Jackson LaRose:Which is a lie or you are stupid. Whay don't you tell us what you REALLY want to say. LOL, you suck.
No amount of mockery is going to make me retract my statements, understand? (Although it doesn't matter whether you do or not, because what I said will hold regardless.)
Jackson LaRose:LOL. Well, I disagree.
And I couldn't care less. Laugh all you want - it makes no difference to me.
Jackson LaRose: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...
I didn't ask you to post examples. Come on, you know that already. You could say I'm "really striking out here" an infinite number of times and it would have absolutely no impact on my behavior. So try again.
Jackson LaRose: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 [sic] who will shift the goalposts around [sic] with an authority your weak rhetorical skills [sic] don't warrant. "Try again." "I make the rules". And so on. You are super blowhard [sic], and fold like a lawnchair [sic] when the discourse strays even slightly from "ancap high-fives". In other words, you have "filc syndrome" [sic].
Nothing you say will get me to back down. Nothing. I'm still here. Try to insult me and intimidate me into shutting up and going away all you want - it will make absolutely no difference. I think the sooner you realize this, the better it will be for you.
Jackson LaRose:Because you are small-minded.
If by "small-minded" you mean "not a nihilist".
Jackson LaRose:"He's not playing by the rules I made up in my head, he must be screwing with me!" Pathetic.
Pathetic.
Whether you think it's "pathetic" in no way changes my position on this or any other matter.
Jackson LaRose:OMG! Because you did first, dude! Remember bitching about sticking to the OP at all? What a noodge!
Really, you're going to have to do better than this. I know you have it in you! So come on, what are you waiting for?
Jackson LaRose:Well, I'm sorry [sic] if you think I am trying to be vague. I'm really not [sic]. What specifically do you want me to clarify? Could I get it in bullet format? I can try to answer the best I can [sic]. Being a smarmy butthole [sic] with your cutesy "try again" crap isn't going to help move the discourse along.
So that means you're not going to try again - that is, you're going to give up? Why is that? If you try again, then I'd say it might move the discourse along.
Jackson LaRose: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 don't see you trying to work out anything in this thread, except for validation for your pre-established beliefs. And just to be clear, I see you as trying to use the term "heterodoxy" as a shield.
Jackson LaRose: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!
You really could give a shit about what I think, apparently. Otherwise you wouldn't have bothered responding to me the way you have, and you wouldn't have felt like I struck a nerve (which apparently you do).
Typically you do take a contrary position - apparently just to do so and see what happens. Not only that, but as soon as you're cornered, you apparently (and implicitly!) change your position to something else. The only reason I can see for you doing that is so you can hopefully get out of being cornered. So you tell me, how is that not trolling?
Jackson LaRose:Now this thread is completely derailed, and I'm pissed. So congratulations Auto, you've trolled me good.
If by "trolled me" you mean "put my modus operandi out in the open". Be pissed all you want. Go cry me a river while you're at it.
Jackson LaRose:I was trying to speak your moral language. Guess it didn't work out so hot. Back to the drawing board.
Surely if you were being serious about it, you would've done a better job than that. How long have you been around here?
Jackson LaRose:Then you are going to have to be less vague. Remember, I'm stupid or a liar.
What part of "your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises" do you not understand?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Alright, the rest of that whole post is nonsense. You think I'm an asshole. Fine. I think you're an asshole. Fine. Now that that's cleared up, maybe we can go on:
Autolykos:I didn't ask you to post examples.
Then I don't know how to be less vague.
OK, you aren't a nihilist. This means that some method of validation qualifies something as "real" to you. Fine. I don't share that sentiment. That's really all there is to it. Just because we disagree on the most fundamental of premises, doesn't mean I have malicious intentions. This is not a shield, it is just a disagreement on the fundamental nature of experience, it is a heterodox opinion. That is all.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, you suck.
LOL, you suck.
Jackson LaRose: You are super blowhard, and fold like a lawnchair when the discourse strays even slightly from "ancap high-fives".
You are super blowhard, and fold like a lawnchair when the discourse strays even slightly from "ancap high-fives".
Jackson LaRose: Being a smarmy butthole with your cutesy "try again" crap isn't going to help move the discourse along.
Being a smarmy butthole with your cutesy "try again" crap isn't going to help move the discourse along.
Jackson LaRose: 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 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.
Jackson LaRose: I think you're an asshole.
I think you're an asshole.
Jackson,
I have two responses to you that you have ignored. I posted the second one because I thought you missed the first one. But, after reading this stuff from you, I think you purposely are ignoring me, which I guess is fine. In addition to you ignoring me, you have decided to just curse at Autolykos. I think he is right. I don't think you are here for honest debate. If you were, you would have responded to me instead of insulting him.
You derailed your own thread.
Well whatever, you are entitled to your opinion.
I read your first post, wasn't a whole lot there for me to respond to. Kindof fell into the whole "technology worship" comment I posted soon thereafter, and after looking back at the old pages, I did miss like half a dozen posts from last night.
EmperorNero was a real good one, specifically (response to follow!)
As to your premises, yes you are right. There is no way to know what will happen. Although I question the worth of mere survival (using our synthetic meat and "city-conditioning") if we have trashed the planet. If you are so inclined take a look back at some of the more cogent (they are admittedly rare) moments of Autolykos' and I's (?) discussion, and maybe you can get a better feel for what I mean.
Yeah, I started swearing at Autolykos, but how would you react if you were falsely accused of something ad nauseum? I try to be civil, but I have to get it back, too.
EmperorNero:Because that whole "the earth is finite" thing is a fallacy.
Species extinction?
EmperorNero:We can add substances to the group of "resources", therefore the set of resources in not finite.
Table of elements?
EmperorNero: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.
Fair enough, but doesn't capitalism require growth to exist?
Jackson LaRose: I read your first post, wasn't a whole lot there for me to respond to. Kindof fell into the whole "technology worship" comment I posted soon thereafter, and after looking back at the old pages, I did miss like half a dozen posts from last night.
It's not technology worship. Humans invent things to solve problems. As humans solve current problems, new ones arise. I don't really buy into predicting what our problems will be in 100 years from now when there isn't a way to predict the future. Consider these two articles:
Evidence That Oil Fields Renew Themselves
From the second article:
The theory is that Methane (CH4), a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system is in huge concentrations and at great depth within the Earth. Where the mantle and crust meet at roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of extreme temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation becomes crude oil. Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs as natural gas.
Maybe the proponents of this theory are right, and maybe they are wrong. But they are attempting to figure out why oil is being replenished in many oil fields. So, I reject the notion that we will necessarily run out of energy sources. It's possible I am wrong, but experts in energy do not know either. I prefer to not panic and predict doom.
Jackson LaRose: As to your premises, yes you are right. There is no way to know what will happen. Although I question the worth of mere survival (using our synthetic meat and "city-conditioning") if we have trashed the planet.
As to your premises, yes you are right. There is no way to know what will happen. Although I question the worth of mere survival (using our synthetic meat and "city-conditioning") if we have trashed the planet.
But you don't know if the planet will be trashed. And if synthetic meat and city-conditioning were technologically cheap, I would find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a way to make the planet not "trashed".
Also, don't forget nuclear energy too. Less oil would be consumed if the government legalized creating more nuclear energy plants in America. There are alternatives. They already exist. The government makes it hard or impossible for these alternatives to be developed.
As Hashem pointed out, and I did too, but if humanity can't solve the problem, then it will perish. I understand that you mocked him for this statement, but it's a great point. If people can't solve problems, especially this one, then it doesn't matter, because we'll all be dead. There's not much left to discuss if people can't solve problems.
Jackson LaRose: Fair enough, but doesn't capitalism require growth to exist?
No. Growth is a result of capitalism. It does not require growth.
Jackson LaRose: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)?
Isn't this the reason why there is economics--scarcity?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Exactly. One of the functions of capitalism is to ration and prevent the utter and absolute depeletion of scarce resources via the price mechanism. When an economic good becomes increasingly scarce, its price rises high enough that it forces further rationing of that good (pushes more and more marginal users out of this market), which stimulates exploration into alternative (substitute) lines of production long before that point (ie.: resource extinction) is reached.
NEPHiLiX:When an economic good becomes increasingly scarce, its price rises high enough that it forces further rationing of that good (pushes more and more marginal users out of this market), which stimulates exploration into alternative (substitute) lines of production long before that point (ie.: resource extinction) is reached.
It could also induce further investment in the production of that good (Maybe your point and mine could work together by saying that the market is horizontally shortened and vertically lengthened--maybe I'm totally missing the mark). If price is going up, marginal productivity (all else equal) will too and using production factors for the use of those goods will become comparatively cheaper as prospective returns increase (consider the various historical claims in year XXXX that run something along the lines of 'we will run out of oil in year XXXY.' Year XXXY comes along and, what do you know, we have billions more barrels of oil on reserve in year XXXY than we did in year XXXX [this is an example Sowell uses in Basic Economics]; this is because it was cheaper in year XXXX to use oil reserves than to drill [which costs billions whether oil is struck or not] and the doomsyear prediction was based on XXXX prices and not XXXY-n prices which fundamentally affects capital structures and investments).
NEPHiLiX:(In the case of over-fishing and such, I imagine that that's a tragedy of the commons/government issue rather than a strike against capitalism per se).
I'm suddenly curious to know how one can harness fish power as a source of energy ...
Joking aside--yeah--as costs of production increase it would spur exploration into alternate resources. Isn't this responsible for the decline of use of whale oil in favor of coal, electricity, and oil (JD Rockefeller-- caring about the whales before it was cool)?
Maybe your point and mine could work together by saying that the market is horizontally shortened and vertically lengthened. If price is going up, marginal productivity (all else equal) will too and using production factors for the use of those goods will become comparatively cheaper as prospective returns increase (consider the various historical claims in year XXXX that run something along the lines of 'we will run out of oil in year XXXY.' Year XXXY comes along and, what do you know, we have billions more barrels of oil on reserve in year XXXY than we did in year XXXX [this is an example Sowell uses in Basic Economics]; this is because it was cheaper in year XXXX to use oil reserves than to drill [which costs billions whether oil is struck or not] and the doomsyear prediction was based on XXXX prices and not XXXY-n prices which fundamentally affects capital structures and investments).
Absolutely (although that 'all else equal' can get sketchy in this case).
Not that this was what I was getting at, but ever hear of "Finetics"? Just googled it after your question and guess what?
NEPHiLiX:Absolutely (although that 'all else equal' can get sketchy in this case).
I agree, but empirical assumptions can change the results though--what if physical output declines for some reason? Then the change in marginal productivity is more ambiguous. Meh.
NEPHiLiX:Just googled it after your question and guess what?
Good. Good.
if we have trashed the planet
We aren't thrashing the planet. The air is getting cleaner, in market economies. Rivers are cleaner, in market economies. Forests are growing, in market economies. Environmental degradation is always a socialist problem. Environmental socialists have it backwards; capitalism protects the environment, asceticism and poverty destroys it.
I don't know what your argument is here. I was talking about natural resources and their renewability. Species have always gone extinct.
Table of elements
Yes, the table of elements may be finite. That hasn't much to do with it though, we aren't talking about chemical elements but substances like oil and natural gas. Even if a particular resource is finite (although it isn't, but thats more complicated), that doesn't mean that resources overall are finite. Because "resources" is different stuff over time. I bet you worry little about the availability of hay or firewood, but the people one and a half centuries ago who did would have considered oil a nuisance when they encountered it. In the same way substances that will be a resource in the future, say helium on the moon, aren't considered resources yet, because there's no use for them yet. What's considered a resource depends on technology, and that's why the notion of a "total amount of resources" that could be "used up" can just kinda be refuted in its entirety.
No, why would it? Monetary communism may require growth so the money printing isn't visible through price inflation, but I'm against that.
Jackson LaRose:Alright, the rest of that whole post is nonsense.
Are you sure about that? If so, why?
Jackson LaRose:You think I'm an asshole. Fine. I think you're an asshole. Fine. Now that that's cleared up, maybe we can go on:
Why would you want to ignore all of our previous "interaction"?
Jackson LaRose:Then I don't know how to be less vague.
Posting disjointed examples and making rhetorical statements about them does not constitute an argument. That's why I struck through the part of your post that I did.
Jackson LaRose:OK, you aren't a nihilist. This means that some method of validation qualifies something as "real" to you. Fine. I don't share that sentiment. That's really all there is to it. Just because we disagree on the most fundamental of premises, doesn't mean I have malicious intentions. This is not a shield, it is just a disagreement on the fundamental nature of experience, it is a heterodox opinion. That is all.
And this is where I call BS. You can claim that nothing qualifies as "real" to you, but your behavior shows otherwise. So as I see it, you're constantly engaging in a performative contradiction. Apparently you don't like to hear that, so you retreat into embracing absurdity and making ridiculous statements just to get your critics off your back. Maybe that's worked with others, but it's not going to work with me, understand?
I wouldn't call that malicious, but I would - and do - call it dishonest. Do you see the difference? I don't think you're trying to hurt anyone, but you're not engaging in actual debate.
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.
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.
There is no doubt that there exists a positive relationship between the efficiency of a particular method of production and the employment of that method of production. But this does not yield the sort of paradox you're describing, where efficiency gains actually lead to a more rapid depletion of resources. In fact, the ability to increase both consumption and production through innovation and the division of labor/capital is basically the definition of wealth and the aim of a capitalist economy.
A problem only arises when the consumption of that resources exceeds the efficiency gains made in the production of that resource (in which case factor prices will adjust, and that method of production will no longer be more efficient). In other words, the consumption of that resource may rise in absolute terms, but if it doesn't rise in relative terms (relative to efficiency gains made in the production of that resource) then this sort of phenomenon will not occur.
So for example: There is a new and more efficient way to produce steel which increases the output of steel per unit of iron. This, according to your theory, will increase the consumption of iron and therefore lead to less steel and iron in the long run. But this, again, will only occur if the rate of consumption exceeds the efficiency gains made in steel, and if there isn't simultaneous gains in the efficiency of iron production.
[edit]This topic is very complicated and it's the main issue Hayek deals with in The Pure Theory of Capital. I'd also like to point out the difference between general macroeconomic efficiency gains made throughout all phases of production as a result of an elevated savings rate (lower time preference) with that of various innovations which may or may not yield the same sort of macroeconomic effect.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
gotlucky:Humans invent things to solve problems.
Granted.
gotlucky:I don't really buy into predicting what our problems will be in 100 years from now when there isn't a way to predict the future.
Nor do I. Furthermore, I will likely be dead in 100 years, so I have little concern for how events unfold that far ahead. I am referring to much more acute problems, such as the dust bowl in China, dying reefs, the start of the Atlantic hurricane season in May (two tropical storms so far!), etc.
gotlucky:But you don't know if the planet will be trashed.
Hmm, well, my habitat is trashed at least. Where are the runs of Atlantic Salmon and Alewives up the Connecticut River? Why is there a superfund site 10 miles away from my house? Why is there dangerous amounts of coliform bacteria in almost every body of water around my home? Why is there lead in all of the soil? Why is there dioxin in everyone's breastmilk?
I would bet that many of us could say the same about our homes.
gotlucky:I would find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a way to make the planet not "trashed".
It's very simple. Don't trash it. All of these problems have incredibly simple solutions.
gotlucky:Also, don't forget nuclear energy too.
LOL, now that's clean energy!!! Can't wait to taste the rainbow!
gotlucky:There are alternatives. They already exist. The government makes it hard or impossible for these alternatives to be developed.
I'm not arguing that there are alternatives to oil (which was just a random resource example I chose, anyways), I'm asking if ANY alternative can be considered "sustainable" given Jevon's Paradox.
gotlucky:If people can't solve problems, especially this one, then it doesn't matter, because we'll all be dead. There's not much left to discuss if people can't solve problems.
Well, as I said, the solution is rather simple. We must live in a sustainable manner. That's really all there is to it. I am unsure that industrial production can ever be a sustainable manner, though.
gotlucky:No. Growth is a result of capitalism. It does not require growth.
Could you expand on this? I though it was brought about more because of scarcity/surplus/marginal utility.
Nephilix:One of the functions of capitalism is to ration and prevent the utter and absolute depeletion of scarce resources via the price mechanism.
That assumes the price mechanism is nuanced enough to support the web of nutrient flows in ecosystems. What is the price of phytoplankton die-offs? Not a valued product in the least. But, they all go, so too go the bluefins.
How does species extinction not invalidate this argument?
Nephilix:That being said, I can't think of a single case of the market allowing an energy, mineral or non-animal resource to be used up to the point of actual resource extinction.
Well, are we talking locally, or globally? This is almost exactly the crux of the issue. Mines get depleted, forests get depleted, etc., and so far the producers have been able to just move on. What happens when there is nowhere else to move to?
Jackson LaRose: Nor do I. Furthermore, I will likely be dead in 100 years, so I have little concern for how events unfold that far ahead. I am referring to much more acute problems, such as the dust bowl in China, dying reefs, the start of the Atlantic hurricane season in May (two tropical storms so far!), etc.
Anecdotal evidence isn't really helpful. I might be able to say that murder rates have gone down in some area, but you can always point and say, "Oh look, someone was murdered in my area!" It's the same with this idea of "trashed". The US is cleaner than it was 100-150 years ago. I can also point out some anecdotal evidence of my own. The Charles River in Boston used to be so dirty that if you fell into the water, you would have to go to the hospital and get shots. Guess what? The Charles River is cleaner than it used to be, and you can fall in without having to go to the hospital. I'm sorry that your area is "trashed", but that does not mean that my area is.
Jackson LaRose: It's very simple. Don't trash it. All of these problems have incredibly simple solutions.
Okay, but you kinda cropped my quote there. I said that if we had all these scifi technologies you are talking about, then I would find it hard to believe etc etc etc. Please don't crop my quotes when it changes the meaning.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, now that's clean energy!!! Can't wait to taste the rainbow!
Nuclear energy is clean energy. How many nuclear disasters are there in France? There is already a thread on the problem that happened in Japan, and one of the causes was actually government regulation.
Jackson LaRose: I'm not arguing that there are alternatives to oil (which was just a random resource example I chose, anyways), I'm asking if ANY alternative can be considered "sustainable" given Jevon's Paradox.
Yes. People have already demonstrated that it is the case.
Jackson LaRose: Well, as I said, the solution is rather simple. We must live in a sustainable manner. That's really all there is to it. I am unsure that industrial production can ever be a sustainable manner, though.
Ok, we are sure that capitalism is sustainable. It's that or extinction.
Jackson LaRose: Could you expand on this? I though it was brought about more because of scarcity/surplus/marginal utility.
I mean, what is there to say? Growth does not cause capitalism. Capitalism causes growth. I'm not saying that capitalism is the only cause, just that you were mistaken when you said growth was required for capitalism.
That being said, I can't think of a single case of the market allowing an energy, mineral or non-animal resource being used up to the point of actual resource extinction.
That being said, I can't think of a single case of the market allowing an energy, mineral or non-animal resource to be used up to the point of actual resource extinction.
Autolykos:Why would you want to ignore all of our previous "interaction"?
It was pointless contradiction and flaming.
Autolykos:Posting disjointed examples and making rhetorical statements about them does not constitute an argument.
Well, I guess I'm not "arguing" then.
Autolykos:You can claim that nothing qualifies as "real" to you, but your behavior shows otherwise. So as I see it, you're constantly engaging in a performative contradiction.
Oh brother, THIS argument again?
Have you ever heard of the phrase,
"for the sake of argument"? Is it "dishonest" to adopt a stance "for the sake of argument"?
I use concepts and ideas as I see fit, but I try not let them rule me. It's a Stirner thing.
Thinking about it more, perhaps I am dishonest. I lie to myself all the time to keep "sane". I think that reflects more on my limitations as an individual. Essentially, I lie to myself and cling to by reified abstractions because I can't handle the truth.
"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts,"
Autolykos:Apparently you don't like to hear that, so you retreat into embracing absurdity and making ridiculous statements just to get your critics off your back.
Now you've revealed yourself. You just don't like my opinions, plain and simple. In fact, they are so foreign and vexing to you, that you must fabricate some sort of malicious personna (yes, malicious. You might as well be describing an angler fish in the preceding passage) in order to reconcile my philosophy with your worldview.
"There's no way he can actually BELIEVE what he types, so he must just be trolling, or lying!"
Autolykos:I don't think you're trying to hurt anyone, but you're not engaging in actual debate.
LOL, by who's standards? OK, so I'm not engaging in an "actual debate"... So what?
EmperorNero:The air is getting cleaner, in market economies. Rivers are cleaner, in market economies. Forests are growing, in market economies.
LOL, compared to what?
EmperorNero:Environmental degradation is always a socialist problem.
Can you back this assertion up? Most native American tribes where relatively egalitarian, and they lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years in the same location.
EmperorNero:capitalism protects the environment
Assertion. Cyanide leaching gold?
EmperorNero:I was talking about natural resources and their renewability.
So am I. Animal species are never converted into goods?
EmperorNero:Species have always gone extinct.
Odd point... Do you equate natural and anthropogenic extinction? Can you think of any reasons why they may differ?
EmperorNero:that doesn't mean that resources overall are finite
Do you think the universe is infinite? Or rather, our ability to exploit the universe is infinite?
EmperorNero:What's considered a resource depends on technology, and that's why the notion of a "total amount of resources" that could be "used up" can just kinda be refuted in its entirety.
I think you are taking a rather cut and dry approach to what is a nuanced problem, IMO. What is technology? Does technology itself require resources?
Can we agree that the planet is physically finite? If so, we should also be able to agree that each element is present in finite amounts (only so much hydrogen, iron, phosphorus, etc.). If we rely on an infinite growth model, is it also safe to assume that eventually, the demand for those finite elemental resources will outweigh their availablility?
EmperorNero:No, why would it?
Because if you are producing unsustainably, you would have to keep moving on (expanding) to maintain production output.
By the laws of thermodynamics, all production is unsustainable. Now what, Jackson?
gotlucky:Anecdotal evidence isn't really helpful.
But two esoteric articles on oil wells fefilling is?
gotlucky:I might be able to say that murder rates have gone down in some area, but you can always point and say, "Oh look, someone was murdered in my area!"
Yeah, which is the relevant issue, at least as far as I am concerned.
gotlucky:The US is cleaner than it was 100-150 years ago.
And? I don't see how this is a point. Is it cleaner than it was in 1491?
gotlucky:The Charles River in Boston used to be so dirty that if you fell into the water, you would have to go to the hospital and get shots.
And? If anything, you are proving my point. Did you have to do that before the Puritans got here? Where are all the salmon? When's the last time you ate anything out of the river? When was the last time it ran in it's actual river bed (it has been completely engineered from Cambridge downstream)?
gotlucky:The Charles River is cleaner than it used to be, and you can fall in without having to go to the hospital.
LOL, what's next, telling me that the market was responsible for the clean up? The Charles is fucked, hate to break it to you. The same goes for most rivers in New England/Northeast. The Hudson, the Housatonic, the Connecticut, the Thames, the Providence (hell, it was underground till a few years ago!), the Charles, the Merrimack, etc.
Just because your definition of "not trashed" is "won't send you to the hospital", doesn't mean that the ecology of the region hasn't been severly impacted and the carrying capacity severly reduced.
gotlucky:Nuclear energy is clean energy.
Yeah? Here's a good disposal solution!
gotlucky:People have already demonstrated that it is the case.
Where?
gotlucky:Ok, we are sure that capitalism is sustainable. It's that or extinction.
Are you saying that existence is impossible without capitalism?
gotlucky:I'm not saying that capitalism is the only cause, just that you were mistaken when you said growth was required for capitalism.
Well, if capitalism is inheirently unsustainable (Jevon's Paradox), we can assume growth is required, because if one produces unsustainably, one would have to unceasingly expand the resource base to maintain the output required to overcome marginal utility. The resources in question continuously diminish, since the growth in demand is unceasing.
In sum:
Increased production=increased demand (more and more marginal users brought on board) ad infinitum
inceased demand=increased exploitation (more marginal resources brought into production) ad infinitum
Therefore, the model (Capitalism) requires (infinite) growth (i.e., production and exploitation).
If anything, I am failing to understand how exchange and surplus are inextricably linked (capitalism is required for growth).
Autolykos:By the laws of thermodynamics, all production is unsustainable.
Makes sense to me. Entropy is a bitch, eh? Of course, I have no doubt in Capitalism's ability to innovate towards achieving perpetual motion (apparently no one else here doubts it, either ).
Jackson LaRose: But two esoteric articles on oil wells fefilling is?
Considering you were vague and the articles deal with actual places, yes. Plus, the articles throw a wrench in the idea that oil is a fixed resource.
Jackson LaRose: Yeah, which is the relevant issue, at least as far as I am concerned.
I think I see the problem here. You want to live in a perfect world. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
Jackson LaRose: And? I don't see how this is a point. Is it cleaner than it was in 1491?
Firstly, capitalism is not what was originally the system here. For hundreds of years, it was mercantlism and some socialism. After capitalism, people improved the environment. So, this would contradict your belief that capitalism must lead to a worse environment. Secondly, if you would prefer we go back to 1491, I shall direct you to this thread here.
Jackson LaRose: And? If anything, you are proving my point. Did you have to do that before the Puritans got here? Where are all the salmon? When's the last time you ate anything out of the river? When was the last time it ran in it's actual river bed (it has been completely engineered from Cambridge downstream)?
No, it does not prove your point. As I said above, capitalism is not the cause of destruction everywhere. It is typically other forms of economies that have destruction. In addition, capitalism is able to reverse problems when they occur if people care. If they don't, well, so what? We should all be forced to listen to you?
Furthermore, you just don't even know what you are talking about:
There are fish in the Charles River in the Boston area, and you can eat some of them. Follow the link and choose the part of the Charles River that is in the Boston area, as that is what we have been discussing.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, what's next, telling me that the market was responsible for the clean up? The Charles is fucked, hate to break it to you. The same goes for most rivers in New England/Northeast. The Hudson, the Housatonic, the Connecticut, the Thames, the Providence (hell, it was underground till a few years ago!), the Charles, the Merrimack, etc.
It's been getting rated B and B+ from the EPA. It used to be a D. The idea is to keep improving it.
Jackson LaRose: Just because your definition of "not trashed" is "won't send you to the hospital", doesn't mean that the ecology of the region hasn't been severly impacted and the carrying capacity severly reduced.
It's not my problem that you didn't define your idea of a "trashed" environment. Civilization itself severly impacts the environment. I'm still not gonna burn my home down just to satisfy you and Freedom4Me.
Jackson LaRose: Yeah? Here's a good disposal solution!
So what? There will be improvements in disposal. Disposal need not cause problems for people. If it has, then those affected have every right to sue. That is, if the government permits it. But then we are no longer talking about capitalism, and we are back to the government screwing things up.
Jackson LaRose: Where?
Open your eyes and look.
Jackson LaRose: Are you saying that existence is impossible without capitalism?
No. I'll be more specific. It's capitalism or extinction, unless you want to just run around aggressing against everyone who doesn't do things the way you would like.
Of course, that's the option you want. I shouldn't have left it out.
Jackson LaRose: Well, if capitalism is inheirently unsustainable (Jevon's Paradox), we can assume growth is required, because if one produces unsustainably, one would have to unceasingly expand the resource base to maintain the output required to overcome marginal utility.
Well, if capitalism is inheirently unsustainable (Jevon's Paradox), we can assume growth is required, because if one produces unsustainably, one would have to unceasingly expand the resource base to maintain the output required to overcome marginal utility.
It appears that you have trouble with logic. Capitalism does not require growth. Capitalism is just a system where capital is private and there is the free market (unless you are defining capitalism as crony capitalism, but then why argue with ancaps who don't support that notion?). No where in that definition does it say that growth causes capitalism. It is the reverse. Capitalism causes growth. Once people start saving and accumulating capital, it makes it possible for them to be more productive, which causes growth.
I'm not sure what is so tough about this for you. It's pretty basic logic.
Jackson LaRose:Makes sense to me. Entropy is a bitch, eh? Of course, I have no doubt in Capitalism's ability to innovate towards achieving perpetual motion (apparently no one else here doubts it, either ).
Therefore, by your reasoning, we should stop all production.
NEPHiLiX:Because species extinctions happened before humans were even around.
I think there is a distinct difference between natural extinction, and anthropogenic extinction, from an ecological standpoint.
NEPHiLiX:If an extinction occurs, you have to show that the market caused it: causation v correlation.
I'm confused by this passage. What do you mean by "the market"? Seems to be a reification. I consider "the market" just the aggregate of economic activity, which can practically be expanded to encompass all human action, which can be expanded further to encompass all thermodynamics.
I am question the viability of the western dominator culture, and consequent industrial production, if it supposes infinite growth as a prerequisite. I am speaking nothing towards exchange and transition.
NEPHiLiX:The emphasis here being that these kinds of market goods are quite effectively rationed.
If they are considered atomistically as discrete "goods" in a vacuum. The phytoplankton comment was really meant to demonstrate that even though the goods themselves may be rationed, unintended consequences may still prove detrimental enough to extinguish the resource. I think this could be considered market failure.
Even though you attempted to exclude the biosphere (because it was the only way this point could begin to make sense), it is nonsensical to consider any resource in a vacuum. Holistic thinking is required to consider the actual sustainability of resource exploitation.
NEPHiLiX:how is the market responsible for this?
Well, why did the North Korean regime take power? What caused the earthquake, or the cold snap? How did the first kings even create the first states?
Do you think that production and commerce are completely free from any responsibility in the history of the world?
NEPHiLiX:Otherwise I think that this can degrade into silliness pretty quickly.
We poison ourselves every day. I'd say we are already rather silly.
NEPHiLiX:producers will switch to something else and, being a man of limited means, so will I.
Ad infinitum?
Esuric:this does not yield the sort of paradox you're describing, where efficiency gains actually lead to a more rapid depletion of resources.
I don't think that's what Jevon's Paradox states. I think it is stating that when efficiency in employment of a resource is increased, one would assume that consumption of that resource would decrease, since one is able to "do more with less".
Instead, consumption just rises unceasingly, no matter how efficiently a resource is utilized. But, as you said,
the ability to increase both consumption and production through innovation and the division of labor/capital is basically the definition of wealth and the aim of a capitalist economy.
So it seems as if infinite growth is sort of expected and obvious to most posters here.
Esuric:This, according to your theory, will increase the consumption of iron and therefore lead to less steel and iron in the long run.
As long as the method of production is unsustainable, yes.
Esuric:But this, again, will only occur if the rate of consumption exceeds the efficiency gains made in steel, and if there isn't simultaneous gains in the efficiency of iron production.
This confuses me. No matter the efficiency of production, the system described here still seems to be linear. That is, iron ore turns to steel, is consumed, and never utilized again. A linear system must be finite, given the restrictions of our physical universe. Does that seem reasonable?
Even granted a cyclical system of production, since we know there isn't such thing as perpretual motion, there are external inputs required for the production of steel, which may still be linear.
And even if all of the auxillary inputs required were also cyclical with a complete return of resources, then we'd still be capped by the entropy of the universe (thanks, Autolykos!)...
Bummer.
Jackson, why aren't you stopping your production yet? Are you trying to hasten the heat-death of the universe?
gotlucky:Plus, the articles throw a wrench in the idea that oil is a fixed resource.
At the risk of going on a tangent about oil, no, they don't, and that is a strawman anyways. When all the methane is water and CO2?
gotlucky:I think I see the problem here. You want to live in a perfect world. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
Perfect is relative, but a world where clean water, air, and food exist would be a start.
gotlucky:So, this would contradict your belief that capitalism must lead to a worse environment. Secondly, if you would prefer we go back to 1491, I shall direct you to this thread here.
Strawman. Please quote me where I said that capitalism must lead to a worse enviroment. I think I'm adressing unsustainable production more than anything else. It's funny, I've been involved on that thread as well. I'm going to catch up with it when I'm done here.
gotlucky:In addition, capitalism is able to reverse problems when they occur if people care. If they don't, well, so what? We should all be forced to listen to you?
How can capitalism reverse the problems of industrial production? I don't think anyone has to listen to me, but if I am getting poisoned all of the time, then I'm going to try to do something about it. I just think it's a stupid idea to shit where you sleep.
gotlucky:There are fish in the Charles River in the Boston area, and you can eat some of them.
Dude, how far in denial do you have to be? Enough to rely on the hated state to tell what is safe and not safe to eat, apparently. And we invaded Iraq because of WMDs, right?
LOL, did you even bother to check?
Mmm, sounds delicious!
gotlucky:It's been getting rated B and B+ from the EPA. It used to be a D.
Again with the appeal to the government, and this also begs the question:
Do you have any evidence that "the market" was responsible for the clean up?
This also ingnores the fact that the destruction has just moved to China. If it made any sense to keep manufacturing in the Boston area, the Charles would run different colors everyday once again.
gotlucky:Civilization itself severly impacts the environment.
Civilization is also part and parcel with the state, coercion, and ultimately violence (towards people and the enviroment). It is exploitation and rape writ large.
gotlucky:I'm still not gonna burn my home down just to satisfy you and Freedom4Me.
LOL, why? You don't like breathable air, drinkable water, edible food, and safe shelter? We are killing ourselves, that's all.
gotlucky:There will be improvements in disposal. Disposal need not cause problems for people.
Sorry, Charlie, you may have to argue yourself on this one,
gotlucky:There is a lot of information that we just don't know. Why are you assuming we know everything now?
gotlucky:But then we are no longer talking about capitalism, and we are back to the government screwing things up.
How? By inventing nuclear power? And again, it's unsustainable production that I'm having trouble with.
gotlucky: No. I'll be more specific. It's capitalism or extinction, unless you want to just run around aggressing against everyone who doesn't do things the way you would like. Of course, that's the option you want. I shouldn't have left it out.
What are you talking about?
[edit] Do you believe in property rights? Or the NAP? The supremacy of science or logic? You might be carrying around way more authoritarian baggage than I.
I'm just saying we are shitting where we sleep, and I find it hard to believe it can go on forever.
Jackson, are you going to actually respond to my posts? Or do I need to publicly accuse you of trolling and start reporting your posts as such?
Calm down Autolykos, remember, it's not all about you.
How would you like me to respond?
Once again, I never said it's all about me.
I'd like you to respond however you'd like to - as long as you do actually respond.
gotlucky,
But how does one aquire capital? Production, right? And if that production is unsustainable? Capital eventually ceases to accumulate, right? So, what would a capitalist be required to do if they wish to keep accumulating capital? Expand the resource base, right?
Autolykos:Therefore, by your reasoning, we should stop all production.
To achieve what end?
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:The air is getting cleaner, in market economies. Rivers are cleaner, in market economies. Forests are growing, in market economies. LOL, compared to what?
Compared to previous decades. You actually didn't know this? In our parents youths most large harbors and rivers in population centers were completely foul, as they still are in India and China today (i.e. socialist countries, until recently). Forest area is growing in the US and western Europe, you can look this up. The air one too.
Environmentalism is not a growing problem, the reason there's so much focus on it these days is that people are rich enough to afford the luxury. Ironically, people started to care about protecting the environment when it got better. Which is typical for social activist movements, they follow the progress.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:Environmental degradation is always a socialist problem. Can you back this assertion up?
Can you back this assertion up?
It's just an empirical observation, see quotes above. Or check out that picture of the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The Dominican Republic is somewhat capitalist and therefore people could afford to protect their environment for eco-tourism. The Haitian side is completely deforested because people are poor and need the charcoal. In capitalist countries people can afford stoves, hence growing forests. Capitalism causes wealth, and environmental protection is a consumer good that we can afford if we are rich enough. Socialism causes poverty and therefore environmental degradation.
Jackson LaRose:Most native American tribes where relatively egalitarian, and they lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years in the same location.
Don't confuse state-socialism and egalitarianism.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:capitalism protects the environment Assertion.
Assertion.
So is environmentalist dogma.
Jackson LaRose:Cyanide leaching gold?
Mostly done in poor socialist countries. Capitalist countries have safe modern factories for gold extraction.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:I was talking about natural resources and their renewability. So am I. Animal species are never converted into goods? EmperorNero:Species have always gone extinct. Odd point... Do you equate natural and anthropogenic extinction? Can you think of any reasons why they may differ?
Species are going extinct when nobody owns them. As I said, it's a socialist problem. For example, elephant heards in national parks are shrinking, while privately owned elephant heards, for paid hunting, are thriving.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:that doesn't mean that resources overall are finite Do you think the universe is infinite? Or rather, our ability to exploit the universe is infinite?
No, but the universe is pretty big. So is the earth. Resources are not finite for our purposes.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:What's considered a resource depends on technology, and that's why the notion of a "total amount of resources" that could be "used up" can just kinda be refuted in its entirety. I think you are taking a rather cut and dry approach to what is a nuanced problem, IMO.
I think you are taking a rather cut and dry approach to what is a nuanced problem, IMO.
That's interesting, I find your logic regarding finiteness overly reductionist.
Jackson LaRose:What is technology? Does technology itself require resources? Can we agree that the planet is physically finite? If so, we should also be able to agree that each element is present in finite amounts (only so much hydrogen, iron, phosphorus, etc.).
Can we agree that the planet is physically finite? If so, we should also be able to agree that each element is present in finite amounts (only so much hydrogen, iron, phosphorus, etc.).
Yes.
Jackson LaRose:If we rely on an infinite growth model, is it also safe to assume that eventually, the demand for those finite elemental resources will outweigh their availablility?
We don't rely on infinite growth, plenty of rich capitalist countries have shrinking populations. And yes, the demand for those finite elemental resources would outweigh their availability. But by then we will use other finite resources. You see? We keep using different finite resources, therefore the set of "resources" is not finite.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:No, why would it?Because if you are producing unsustainably, you would have to keep moving on (expanding) to maintain production output.
You never really said why capitalism should "require growth to exist". If you aren't stating your argument, then I can't respond to it.