | Post Points: 5
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what
How poetic. Seems to completely disregard the whole physics of the issue, though. You can't present a non-argument built on fallacies and then say anyone who points out the fallacy is disregarding physics.
Addressing the alternative sources argument: If we remain on energy, I can't fathom how this is sustainable. The idea was that as a scarce resource is diminished, alternatives are sought. The fact that you can't fathom alternatives and still argue like you have a clue is entirely irrelevant.
Addressing the conservation of matter argument: This assumes current industrial production is cyclical, which it isn't for the most part (see: landfill). Again, your lack of creativity has no bearing on the fact that as a resource is diminished, alternatives will be sought and, if humanity is to persist, will be found.
So you posit a landfill. If that's all we're left with in the future, then if humanity is to survive we will find a way to produce the desired resource from landfills.
There is no paradox. The problem is lack of thinking.
Doesn't this assume that demand for the good increases or that the consumer perceives that there are no subsitutable goods for the end in question? I mean, what if the production of kerosene increased to such little cost so as to be $.01 per unit, down from $2.50 per unit, but I didn't care because I preferred to use electricity or gasoline (for whatever use for which kerosene, electricity, or gasoline can be used)?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
All this futurism is well and good, but everyone here seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room: How can you reconcile an infinite growth model with a finite planet (solar system, galaxy, whatever)? Also, how are you all so confident that "technology" will always outpace ecological overshoot?
Most of what I've seen thus far is technology worship and ad hominems about me being "small-minded" or "lacking creativity". If you want small minded, let's talk about being entirely reductionist, materialistic, ignorant of the most basic ecology, and entirely human-centric. Will technology produce synthetic food when we can no longer grow/raise/catch it? Will technology allow us to live in climate controlled domes because we've poisoned the air? Has technology saved us thus far from the rash of autism/allergies that our crippling young people? Will technology swoop in in time to rescue China from a dust bowl that threatens to turn 37% of its farmland to desert before they invade someone? Perhaps, but that seems like cold comfort to me.
Jackson LaRose:How can you reconcile an infinite growth model with a finite planet (solar system, galaxy, whatever)?
Is this what you really wanted your thread to be about? Because I didn't get that from the OP at all. Why didn't you bring this up explicitly in the OP? It seems to me like you're kinda being dishonest here. (No, this isn't an ad hominem, because this has nothing to do with refuting whatever argument you're actually trying to make.)
Jackson LaRose:Also, how are you all so confident that "technology" will always outpace ecological overshoot?
I don't see how you can read such confidence out of the responses. But are you simply trying to make us think the way you want us to? Or what?
Jackson LaRose:Most of what I've seen thus far is technology worship and ad hominems about me being "small-minded" or "lacking creativity".
Please point out exactly where you think I have engaged in "technology worship". (I don't see where I made any ad hominem arguments against you, so I see no need to ask you where I made any.)
Jackson LaRose:Will technology produce synthetic food when we can no longer grow/raise/catch it? Will technology allow us to live in climate controlled domes because we've poisoned the air? Has technology saved us thus far from the rash of autism/allergies that our crippling young people? Will technology swoop in in time to rescue China from a dust bowl that threatens to turn 37% of its farmland to desert before they invade someone? Perhaps, but that seems like cold comfort to me.
Why does it seem like cold comfort to you?
I wanted the thread to be a discussion about Jevon's Paradox (whether or not it actually is a paradox, that is what it's called, OK?). This led to the answer that it seemed obvious to everyone here (esp gamma_rat and hashem) that endless growth would be the consequence of capitalism, which seems to imply that capitalism is an infinite growth model (please, correct me if I'm wrong). Nobody seemed to find that peculiar at all, so I brought it back up. No dishonesty here, just were the conversation led. You are too paranoid sometimes.
As usual, your responses are courteous, autolykos. And as usual, you take general statements personally. It isn't always about you, unfortunately. How can I read such confidence? Well, I think you should re-read the responses. Very dismissive. A wave of the hand, and a self-assured, "meh, science will take care of it, you're talking crazy". Please, responders are welcome to correct me if I misinterpreted. All writers are propogandists
It's cold comfort because I am skeptical that our innovation can eternally outpace the ecological collapse that accompanies population overshoot. I also question the implicit ethical system you all seem to be operating from: "maximizing market share is the ultimate good". I also question that those who tout NAP so loudly would be fine with time deferred violence to future generations by literally poisoning their homes. I also question the idea of NAP for "humans" only, since that definition is rather prone to breaking down when subjected to philosophical scrutiny (tons of threads about NAP towards children, coma patients, immobile, the disabled, etc.).
If production is not infinitely sustainable, I would argue that it is therefore violent. Of course, that may be a whole new thread...
Jackson LaRose:Autolykos, I wanted the thread to be a discussion about Jevon's Paradox (whether or not it actually is a paradox, that is what it's called, OK?). This led to the answer that it seemed obvious to everyone here (esp gamma_rat and hashem) that endless growth would be the consequence of capitalism, which seems to imply that capitalism is an infinite growth model (please, correct me if I'm wrong). Nobody seemed to find that peculiar at all, so I brought it back up. No dishonesty here, just were the conversation led. You are too paranoid sometimes [sic].
I wanted the thread to be a discussion about Jevon's Paradox (whether or not it actually is a paradox, that is what it's called, OK?). This led to the answer that it seemed obvious to everyone here (esp gamma_rat and hashem) that endless growth would be the consequence of capitalism, which seems to imply that capitalism is an infinite growth model (please, correct me if I'm wrong). Nobody seemed to find that peculiar at all, so I brought it back up. No dishonesty here, just were the conversation led. You are too paranoid sometimes [sic].
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant no dishonesty. But I categorically disagree that I'm "too paranoid sometimes". You're free to think what you want, but I'm just as free to disagree with you.
Jackson LaRose:As usual, your responses are courteous, autolykos. And as usual, you take general statements personally. It isn't always about you, unfortunately.
The general statement you made was about the responses you've gotten. As one of the responders, it certainly seemed to me like I was included in your general statement. However, I can't speak for anyone but myself, which is why I addressed your general statement only as it applied to me personally. I don't see how that in any way means that I think "it's always about me". Perhaps you can provide some explanation there.
Now with that said, I still don't see where I may have engaged in any "technology worship". Please either point it out or explicitly concede that I have not engaged in any such thing.
Jackson LaRose:It's cold comfort because I am skeptical that our innovation can eternally outpace the ecological collapse that accompanies population overshoot.
That brings up the question as to when population overshoot would occur for humanity on a global level. What are your thoughts there?
Otherwise, so what if you're skeptical? Are you really looking for us to change your mind, or are you just looking for some way to validate your skepticism to yourself?
Jackson LaRose:I also question the implicit ethical system you all seem to be operating from: "maximizing market share is the ultimate good". I also question that those who tout NAP so loudly would be fine with time deferred violence to future generations by literally poisoning their homes. I also question the idea of NAP for "humans" only, since that definition is rather prone to breaking down when subjected to philosophical scrutiny (tons of threads about NAP towards children, coma patients, immobile, the disabled, etc.).
"Maximizing market share is the ultimate good" is in no way the ethical system I'm operating from, either implicitly or explicitly. In fact, I'm at a loss to understand how you could infer that I am operating from that ethical system. I'd appreciate some explanation here.
The notion of "future generations' homes" being "poisoned" is irrelevant in the context of the OP, which concerns rate of energy consumption compared to energy efficiency. So I don't understand why you bring it up.
You can "question" the idea of NAP being for humans only all you want. But that doesn't mean your "questioning" will necessarily have any impact on anyone else. It's like you expect others to re-examine their beliefs simply because you say you "question" them. If so, then I suggest you abandon that expectation.
Jackson LaRose:If production is not infinitely sustainable, I would argue that it is therefore violent. Of course, that may be a whole new thread...
Are you thereby defining "violent" simply as "not infinitely sustainable"? Or is there a larger point you're trying to make?
Thinking about it further, specifically to you, Auto, I'd like to raise the point that your response about solar energy totally disregards Jevon's point! So what if we can harness all of the CURRENT needs, this will just increase demand that much faster!
That's because I wasn't responding to Jevons' point. I was responding to this claim of yours:
The problem with this is that it is rather daunting to match renewable production levels with current non-renewable consumption levels. Only so much sunlight hits the planet, only so much of it can be harnessed, and the current conversion methods (pv cells, plant photosynthesis, etc.) are not very efficient, and we need somewhere to do everything else, so it would be tough to devote the planet entirely to energy production.
I demonstrated that, at current energy consumption levels, it's hardly the case that the entire planet would have to be devoted to energy production if humanity used solar power for all of its current energy needs.
Now I'd appreciate a direct response to my last post.
You have engaged in technology worship
"we only need .07% of the Earth's surface covered with solar panels to provide all of the world's energy needs!"
As I posted above, this completely sidesteps Jevon's Paradox, and assumes vague "technology" will solve our problems later on. Technology worship.
I think population overshoot has already occured. Whenever you exceed a landbase's carrying capacity, you have overshot.
So what? I don't know! Good question! I am using the forum as a soundboard to test my ideas against the arguments and criticisms of others whose opinion I respect. If maybe it causes others to change their views, so be it. If it causes me to abandon an opinion and adopt another (it certainly has in the past), even better. I am trying to refine and clarify my thinking, and my positions.
Of course it is. Or maybe "maximize market share so long as you aren't 'violent' " or some such thing. It is implicit in capitalism, apparently.
Future generations being poisoned by current production is relevant in the context of your question, which concerned why I'm not very comforted by the notion of human craftyness outwitting ecological arithmetic. That question had little to do with the OP either, so let's try to keep the goalposts relevant to the discussion at hand, eh?
LOL, yeah, forgive me for expecting dogmatists to question their congnatively dissonant beliefs. It's sort of like invoking the cosmic indifference of conservation of matter when discussing coal, but vehemently spewing about "property" and "ownership" in the most human-centric, myopic way possible!
If you want some questions to ask yourself, how about
What is a "person"?
How is it possible to "own" something that will still be there when you are gone?
Why are only "people" capable of "homesteading"
Does Hoppe's argumentation ethics imply that you are not an "individual" (since you could not exist in a vacuum)?
Or, you could just tell me politely to shut up, since nobody is listening anyways.
No, I'll use webster's for the definition of "violence":
"exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)"
So, if production cannot be carried on indefinitely (i.e., is sustainable), it is essentially robbery of the future, which I consider violent. As I alluded to in my DIY question section, simple "ownership" is not an adequate rationalization of this deferred violence, because in reality, ownership is a rather finite concept, considering the ratio of your life compared to the life of the Earth. If we all agree that the Earth does not likely end with our personal deaths, I hope we can agree that "owning" is an extremely ephemeral concept, and a weak abstraction, in the grand scheme of things.
Because that whole "the earth is finite" thing is a fallacy. We can add substances to the group of "resources", therefore the set of resources in not finite. For example, oil wasn't a resource until the mid-19th century.
Also, growth isn't really infinite. Birth rates are already below stability in plenty of rich countries. Also, maintaining the same economic growth rate requires designating greater and greater shares of GDP to R&D, because of the falling utility of R&D.
Jackson LaRose:Autolykos, You have engaged in technology worship "we only need .07% of the Earth's surface covered with solar panels to provide all of the world's energy needs!" As I posted above, this completely sidesteps Jevon's Paradox, and assumes vague "technology" will solve our problems later on. Technology worship.
You omitted a very important word from what I wrote. That word is "current". So no, I don't see how I in any way assumed that vague "technology" will solve our (alleged) problems later on. I wasn't even presenting solar energy as a solution to anything - I was "merely" refuting your claim that the entire Earth would have to be covered in solar panels to meet humanity's current (there's that word again!) energy needs. Do you understand yet?
Jackson LaRose:I think population overshoot has already occured. Whenever you exceed a landbase's carrying capacity, you have overshot.
Well, I'd appreciate it if you would actually explain just how global population has already exceeded Earth's land carrying capacity. For someone who's quick to criticize others for being vague, you seem to have no problem being that way yourself.
Jackson LaRose:So what? I don't know! Good question! I am using the forum as a soundboard to test my ideas against the arguments and criticisms of others whose opinion I respect. If maybe it causes others to change their views, so be it. If it causes me to abandon an opinion and adopt another (it certainly has in the past), even better. I am trying to refine and clarify my thinking, and my positions.
By making vague assertions and asking rhetorical questions? I mean, just what are your ideas here? So far, it doesn't seem like we have much to go by. Plus being skeptical of something doesn't constitute an idea in and of itself.
Jackson LaRose:Of course it is. Or maybe "maximize market share so long as you aren't 'violent' " or some such thing. It is implicit in capitalism, apparently.
Of course what is? You know how to quote people using this forum software, don't you?
So even though I told you that "maximizing market share is the ultimate good" is in no way the ethical system that I'm operating from, you say that it nevertheless is. Either you think you know me better than I know myself, or you're calling me a liar. Which is it? And if you think that ethical system is implicit in capitalism, why don't you go right ahead and lay out, preferably in crystal-clear detail, just how it is?
Jackson LaRose:Future generations being poisoned by current production is relevant in the context of your question, which concerned why I'm not very comforted by the notion of human craftyness outwitting ecological arithmetic. That question had little to do with the OP either, so let's try to keep the goalposts relevant to the discussion at hand, eh?
Hey, you were the one who moved the goalposts in the first place. So why don't you go ahead and take your own advice? (You see, it's things like this which make me suspect that you're being less than honest.)
Jackson LaRose:LOL, yeah, forgive me for expecting dogmatists [sic] to question their congnatively dissonant [sic] beliefs. It's sort of like invoking the cosmic indifference of conservation of matter when discussing coal, but vehemently spewing [sic] about "property" and "ownership" in the most human-centric, myopic [sic] way possible!
Well if you're so assured that you're right and we're wrong, then you wouldn't feel the need to "test" your "ideas", now would you? So what's your real point with all of this?
Jackson LaRose:If you want some questions to ask yourself, how about
Wait, didn't you caution earlier against moving the goalposts? Apparently that's only a caution for your opponents to follow, not yourself.
Jackson LaRose:No, I'll use webster's for the definition of "violence": "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)" So, if production cannot be carried on indefinitely (i.e., is sustainable), it is essentially robbery of the future, which I consider violent. As I alluded to in my DIY question section, simple "ownership" is not an adequate rationalization of this deferred violence, because in reality, ownership is a rather finite concept, considering the ratio of your life compared to the life of the Earth. If we all agree that the Earth does not likely end with our personal deaths, I hope we can agree that "owning" is an extremely ephemeral concept, and a weak abstraction, in the grand scheme of things.
Doesn't robbery imply ownership? So are you saying that people who don't exist yet somehow own things that do exist? Otherwise, what is your basis for calling anything "robbery"?
A quick comment. A fall in the cost of the product doesn't necessarily raise demand, but quantity demanded. So, no, an increase in consumption must not necessarily lead to a rise price. Illustrated,
But, note, this assumes that the supply of the product rises (greater efficiency leads to more output per input). In the case of goods like petroleum, where the supply of the resource is limited in terms of natural stock, an increase in output is limited by the availability of the input. That is, the cost of the input rises as its supply falls, increasing the fixed costs of production.
@Jackson LaRose
I notice that you conviently ignored my post above, specifically in regards to the except from Michael Crichton's lecture.
Will technology produce synthetic food when we can no longer grow/raise/catch it?
Lab-grown meat is first step to artificial hamburger. See, that is currently too expensive now, but what about in 100 years from now? Maybe it still will be, maybe it won't. Who knows? The problem here is that you are trying to predict the future. You can't do it.
Will technology allow us to live in climate controlled domes because we've poisoned the air?
What do you think air conditioning is? Oh, you mean domes over whole cities? Who knows? People already build submarines which can stay underwater and recycle air and purify water. Who knows what kind of technology will be around in 100 or 200 years? Maybe something like that will take 1000 years, or maybe never! But why do you think the air is going to be poisoned when it isn't now?
As I said earlier, you cannot predict the future. The amount of variables and premises necessary to predict are infinite. A physicist might be able to say that if he drops a ball from his hand, it will land in X location at time Y, and using what he knows about theory and the known variables, he'll probably be right. But what happens if there is an unexpected gust of wind? That changes the premises.
Or consider doctors. They can say that if you are obsese, you have an X% chance of dying of a heart attack or whatever. The more premises they have, the more accurate their predictions become. But they cannot predict with 100% all the time.
What you are doing is saying that based on what you know, this is what will happen. But you cannot know for certain what will happen. You cannot know all the variables and premises necessary, yet you are predicting the world's problems.
I am saying that we do not know what will happen. There will be problems, and there will be solutions. If there aren't solutions and the problems are deadly, then humanity will die out. But if it will die out, then it will die out under any economic system, and there isn't much sense in worrying about it.
Autolykos:You omitted a very important word from what I wrote. That word is "current". So no, I don't see how I in any way assumed that vague "technology" will solve our (alleged) problems later on. I wasn't even presenting solar energy as a solution to anything - I was "merely" refuting your claim that the entire Earth would have to be covered in solar panels to meet humanity's current (there's that word again!) energy needs. Do you understand yet?
Well, considering the absurdity of the scenario, I had assumed you were leaning on nonexistant technology. Otherwise your "answer" is really uninformed. Ever hear of "transmission loss"? Or here's a novel concept: The sun doesn't always shine! In fact, it doesn't shine very much at all in some places! Also, where is the energy coming from to manufacture all of these PV panels? Assuming that fossil fuels are still cheap enought to allow manufacturing of these goods, why would people bother to produce them in a free market?
Do you understand yet?
Autolykos:Well, I'd appreciate it if you would actually explain just how global population has already exceeded Earth's land carrying capacity. For someone who's quick to criticize others for being vague, you seem to have no problem being that way yourself.
If you really cared to know, Google works wonders:
Has the Earth Reached It's Carrying Capacity?
Autolykos:I mean, just what are your ideas here? So far, it doesn't seem like we have much to go by. Plus being skeptical of something doesn't constitute an idea in and of itself.
LOL, you always ask this question. I figured you would've simply stopped engaging me by now, since Socratic Questioning seems to piss you off so. What do you want from me? I'm confused, too. The market makes sense to me, but the state doesn't. Can you still have "civilization" without the state? They arose hand in hand. Does the idea of production without violence make any sense? I honestly don't know, which is why I came here. Do I usually hang around and troll? No, I don't. I usually show up when I am in a philosophical bind, and need to argue my way out of it.
You have a rather nasty habit of veiling ad hominems in questions. I am not fooled.
Autolykos:Hey, you were the one who moved the goalposts in the first place. So why don't you go ahead and take your own advice? (You see, it's things like this which make me suspect that you're being less than honest.)
No. We were having a discussion that led away from the OP. God forbid! That NEVER happens on these forums! If you think I'm so shady, then just leave me alone, already! You always say this crap! We get it, you always think I'm trying to poison the intellectual wellspring of the mises.org forum with my veiled heterodox thinking! Who cares!
Autolykos:Well if you're so assured that you're right and we're wrong, then you wouldn't feel the need to "test" your "ideas", now would you? So what's your real point with all of this?
Sorry, but casual, arrogant dismissal pisses me off. Just because I don't just accept your critiques without some fireworks doesn't mean I'm not considering them. I've just seen crappy retorts so far, that's all. As you said, people who are actually considering their opinions don't just flip-flop all the time. So what is the real point of asking me over and over and over and over and over again what the real point is?
Autolykos:Doesn't robbery imply ownership?
I suppose so, yes.
Autolykos:So are you saying that people who don't exist yet somehow own things that do exist?
No, I'm saying "ownership" is an absurd concept. As an aside, none of us exist, on average.
Autolykos:Otherwise, what is your basis for calling anything "robbery"?
Well, I'm working off general Ancap ethics here.
If the following premises are granted:
1. Theft is a violent act.
2. Ownership is a temporary condition (People die).
3. The world does not end when one dies.
Then unsustainable production is theft.
This really has no bearing on the actual validity of any of the abstractions contained in these premises.
"How can you reconcile an infinite growth model with a finite planet (solar system, galaxy, whatever)?"
False dilemma, nobody is trying to reconcile that so its also a red herring. As I pointed out originally, IF humanity is to survive, then we WILL find a solution.
hashem,
What are you talking about? I am! That seems like a very pertinent question, presuming I desire to survive (using Hoppe's argumentation method, we all do).
Yes, if we survive, I suppose that means we found a solution. If we don't don't survive, then we didn't. How profound.
Now hashem with the weather:
"If the sun is out, it is sunny. If the the sun is not out, then it is not sunny."
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:A quick comment. A fall in the cost of the product doesn't necessarily raise demand, but quantity demanded. So, no, an increase in consumption must not necessarily lead to a rise price. Illustrated, But, note, this assumes that the supply of the product rises (greater efficiency leads to more output per input). In the case of goods like petroleum, where the supply of the resource is limited in terms of natural stock, an increase in output is limited by the availability of the input. That is, the cost of the input rises as its supply falls, increasing the fixed costs of production.
No, it doesn't necessarily raise demand, but if more people come to demand some amount of the product (i.e. as opposed to not demanding any of it), then that would raise demand, wouldn't it?
Jackson LaRose:Well, considering the absurdity of the scenario, I had assumed you were leaning on nonexistant technology. Otherwise your "answer" is really uninformed. Ever hear of "transmission loss"? Or here's a novel concept: The sun doesn't always shine! In fact, it doesn't shine very much at all in some places! Also, where is the energy coming from to manufacture all of these PV panels? Assuming that fossil fuels are still cheap enought to allow manufacturing of these goods, why would people bother to produce them in a free market? Do you understand yet?
You missed another important part of that post - the part where I said "not counting other energy-conversion inefficiencies". Also, you didn't say anything about transmission loss or the energy needed to manufacture all of the PV panels. You referred only to the inefficiency of current PV technology. So that's what I addressed. Do you understand yet?
Jackson LaRose:If you really cared to know, Google works wonders: Has the Earth Reached It's Carrying Capacity?
Posting another link doesn't count as making an explanation. Try again. (Hint: I want you to write out your own thoughts on this matter.)
Jackson LaRose:LOL, you always ask this question. I figured you would've simply stopped engaging me by now, since Socratic Questioning seems to piss you off so [sic]. What do you want from me? I'm confused, too. The market makes sense to me, but the state doesn't. Can you still have "civilization" without the state? They arose hand in hand. Does the idea of production without violence make any sense? I honestly don't know, which is why I came here. Do I usually hang around and troll? No, I don't. I usually show up when I am in a philosophical bind, and need to argue my way out of it.
For the record, Socratic Questioning does not piss me off. What pisses me off is you retreating into infinite skepticism whenever anything you say is challenged.
As far as I'm concerned, you haven't explained exactly what your alleged philosophical bind is. Maybe you could at least try to do so explicitly, instead of making vague statements and expecting the rest of us to be able to read your mind otherwise.
Jackson LaRose:You have a rather nasty habit of veiling ad hominems in questions. I am not fooled.
I didn't make any ad hominem argument, because I wasn't trying to refute an argument of yours. Nor was I trying to fool you in any way.
Jackson LaRose:No. We were having a discussion that led away from the OP. God forbid! That NEVER happens on these forums! If you think I'm so shady, then just leave me alone, already! You always say this crap! We get it, you always think I'm trying to poison the intellectual wellspring of the mises.org forum with my veiled heterodox thinking! Who cares!
So which is it? Do you want to stick to the OP or allow discussions that lead away from it? Make up your mind already.
Jackson LaRose:Sorry, but casual, arrogant dismissal pisses me off. Just because I don't just accept your critiques without some fireworks doesn't mean I'm not considering them. I've just seen crappy retorts so far, that's all. As you said, people who are actually considering their opinions don't just flip-flop all the time. So what is the real point of asking me over and over and over and over and over again what the real point is?
Perhaps you'd like to point out just where you think you've been casually and arrogantly dismissed.
I keep asking you what the real point is because your responses keep confusing me. It almost seems like they're intended to confuse me and/or others to the point of shutting up, at which point you'll presumably feel better about yourself because you will have "defeated" us. You're a lot like "Laotzu del Zinn" in that regard.
Jackson LaRose:I suppose so, yes.
Thank you. Therefore, if you deny ownership, then you must logically deny any notion of robbery.
Jackson LaRose:No, I'm saying "ownership" is an absurd concept. As an aside, none of us exist, on average.
Therefore "robbery" is an absurd concept, therefore your whole assertion that "unsustainable production = robbery" is absurd. Now I expect you to either modify your position because you don't want "unsustainable production = robbery" to be absurd, or - perhaps more likely - embrace absurdity.
Jackson LaRose:Well, I'm working off general Ancap ethics here.
Just what exactly do you think is "general Ancap ethics"?
Jackson LaRose:If the following premises are granted: 1. Theft is a violent act. 2. Ownership is a temporary condition (People die). 3. The world does not end when one dies. Then unsustainable production is theft. This really has no bearing on the actual validity of any of the abstractions contained in these premises.
No, that is a complete non sequitur. I don't see how the conclusion in any way follows from those premises.
Autolykos:You missed another important part of that post - the part where I said "not counting other energy-conversion inefficiencies". Also, you didn't say anything about transmission loss or the energy needed to manufacture all of the PV panels. You referred only to the inefficiency of current PV technology. So that's what I addressed. Do you understand yet?
LOL, sounds like someone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Only "current technology", but not any current limitations of technology? Magical thinking or stupidity. Do you understand yet?
Autolykos:Posting another link doesn't count as making an explanation. Try again. (Hint: I want you to write out your own thoughts on this matter.)
Who said you made the rules? My thought is the Earth has reached its carrying capacity. This is demonstrated by incessant declines in resources. I realize this is all very vague, but I am afraid of posting any links. You got me all tangled in this rhetorical catch-22 where I can't not cite because I'd be "too vague", and I can't cite because that "doesn't count as an argument" Well done, word wizard.
Ah hell, I'll do it anyways:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/land_deg/land_deg.html
Got lots more if you are interested. Deep water aquifers? The entire Middle East (cradle of civilization and the state, "coincidentally")? Fossil Fuels, minerals, forests, salmon/shad runs in the Connecticut River (my 'hood), etc.
This doesn't even get into the tipping points many vital ecological systems are heading towards. Do phytoplankton declines keep you up at night? It really should, if you are interested in survival.
Autolykos:For the record, Socratic Questioning does not piss me off. What pisses me off is you retreating into infinite skepticism whenever anything you say is challenged.
Sorry, but that's how it goes. Ask "Why?" enough times, and that will happen! I think maybe what you are trying to say is that you prefer fabricated abstractions to endless deconstruction? Maybe you want to find my sticking place, the one thing which I hold as immutably "true", from which I can build my entire "world"? Here's a hint: it isn't there!
Autolykos:As far as I'm concerned, you haven't explained exactly what your alleged philosophical bind is. Maybe you could at least try to do so explicitly, instead of making vague statements and expecting the rest of us to be able to read your mind otherwise.
Honestly, I'm flattered.
Well, let's see here...
I thought the market was OK, that egoism was supreme.
At the same time, I doubted the absolutist nature of modern materialism.
This left me open to concepts such as non-dualism, animism, altered states of consciousness, etc.
I understand that the state is just the powerful existing parasitcally on the weak.
Which led me to see the modern labor/capital relationship as much the same (due to distortions in the market caused by state intervention)
I began to try to envision what a stateless society would look like, and a sort of "neo tribalism" becan to emerge in my mind's eye.
After reading a book or two about it ("Endgame", by Derrick Jensen specifically), I came to realize that modern industrial production relies completely on this system of exploitation via coercion, since any land possessor would be mad to destroy their own landbase. It is litterally how an (actual) indigenous person sustains themselves.
Simply put, without being coerced, why would people shit where they sleep? Also without being coerced, why would people voluntarily allow someone else to shit where they sleep?
Since we have established that modern capitalism assumes infinite growth, I think it is safe to assume that is an impossiblilty on a finite world, and is by definition an unsustainable system. This means to me that it is necessary to implement violence to keep expanding, when voluntary interaction ceases to yield results (which, if we assume people won't shit where they sleep, or allow another to shit where they sleep, is an inevitablility).
Think about it. Withou coercion, do you think the Navajo would be OK with having uranium mines ruining their groundwater? Or native Philipinos would be fine with destroying the forests which they literally get ALL of their food from? Or the Chinese would be cool with your lead smelter mutating their children? Of course not!
This is why I said that your highest good is maximizing market share. If it was property rights and the NAP, then industrial production as we know it would cease, because is wholly based upon occupation of land by force, constant expansion (typically by force), and NIMBY would snuff it out tomorrow.
Hmm, let's see... iPhone or dioxin in my wife's breast milk... that's a tough one!
If you live beyond your native carrying capacity, you must take from somewhere else, or increase the carrying capacity of your locale. If you do not increase carrying capacity sustainably (eg, the "green revolution" making more fertility, but only for about 3 decades), then you are left to take from somewhere else again, as you overshoot, and your landbase fails (often leaving a reduced carrying capacity from the initial).
Autolykos:I didn't make any ad hominem argument, because I wasn't trying to refute an argument of yours. Nor was I trying to fool you in any way.
You're right. You just politely called me a troll, or at least disingenuous. Whatever.
Autolykos:Do you want to stick to the OP or allow discussions that lead away from it? Make up your mind already.
LOL, man you are a master of turning shit around on people. You complain about leaving the OP, then try to pin it on me! I let the conversation decide for itself.
Autolykos:I keep asking you what the real point is because your responses keep confusing me. It almost seems like they're intended to confuse me and/or others to the point of shutting up, at which point you'll presumably feel better about yourself because you will have "defeated" us. You're a lot like "Laotzu del Zinn" in that regard.
Oh, so that's your problem. You assume that if you don't understand right away, the other person must just be fucking with you? No, Laotzu Del Zinn and I just have a different way of thinking. Does it seem strange to conflate heterdoxy and malice? I am not a logic bot, and a lot of the ancap stuff (especially the ethical systems) are totally batshit crazy to me. Does that mean I think you guys are all messing with my head? Of course not. As I said before, it's not always about you, Auto.
Yes, robbery is absurd. Killing your children seems absurd as well, so call it what you want.
Autolykos:No, that is a complete non sequitur. I don't see how the conclusion in any way follows from those premises.
By producing unsustainably, we are destroying landbases. Destroyed landbases cannot support people in the future. There are no American Chestnuts near my house any more. There are no passenger pigeons. There are no wolves. The oysters in the Sound are poisoned. My ability to survive has been compromised.
My personal morality aside, how doesn't that qualify as theft, given a belief in the validity of NAP, property rights, and the rest?
Autolykos writes,
I'm not sure what you're getting it. An increase in demand (a shift in the demand curve) is independent of the supply function. What Jevon's Paradox is describing is a movement on the demand curve, or changes in quantity demanded. Increases in supply allow for greater quantities of a good to be demanded/consumed/purchased through a fall in price.
Jackson LaRose:LOL, sounds like someone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Only "current technology", but not any current limitations of technology? Magical thinking or stupidity. Do you understand yet?
As I already said before, I was refuting your claim in the apparent context in which it was made. So it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too as much as I do. Do you understand yet?
Jackson LaRose:Who said you made the rules?
I did.
Jackson LaRose:My thought is the Earth has reached its carrying capacity. This is demonstrated by incessant declines in resources. I realize this is all very vague, but I am afraid of posting any links. You got me all tangled in this rhetorical catch-22 where I can't not cite because I'd be "too vague", and I can't cite because that "doesn't count as an argument" Well done, word wizard. Ah hell, I'll do it anyways: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/land_deg/land_deg.html Got lots more if you are interested. Deep water aquifers? The entire Middle East (cradle of civilization and the state, "coincidentally")? Fossil Fuels, minerals, forests, salmon/shad runs in the Connecticut River (my 'hood), etc. This doesn't even get into the tipping points many vital ecological systems are heading towards. Do phytoplankton declines keep you up at night? It really should, if you are interested in survival.
I consider your thinking to be too vague to be worth responding to beyond what I just said. Have fun wallowing in your own nonsense. Maybe one of these days you'll actually come up with a thoughtful explanation.
Jackson LaRose:Sorry, but that's how it goes. Ask "Why?" enough times, and that will happen! I think maybe what you are trying to say is that you prefer fabricated abstractions to endless deconstruction? Maybe you want to find my sticking place, the one thing which I hold as immutably "true", from which I can build my entire "world"? Here's a hint: it isn't there!
You apparently enjoy this sort of verbal sparring than real debate. Let me lay it out for you: it's clear to me now that your reason for being here in this forum is fundamentally dishonest. You engage in the same sort of nonsense as Laotzu del Zinn, and apparently for the same reason. I suggest not expecting me to tolerate it.
Jackson LaRose:Honestly, I'm flattered. Well, let's see here... [Snipped vague nonsense.]
[Snipped vague nonsense.]
Try again - and harder this time.
Jackson LaRose:You're right. You just politely called me a troll, or at least disingenuous. Whatever.
That's right. Now I'll directly and rudely call you a troll, because at this point, I definitely think you are one.
Jackson LaRose:LOL, man you are a master of turning shit around on people. You complain about leaving the OP, then try to pin it on me! I let the conversation decide for itself.
No, apparently you don't - at least not consistently. You admonished me for moving the goalposts, when in fact it was you who had done so first. Better luck next time.
Jackson LaRose:Oh, so that's your problem. You assume that if you don't understand right away, the other person must just be fucking with you? No, Laotzu Del Zinn and I just have a different way of thinking. Does it seem strange to conflate heterdoxy and malice? I am not a logic bot, and a lot of the ancap stuff (especially the ethical systems) are totally batshit crazy to me. Does that mean I think you guys are all messing with my head? Of course not. As I said before, it's not always about you, Auto.
As I said before, I actually don't believe that it's always about me. No amount of you implying or asserting to the contrary is going to change my mind on that, understand? I sure hope you do, but it really makes no difference to me either way.
And no, I don't assume that if I don't understand right away, the other person must be messing with me. For one thing, we've had plenty of interactions in the past, so this is hardly "right away" as far as I'm concerned. Second, from my point of view, I ask for clarification and you answer with more ambiguity. How do you expect me to gain any further understanding that way? I can only surmise that your intent is not for me to gain further understanding.
You and Laotzu del Zinn don't just have "a different way of thinking" - you have a different reason for being here, as far as I can tell. That reason is dishonest. That is, you're both liars and trolls as far as I'm concerned. It's up to you to persuade me to believe otherwise, if 1) I'm wrong and 2) you care at all about what I think. (I presume you do care about what I think, since you keep responding to me.)
Jackson LaRose:Yes, robbery is absurd. Killing your children seems absurd as well, so call it what you want.
See? I knew you'd do one or the other. So if robbery is absurd, why do you bother talking about it? Why do you bother calling anything "robbery" if the very notion of "robbery" is absurd? How do you expect that to help your case?
Jackson LaRose:By producing unsustainably, we are destroying landbases. Destroyed landbases cannot support people in the future. There are no American Chestnuts near my house any more. There are no passenger pigeons. There are no wolves. The oysters in the Sound are poisoned. My ability to survive has been compromised. My personal morality aside, how doesn't that qualify as theft, given a belief in the validity of NAP, property rights, and the rest?
Apparently you completely misunderstand what a non sequitur is. I even elaborated on my charge of non sequitur and it still apparently went straight over your head. (Hint: changing your argument doesn't refute the charge of non sequitur.)
Autolykos:As I already said before, I was refuting your claim in the apparent context in which it was made. So it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too as much as I do. Do you understand yet?
Which is a lie or you are stupid. Whay don't you tell us what you REALLY want to say. LOL, you suck.
Autolykos:I did.
LOL. Well, I disagree.
Autolykos:I consider your thinking to be too vague to be worth responding to beyond what I just said. Have fun wallowing in your own nonsense. Maybe one of these days you'll actually come up with a thoughtful explanation.
LOL, What?!? Yeah it is pretty vague when YOU CROSS OFF ALL OF THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES I POSTED!!! Man, did you fall and hit your head or something in the last hour? You are really striking out here...
Autolykos:You apparently enjoy this sort of verbal sparring than real debate. Let me lay it out for you: it's clear to me now that your reason for being here in this forum is fundamentally dishonest. You engage in the same sort of nonsense as Laotzu del Zinn, and apparently for the same reason. I suggest not expecting me to tolerate it.
Oh please. Define "real debate". No, it's not "dishonest". Again, you are conflating heterdoxy with malice. This passage also makes it abundantly clear that you are a twat who will shift the goalposts around with an authority your weak rhetorical skills don't warrant. "Try again." "I make the rules". And so on. You are super blowhard, and fold like a lawnchair when the discourse strays even slightly from "ancap high-fives". In other words, you have "filc syndrome".
Autolykos:That's right. Now I'll directly and rudely call you a troll, because at this point, I definitely think you are one.
Because you are small-minded.
"He's not playing by the rules I made up in my head, he must be screwing with me!"
Pathetic.
Autolykos:No, apparently you don't - at least not consistently. You admonished me for moving the goalposts, when in fact it was you who had done so first. Better luck next time.
OMG! Because you did first, dude! Remember bitching about sticking to the OP at all? What a noodge!
Autolykos:from my point of view, I ask for clarification and you answer with more ambiguity. How do you expect me to gain any further understanding that way? I can only surmise that your intent is not for me to gain further understanding.
Well, I'm sorry if you think I am trying to be vague. I'm really not. What specifically do you want me to clarify? Could I get it in bullet format? I can try to answer the best I can. Being a smarmy butthole with your cutesy "try again" crap isn't going to help move the discourse along.
Autolykos:You and Laotzu del Zinn don't just have "a different way of thinking" - you have a different reason for being here, as far as I can tell. That reason is dishonest. That is, you're both liars and trolls as far as I'm concerned. It's up to you to persuade me to believe otherwise, if 1) I'm wrong and 2) you care at all about what I think. (I presume you do care about what I think, since you keep responding to me.)
And you are wrong (at least for me). Remember scieram? Just a gadfly, buzzing around all day inserting some trollish comment and flying away. That's a troll. I'm not trolling! I show up here only when I want to work something out. To accuse me of anything else is bullshit. Trust me, I actually believe what I type here. I know that makes no sense to you, but again heterodoxy doesn't equal malice!
I could really give a shit about what you think. I know there's no way of convincing you otherwise, but this is a public forum, and your veiled attacks of dishonesty (which I'm pretty sure is the only reason you post on my shit.) are distracting. I mean look at this thread. Do you think I would take the time to post a new thread if all I wanted was a flame war? I could take a contrary poistion on any issue on any thread and do that!
Now this thread is completely derailed, and I'm pissed. So congratulations Auto, you've trolled me good.
Autolykos:So if robbery is absurd, why do you bother talking about it?
Good question. Life is absurd, but I continue to live that. Who knows?
I was trying to speak your moral language. Guess it didn't work out so hot. Back to the drawing board.
Autolykos:Apparently you completely misunderstand what a non sequitur is. I even elaborated on my charge of non sequitur and it still apparently went straight over your head. (Hint: changing your argument doesn't refute the charge of non sequitur.)
Then you are going to have to be less vague. Remember, I'm stupid or a liar.