Jackson LaRose: 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?
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?
Look, growth is not required for capitalism. It is a by-product of capitalism. Suppose you hunt rabbits to eat. You eat 3 rabbits a day. Now, instead of eating all 3 rabbits a day, you save 1 and consume 2. After a few days of this, you have saved up enough so that you can take a day off hunting and craft a spear (or whatever). Not consuming the rabits is not the same as growth. Creating the spear is growth. You needed to save in order to create the spear.
In capitalism, all that is happening is that there is a division of labor and capital is privately owned. The division of labor does not require growth. You could hunt rabbits all day and I could pick berries. We could then trade some rabbits for berries. We could do this without any growth whatsoever if we so desired. We could stay in abject poverty and living on subsistance levels of rabbits and berries for our whole lives if we wanted to.
In capitalism, all that happens is that some people choose to save. These savings create capital. Then there is expansion. It is not the reverse. Expansion does not happen first, and then magically there is capital.
EmperorNero:Compared to previous decades.
That's a bit vague. OK, how about compared to 5000 B.C.?
EmperorNero: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.
Let's not mix up causation and correlation. Is it a coincidence that the developing nations still have a manufacturing base? That almost everything around you right now was produced in the third world? It is just externalization of enviromental destruction away from the consumers (us), in order to make it easier to ignore.
EmperorNero: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.
Assertion. My counter assertion is that people began to care when the effects of years of enviromental degradation began to effect their comfort.
EmperorNero: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.
Or, we can afford to externalize enviromental destruction to the banana republics.
EmperorNero:Don't confuse state-socialism and egalitarianism.
Believe me, I don't. I just don't think that collectivism is the problem, which you passage seemed to imply. Animism can be quite effective in getting socialists to treat the commons respectfully.
EmperorNero:Mostly done in poor socialist countries.
By rich Capitalists.
EmperorNero:Capitalist countries have safe modern factories for gold extraction.
Firstly, this is bullshit. Second, are you advocating regulation? If not, why do you consider the market as the causal factor in this development?
EmperorNero:Species are going extinct when nobody owns them.
What about species without marketability? Should we not care if phytoplankton go extinct, because they aren't cute?
EmperorNero:Resources are not finite for our purposes.
Says who? Remember the paradox? Demand always increases.
EmperorNero:We don't rely on infinite growth, plenty of rich capitalist countries have shrinking populations.
Who said anything about population? I'm talking about growth in demand, and therefore resource bases.
EmperorNero:And yes, the demand for those finite elemental resources would outweigh their availability.
And since everything is made of elements..?
EmperorNero: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.
Sounds like perpetual motion to me.
EmperorNero: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.
Check my conversation with gotlucky.
Jackson LaRose:That's a bit vague. OK, how about compared to 5000 B.C.?
People were dying like cattle back then from microorganisms in the water and vermin in the food storages and whatnot. Cities were swamps of waste and feces. Besides, we're stuck with the industrial age, so how does the comparison matter?
Jackson LaRose:Let's not mix up causation and correlation. Is it a coincidence that the developing nations still have a manufacturing base? That almost everything around you right now was produced in the third world? It is just externalization of enviromental destruction away from the consumers (us), in order to make it easier to ignore.
No, third world countries actually produce a rather small share of our products. If they had the ability to produce lots of stuff they wouldn't be poor, duh. Even computers are produced in high wage countries like Japan and Taiwan, they are only assembled in China.
And rivers are not dirty because of industrial pollution, but because of people pooping in them because they can't afford indoor plumbing. Rivers and harbors in the west got clean when society became rich enough to dump it's fecies elsewhere. The only thing that ever cleaned up the environment is wealth, which is produced by markets, which the environmentalists try to stifle.
Jackson LaRose:Assertion. My counter assertion is that people began to care when the effects of years of enviromental degradation began to effect their comfort.
Problem with that is that the empirical data goes the other way. Unclean environments were a huge problem two centuries ago, when people were actually dying of the filth around them. But nobody had the time to worry about it back then because they were busy feeding themselves. People started caring about the environment when they got to live in clean, green suburbs without any actual risk to their health in sight. Plus they usually worry about theoretical problems like global warming or the dangers of nuclear energy that have little effect on their comfort even if they were real.
Our beliefs are both "just assertions", but mine fits the empirical data.
Jackson LaRose:Believe me, I don't. I just don't think that collectivism is the problem, which you passage seemed to imply.
It's not just about collectivism, but about poverty, which is caused by lack of property rights. Failed states are 'socialist' because corruption and kleptocracy keeps them from developing markets.
Jackson LaRose:Animism can be quite effective in getting socialists to treat the commons respectfully.
Animist socialists are still inept social engineers without the ability to do economic calculation. It's not about intentions, it's about results.
Jackson LaRose:Firstly, this is bullshit. Second, are you advocating regulation? If not, why do you consider the market as the causal factor in this development?
Capitalists invest in what brings in them greater returns. Modern, industrial production and efficient energy is just more profitable. The move to cleaner technologies, and therefore environmental improvement, is a result of capital accumulation, not of social activism. For example, that's why they're using natural gas instead of (much dirtier) wood these days. Capitalism has been decabronizing energy for 150 years, but suddenly a bunch of trust fund kids come along and claim that only their social engineering can get it done. That claim is not very convincing considering the track record of nationalized social engineering in recent history.
Jackson LaRose:What about species without marketability? Should we not care if phytoplankton go extinct, because they aren't cute?
Plankton has all sorts of useful applications. But yes, what's the point of keeping around useless creatures? Keep in mind that there are opportunity costs. Saving plankton requires scarce resources that could be used to invent cures for diseases that kill children. How many children should we sacrifice to save that plankton? A hundred? A thousand? A million? State-environmentalists never have to make such calculations because the opportunity costs are unseen, but that does not mean they don't exist.
Also, if you care about saving plankton you can join a foundation that protects it. You would actually be in charge of the effort, so you can make sure funds aren't wasted and such. And since it's not counter-productive state-environmentalism, it would actually do some good, instead of just impoverishing humanity while destroying the environment to make overprivileged white people feel good about themselves.
Jackson LaRose:Who said anything about population? I'm talking about growth in demand, and therefore resource bases.
Ok, let's say demand is infinite. You're still forgetting that we can achieve more with less, which is what technological progress does. Maybe we start using fewer and fewer natural resources to provide the same standard of living. Also you're forgetting that resources aren't meaningfully finite...
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero: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. Sounds like perpetual motion to me.
Yup, that's pretty much what it is. Human ingenuity can create resources, hence they can be renewed potentially infinitely. At least there's no limit in sight.
Jackson LaRose:Check my conversation with gotlucky.
Jackson LaRose: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 ok, if production was necessarily "unsustainable", then we would have to constantly "grow to exist". But that's what I've been telling you the whole time, the very notion of finiteness is nonsense since it doesn't take technological change into account. Production can become more efficient through technological progress, i.e. it can produce the same with fewer resources, and as such it is not necessary to constantly expand the resource base.
JLR:I think there is a distinct difference between natural extinction, and anthropogenic extinction, from an ecological standpoint.
JLR:"What is the price of phytoplankton die-offs? Not a valued product in the least"
NEPHiLiX:Whether the actual extinction is caused by the regime (burns it all out of existence to make way for a new Gulag) or not (earthquake exposes it and a sudden cold snap wipes it out of existence): how is the ("capitalist free")* market responsible for this?
JLR: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?
NEPHiLiX:producers will switch to something else and, being a man of limited means, so will I.
JLR:Ad infinitum?
gotlucky:Look, growth is not required for capitalism. It is a by-product of capitalism. Suppose you hunt rabbits to eat...
OK, using your analogy, let's say that on your land (whatever you've "homesteaded" {whatever that means}), your local rabbit population is 20 before you start hunting them. They produce 2 new rabbits every day, on average. You hunt three a day, eating two and saving one. You save enough to allocate time for spear production, and now can hunt five a day. Wow, what a great increase in efficiency and production capacity! You can afford to eat all three that you had initially wanted, but can also save two a day! The problem is, you've moved beyond a sustainable harvest of rabbits in your area. If you catch five a day, but only two a day are replaced, it won't take very long to run out of rabbits. When that happens, you are forced to expand the resource base (i.e. grow your market share) in order to stay in the rabbit hunting business, or find something else to hunt. That decision is completely an economic one. Whatever is more economical is the sensible choice.
That is why the USA invades oil-rich countries rather than develop alternative energies. It is more economical to do so.
I think we may be snagged on semantics. You are treating "growth" as accumulation of capital (?), whereas I am talking about literal physical expansion, or "growth" of market share.
gotlucky:The division of labor does not require growth.
Not necessarily, but specialization typically improves production efficiency, which only makes production that much more unsustainable, requiring more resource base expansion.
gotlucky:We could do this without any growth whatsoever if we so desired. We could stay in abject poverty and living on subsistance levels of rabbits and berries for our whole lives if we wanted to.
As long as it is a sustainable level of production. I agree that it can be done. Native aboriginal populations have done it for tens of thousands of years.
gotlucky:In capitalism, all that happens is that some people choose to save. These savings create capital. Then there is expansion. It is not the reverse. Expansion does not happen first, and then magically there is capital.
Generally, I agree. But even on a complete susbsistence level (i.e. no capital accumulation), if your production is unsustainable, then you will be forced to expand your resource base in order to keep producing, that's all I'm saying.
Jackson LaRose: Autolykos:Therefore, by your reasoning, we should stop all production. To achieve what end?
Autolykos:Therefore, by your reasoning, we should stop all production.
To achieve what end?
Well, it seems clear to me that you oppose unsustainable production. So if all production is (ultimately) unsustainable, you must logically oppose all production. Yet by e.g. posting in this forum, you're engaging in a form of production - which, given the above, implies that you're not opposed to unsustainable production.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos:Well, it seems clear to me that you oppose unsustainable production. So if all production is (ultimately) unsustainable, you must logically oppose all production. Yet by e.g. posting in this forum, you're engaging in a form of production - which, given the above, implies that you're not opposed to unsustainable production.
In the same way that some might argue that since humans are made of matter and matter is energy and energy according to the laws of thermodynamics cannot be destroyed, humans must therefore be immortal, in that the basic stuff of which they consist will always exist. LaRose argues that since it is conceivable as a thought experiment that at some point in the future every last known or unknown particle of matter and every unit of energy has either been acquired and is directly engaged in the optimum satisfaction of human wants, or as humans in and of itself, all production must therefore be unsustainable as it is inconceivable that such a thought experiment should not at some point in the future come to pass. (All though at such a point production would obviously be able to continue, by using humans as the capital good. Soilent green, anyone?)
I don't understand how he can argue that native american tribes or other pre-modernity H/G or farming societies can have been any more sustainable than modern production, though, inasmuch as their production relied on a sun that is destined to cease the functions on which their production relies.
EmperorNero:People were dying like cattle back then from microorganisms in the water and vermin in the food storages and whatnot. Cities were swamps of waste and feces.
Please name a city that existed in 5000 B.C.
EmperorNero:Besides, we're stuck with the industrial age, so how does the comparison matter?
We are "stuck" with the Industrial Age? Are we also "stuck" with the state?
EmperorNero:No, third world countries actually produce a rather small share of our products.
LOL, wut? Look at the tags of all of the clothing you are wearing right now. What do they say? I'll go first:
T-shirt - Haiti
Underwear - Dominican Republic
Pants - Hong Kong
Shoes - China
EmperorNero:If they had the ability to produce lots of stuff they wouldn't be poor, duh.
LOL, wut? So, I guess bankers must be the most productive people on the planet! They are being exploited, so the exploiters make the money at their expense. That's kind of how wage-slavery works.
EmperorNero:Even computers are produced in high wage countries like Japan and Taiwan, they are only assembled in China.
Ooh, those high Taiwanese wages we've all heard so much about... And try and find me something in your immediate are that was made in Japan. They are kind of like the USA these days.
EmperorNero:And rivers are not dirty because of industrial pollution, but because of people pooping in them because they can't afford indoor plumbing.
WHAAA??????? You don't actually believe this, do you? Here's a well known chemical in my area:
PCB
Although it is found in the poop of many people (because they were contaminated), it is an industrial chemical prevalent in many rivers and other waterways in southern New England. Rivers such as:
The Hudson
The Housatonic
The Quinnipiac
The Connecticut
The Thames
The Blackstone
The Taunton
The Charles
The Merrimack
EmeperorNero:Rivers and harbors in the west got clean when society became rich enough to dump it's fecies elsewhere.
They aren't clean. They just aren't open sewers anymore.
EmperorNero:The only thing that ever cleaned up the environment is wealth, which is produced by markets, which the environmentalists try to stifle.
Assertion. Also nonsense.
EmperorNero:Unclean environments were a huge problem two centuries ago, when people were actually dying of the filth around them.
People die from pollution all the time.
EmperorNero:Our beliefs are both "just assertions", but mine fits the empirical data.
No, they don't.
EmperorNero:It's not just about collectivism, but about poverty, which is caused by lack of property rights.
What does this even mean? Are we to respect the property rights of the state? How about the large corporate arms of the state? How does labor/resource exploitation factor into this equation?
EmperorNero:Animist socialists are still inept social engineers without the ability to do economic calculation.
Which is inferior why?
EmperorNero:For example, that's why they're using natural gas instead of (much dirtier) wood these days.
Maybe they use natural gas because it is a scarce, concentrated resource, making it easier to centralize, and control. Maybe that is also why we desperately cling to a fossil fuel economy, when cheap, decentralized energy alternatives already exist and are proven.
The plankton rant is just a huge strawman, and your lack of understanding in ecological systems is truly frightening. If the plankton go, how much longer do you think you will be enjoying those tuna sandwiches?
EmperorNero:You're still forgetting that we can achieve more with less, which is what technological progress does. Maybe we start using fewer and fewer natural resources to provide the same standard of living. Also you're forgetting that resources aren't meaningfully finite.
For how long? What happens when China and India want to start living like Americans? Technology better hurry up and save us.
EmperorNero:Yup, that's pretty much what it is. Human ingenuity can create resources, hence they can be renewed potentially infinitely. At least there's no limit in sight.
Blind faith?
EmperorNero:Well ok, if production was necessarily "unsustainable", then we would have to constantly "grow to exist". But that's what I've been telling you the whole time, the very notion of sustainability is nonsense since it doesn't take technological change into account. Production can become more efficient through technological progress, i.e. it can produce the same with fewer resources, and as such it is not necessary to constantly expand the resource base.
You are ignoring the OP at this point. That's what Jevon's Paradox is all about. Increases in efficiency do not affect demand. It unceasingly increases.
NEPHiLiX:I absolutely agree, but your phytoplankton die-offs don't require capitalism to be in place in order to occur. Anthropogenic extinctions can occur under any economic system--but pointing to capitalism as the obvious culprit is like saying that democracy causes extinctions.
Firstly, I consider unsustainable production the culprit for enviromental degredation, not any particular economic system, per se. The reason capitalism gets wrapped up in this at all is because of Jevon's Paradox. Before learning about it, I had always assumed that the price mechanism combined with increases in production efficiency would be sufficient to achieve sustainable production, but it seems as if growth in demand does not have an end, and that for this reason, any sort of culture that places maximum accumulation of power and control (i.e. modern western culture) as its greatest good is doomed to burn out and collapse, possibly taking the current ecology of the planet with it.
What is the ethics that would prevent this? I don't know. Ending the state and corporations would be a start!
NEPHiLiX:This is a market failure because it doesn't concern itself with the destruction of this natural resource that may not currently have a market value, but nevertheless is an extremely important species vis-a-vis the biosphere whose extinction would have devastating consequences on certain portions of the ecosystem, correct?
Yes, and would also cause the economically important species to collapse as well.
NEPHiLiX:So even in this case, your case, the action of the market (free market capitalism) is working to reverse phytoplankton scarcity
But in what context? That's like saying beef confinement feedlots are working to restore auroch populations. Growing plankton to feed shrimp farms has nothing to do with the ecology of the open ocean, and I find it completely disgusting and reprehensible to even consider that as a valid point.
NEPHiLiX:Also, it would be helpful for you to show that Capitalism commits more extinction events than other economic systems.
Why? That was never my point. My point is that unsustainable production commits more extinction events than sustainable production or ecological systems, and within a shorter time period.
Capitalism is just one (of many) methods of unsustainable production. I'm really trying to figure out if it HAS to be by it's very design.
NEPHiLiX:If your point is rather that: (1) the earth is finite, (2) resources are finite, (3) capitalism tends to grow supply and demand constantly and, therefore, that (4) constant, compounding growth is unsustainable--I can understand your worry,
Yes, that is my concern.
NEPHiLiX:but even your examples are currently working against you.
No way. Again, you're rebuttal is truly horrifying. Are vivisection labs helping sustain threatened monkey species? Sickening.
Jackson LaRose: OK, using your analogy, let's say that on your land (whatever you've "homesteaded" {whatever that means}), your local rabbit population is 20 before you start hunting them. They produce 2 new rabbits every day, on average. You hunt three a day, eating two and saving one. You save enough to allocate time for spear production, and now can hunt five a day. Wow, what a great increase in efficiency and production capacity! You can afford to eat all three that you had initially wanted, but can also save two a day! The problem is, you've moved beyond a sustainable harvest of rabbits in your area. If you catch five a day, but only two a day are replaced, it won't take very long to run out of rabbits. When that happens, you are forced to expand the resource base (i.e. grow your market share) in order to stay in the rabbit hunting business, or find something else to hunt. That decision is completely an economic one. Whatever is more economical is the sensible choice.
And this is why we have animal husbandry.
Jackson LaRose: That is why the USA invades oil-rich countries rather than develop alternative energies. It is more economical to do so.
No. The USA invades oil-rich countries so that certain people in connected places will benefit. For the actual people of America, it is not more economical. Why should billions and billions of dollars be wasted on wars when we can just trade? Furthermore, the government of America prohibits using certain oil reserves here and strictly regulates the business. Your analogy is not accurate.
Jackson LaRose: I think we may be snagged on semantics. You are treating "growth" as accumulation of capital (?), whereas I am talking about literal physical expansion, or "growth" of market share.
Physical "expansion" is not growth, for the reason that it is not always "expansion". If you hunt rabbits to extinction in your area and move on to where they are plentiful, you have not "expanded". You have moved. Whereas with capital accumulation, you are actually able to stay where you were and expand.
Regardless, either way, this "growth" is a by-product. It is not the input into the equation. That has been my point, that your statement about growth being a requisite for capitalism is not true.
Jackson LaRose: Not necessarily, but specialization typically improves production efficiency, which only makes production that much more unsustainable, requiring more resource base expansion.
Not necessarily? Okay, so you say that the statement isn't true, but your following statements do not support your claim of "not necessarily" and have nothing to do with my claim whatsoever, that the division of labor does not require growth. You could fish, I could pick berries. Division of labor. No growth required. You cannot provide a counterexample because my statement does not imply that the division of labor does not benefit or use growth. It is merely a statement that it does not necessarily require growth in order to exist.
In regard to your claim that the division of labor necessarily makes production unsustainable, this is a false statement. And yes, "only makes" equals "necessarily". People use woods for a great many things. People replenish trees in order to cut them down again. In socialist-style economies, those trees typically do not get replenished, as pointed out earlier by another in this thread. It is in the capitalist-style economies that those trees get replenished. This is a counterexample. The division of labor is not necessarily unsustainable. Your assertion is false.
Jackson LaRose: As long as it is a sustainable level of production. I agree that it can be done. Native aboriginal populations have done it for tens of thousands of years.
I have no desire to go live in the woods like you and Freedom4Me. 'nuff said.
Jackson LaRose: Generally, I agree. But even on a complete susbsistence level (i.e. no capital accumulation), if your production is unsustainable, then you will be forced to expand your resource base in order to keep producing, that's all I'm saying.
It is capitalist societies that do not have to keep expanding in an unsustainable manner. The socialist-style economies are the ones that burn through resources without means to sustain. I already addressed the subsistence level of living with animal husbandry.
The planet and the solar system may not be, but isn't the universe supposed to be infinite? How could we use up an infinite resource? Interesting notion, the Kardashev scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Autolykos:Well, it seems clear to me that you oppose unsustainable production.
No. I oppose being poisoned, and having my home ruined. I wouldn't care that it occurs elsewhere, but since ecosystems are completely interwoven, taking a holistic approach to my acute, local problems leads me to resist enviromental destruction in general.
excel:LaRose argues that since it is conceivable as a thought experiment that at some point in the future every last known or unknown particle of matter and every unit of energy has either been acquired and is directly engaged in the optimum satisfaction of human wants, or as humans in and of itself,
Doesn't this beg the question,
"Why is optimum satisfaction of human wants the ultimate goal"?
"Who is the 'human' consist of in the previous statement?"
I never started with that premise.
excel:I don't understand how he can argue that native american tribes or other pre-modernity H/G or farming societies can have been any more sustainable than modern production, though, inasmuch as their production relied on a sun that is destined to cease the functions on which their production relies.
LOL, well I consider their production methods sustainable, as they could keep producing indefinitely. If some external force or influence causes their methods to fail (such as the sun burning out), I think it would be rather tough to blame the method of production itself for that failure.
Poisoning ourselves and the planet is certainly of anthropogenic origin, and therefore a different scenario.
gotlucky:And this is why we have animal husbandry.
Which creates a whole myriad of further capital demands (cages, feed, time, etc.), which again, requires expansion of the resource base (growth). I love how you guys are so willing to decry state intervention in markets, but are equally as willing to accept human intervention in ecologies.
Remember, centralization does not work!
Coercion does not work!
gotlucky:The USA invades oil-rich countries so that certain people in connected places will benefit.
LOL, isn't that what I said?
gotlucky:For the actual people of America, it is not more economical.
Who said they matter any more than your little rabbits?
gotlucky:Your analogy is not accurate.
Sure it is. Who owns the United States? Those in power. Who's interests are the only ones considered when calculating the economy of an action? The deciding party, obviously, which are the owners, obviously.
It's no different when the "owner" of a forest decides to clearcut it. Is that particularly beneficial to the inhabitants of the forest? No. But then again, they weren't asked, now were they?
Everyone here seems to forget that nations are just someone's (a king) or some corporate entity's (the federal government) large piece of property. No more, no less. All the citizens are just the property of the land "owner".
gotlucky:If you hunt rabbits to extinction in your area and move on to where they are plentiful, you have not "expanded".
Why, are you going to also give up your legal right to the now rabbit-less land you previously inhabited? Seems unlikely.
gotlucky:Regardless, either way, this "growth" is a by-product. It is not the input into the equation. That has been my point, that your statement about growth being a requisite for capitalism is not true.
OK, uncle. Perhaps growth isn't needed initially, but is required eventually, if one produces unsustainably. Can we agree on that, at least?
gotlucky:People replenish trees in order to cut them down again. In socialist-style economies, those trees typically do not get replenished, as pointed out earlier by another in this thread. It is in the capitalist-style economies that those trees get replenished. This is a counterexample. The division of labor is not necessarily unsustainable. Your assertion is false.
So, old growth forest is completely equitable with 10 year old Douglas Fir monocultures?
That is a sick thought, and why we are fucked.
gotlucky:I have no desire to go live in the woods like you and Freedom4Me. 'nuff said.
Then you will drown in your own waste, like the rest of us.
gotlucky:It is capitalist societies that do not have to keep expanding in an unsustainable manner.
What are you talking about? Is this just a naked assertion? Why?
gotlucky:I already addressed the subsistence level of living with animal husbandry.
Nonsense. Domestication of animals as a method of achieving sustainability is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.
Jackson LaRose:No. I oppose being poisoned, and having my home ruined. I wouldn't care that it occurs elsewhere, but since ecosystems are completely interwoven, taking a holistic approach to my acute, local problems leads me to resist enviromental destruction in general.
Please explain what you mean by "being poisoned", "having my home ruined", and "environmental destruction". Also note that, regardless of the definitions you give for those terms, you're abandoning any and all logical commitment to the notion of "unsustainable" as strictly "cannot continue forever". In other words, there's more to whatever you're calling "unsustainable" besides its inability to continue forever.
Autolykos:Please explain what you mean by "being poisoned"
Poison - v., Administer poison to (a person or animal), either deliberately or accidentally.
Autolykos:"having my home ruined"
You can take a look at my latest response to EmperorNero, for a singular example.
Autolykos:"environmental destruction"
PCB's in rivers, no salmon in the Connecticut River, coliform bacteria in most small waterways in my town, heavy metals from automobile pollution in the soil, fertilizers and erosion creating dead zones in the sound, the dissappearance of the American Chestnut, and the passanger pigeon, forest being choked by Asiastic Bittersweet, etc.
Autolykos:you're abandoning any and all logical commitment to the notion of "unsustainable" as strictly "cannot continue forever". In other words, there's more to whatever you're calling "unsustainable" besides its inability to continue forever.
Yeah, because of your brilliant quasi-Keynesian ("In the long run, we are all dead.") retort that entropy will catch all of us in the end (which is pretty stupid, considering the big bang happened somehow), I am forced to include the caveat that sustainable would have to mean,
"able to continue indefinitely, barring external influences beyond our control."
Jackson LaRose:Poison - v., Administer poison to (a person or animal), either deliberately or accidentally.
Carbon dioxide is poisonous to animals, yet all animals inhale and exhale it regularly. If I exhale carbon dioxide which another animal then inhales, would you say I've thus poisoned it? It would seem to me that I have, given your definition above.
Jackson LaRose:You can take a look at my latest response to EmperorNero, for a singular example.
You can point out just which part of that rather lengthy response you're referring to. It's not that hard, is it?
Jackson LaRose:PCB's in rivers, no salmon in the Connecticut River, coliform bacteria in most small waterways in my town, heavy metals from automobile pollution in the soil, fertilizers and erosion creating dead zones in the sound, the dissappearance of the American Chestnut, and the passanger pigeon, forest being choked by Asiastic Bittersweet, etc.
If I accept that as your definition of "environmental destruction", then the Deepwater Horizon incident does not qualify as environmental destruction. The same goes for slash-and-burn agriculture in tropical rainforests, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Love Canal, etc. Do you get it yet? Refusing to provide an explicit definition - instead implicitly demanding that I painstakingly tease one out from a whole bunch of (alleged) examples - does not satisfy intellectual honesty.
Jackson LaRose:Yeah, because of your brilliant [sic] quasi-Keynesian ("In the long run, we are all dead.") retort [sic] that entropy will catch all of us in the end (which is pretty stupid [sic], considering the big bang happened somehow), I am forced to include the caveat that sustainable would have to mean, "able to continue indefinitely, barring external influences beyond our control."
Thank you. So then the question becomes, which influences aren't beyond our control and why?
Autolykos:Carbon dioxide is poisonous to animals, yet all animals inhale and exhale it regularly. If I exhale carbon dioxide which another animal then inhales, would you say I've thus poisoned it? It would seem to me that I have, given your definition above.
No. Your conclusion begs the question.
Autolykos:You can point out just which part of that rather lengthy response you're referring to. It's not that hard, is it?
No it isn't. I'm sure you can manage.
Autolykos:If I accept that as your definition of "environmental destruction", then the Deepwater Horizon incident does not qualify as environmental destruction. The same goes for slash-and-burn agriculture in tropical rainforests, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Love Canal, etc. Do you get it yet? Refusing to provide an explicit definition - instead implicitly demanding that I painstakingly tease one out from a whole bunch of (alleged) examples - does not satisfy intellectual honesty.
Then you are stupid. OK, let's try,
"Activity which reduces the carrying capacity of a landbase."
Autolykos:Thank you. So then the question becomes, which influences aren't beyond our control and why?
Is that rhetorical?
Jackson LaRose:No. Your conclusion begs the question.
I'm sorry but I don't see how.
Jackson LaRose:No it isn't. I'm sure you can manage.
I'm sure you could even more easily manage pointing out which part of that rather lengthy response you're referring to. After all, I imagine you already know which part that is, whereas I don't. Your refusal to do so seems to imply an ulterior motive on your part.
Jackson LaRose:Then you are stupid [sic]. OK, let's try, "Activity which reduces the carrying capacity of a landbase."
In that case, we're hardly the only environmentally destructive species, and there are plenty of non-living things that are environmentally destructive. Or do you mean "human activity" when you say "activity"?
Jackson LaRose:Is that rhetorical?
Not at all.
Autolykos:I'm sorry but I don't see how.
Well, why did you choose carbon dioxide? It wasn't mentioned in my quote.
What is the LD50 of CO2?
Are the effects of CO2 exposure cumulative?
H2O is a dangerous inhalant, as well. You are trying to be clever.
Autolykos:Your refusal to do so seems to imply an ulterior motive on your part.
To not be your bitch, and if you are going to try to set these cutesy logical traps for me, at least be willing to do the footwork for it. I can see what you are trying to do from a mile away.
Autolykos:In that case, we're hardly the only environmentally destructive species, and there are plenty of non-living things that are environmentally destructive. Or do you mean "human activity" when you say "activity"?
Assertion. Try again. I can be a noodge, and play dumb, too
Thermodynamics. Physics. Expansion of the universe... there's a few, not sure if I can come up with a complete list.
Jackson LaRose:Well, why did you choose carbon dioxide? It wasn't mentioned in my quote.
It didn't have to be. Carbon dioxide is a poison, is it not?
Jackson LaRose:What is the LD50 of CO2? Are the effects of CO2 exposure cumulative?
Those are irrelevant to your definition of the verb "poison".
Jackson LaRose:H2O is a dangerous inhalant, as well. You are trying to be clever.
No, I'm trying to show how your definition "proves too much". And I still don't see where I'm begging any question - that is, I don't see where my conclusion is first assumed as a premise.
Jackson LaRose:To not be your bitch, and if you are going to try to set these cutesy logical traps for me, at least be willing to do the footwork for it. I can see what you are trying to do from a mile away.
With all due respect, do you really see me in this situation as an example of "The Man" trying to oppress you? Come on. And no, I'm not trying to set any logical traps for you, "cutesy" or otherwise. I'm trying to help you understand the logical implications of what you're saying.
Jackson LaRose:Assertion. Try again. I can be a noodge, and play dumb, too
I don't think I'm playing dumb. From my point of view, many different people have many different definitions for "environmental destruction". Some people apparently consider a single species going extinct to constitute "environmental destruction". What you're trying to do is "define" that term in the same way that one Supreme Court justice infamously "defined" "obscenity" - "I know it when I see it". That won't fly with me whatsoever.
Jackson LaRose:Thermodynamics. Physics. Expansion of the universe... there's a few, not sure if I can come up with a complete list.
I was asking for which influences are not beyond our control. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
Autolykos:No, I'm trying to show how your definition "proves too much".
OK, how about this one,
"Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure."
Autolykos:With all due respect, do you really see me in this situation as an example of "The Man" trying to oppress you? Come on.
LOL, no, I see it as an example of a rhetorical combatant trying to pin me in to some logical trap, so they can declare rhetorical supremacy. Or, as you would call it,
trying to help you understand the logical implications of what you're saying.
In any case, I was refering to the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs, which I went on to mention anyways.
Autolykos:That won't fly with me whatsoever.
What will fly is completely sidestepping your previous assertion,
because you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of a species which reduces the carrying capacity of its landbase.
Autolykos:I was asking for which influences are not beyond our control. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
Oh. Now that's a tough one, to which I haven't come up with a satisfactory answer.
JLR:Ending the state and corporations would be a start!
JLR:culture that places maximum accumulation of power and control (i.e. modern western culture) as its greatest good
JLR:It's no different when the "owner" of a forest decides to clearcut it. Is that particularly beneficial to the inhabitants of the forest (the flora and fauna)? No. But then again, they weren't asked, now were they?
JLR:But in what context? That's like saying beef confinement feedlots are working to restore auroch populations. Growing plankton to feed shrimp farms has nothing to do with the ecology of the open ocean, and I find it completely disgusting and reprehensible to even consider that as a valid point.
JLR:Capitalism is just one (of many) methods of unsustainable production. I'm really trying to figure out if it HAS to be by it's very design.
JLR:"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".
Jackson LaRose: "Why is optimum satisfaction of human wants the ultimate goal"? "Who is the 'human' consist of in the previous statement?" I never started with that premise.
Obviously optimum satisfaction of human wants is implied in the premise, as there would otherwise be incentive and material available to continue production unabated. (Ie, converting matter and energy into goods that satisfy human wants more optimally than is already in existence).
There is no 'the' human. Human wants implies needs or desires among a population of humans that is widespread or strong enough to incentivize production of goods that satisfy or alleviates them.
I am replying to your premise of "Reality is finite, yes or no?" and the suggestion that therefore it is reasonable to assume that production must at some point cease by exploring the implications of this premise.
Jackson LaRose:LOL, well I consider their production methods sustainable, as they could keep producing indefinitely. If some external force or influence causes their methods to fail (such as the sun burning out), I think it would be rather tough to blame the method of production itself for that failure. Poisoning ourselves and the planet is certainly of anthropogenic origin, and therefore a different scenario.
The sun is finite. Yes or no?
A finite sun means that at some point, H/G and agriculture will no longer be sustainable. Yes or no? It's really quite simple; you don't want to apply the same ridiculous criteria of sustainability (the universe is finite thus matter and energy is finite whereas humans and human production is potentially infinite) to the production methods that you want to espouse as 'sustainable' that you do to methods of production that you would consider unsustainable because in your mind you have accepted that all methods of production will in such a situation be unsustainable.
Poisonings have existed before humanity and will persist if humanity should cease to exist. What company that you can think of has the purchase or production of poison and then subsequent use of that poison for the direct destruction of land or human beings as a business model? How do they make a profit? Are there some people out there who want to be poisoned, or who want their land to be poisoned? Some huge masochistic market?
NEPHiLiX:Now I see who we are dealing with...for the love of god how did I get sucked into this against a Freedom4Me clone? All that time, wasted...
LOL, give me a break... Are you so rhetorically feeble that you MUST only engage with fellow acolytes? And believe me, F4M and I disagree too.
You can't make it alone.
You can't eat gold.
NEPHiLiX:Clearly you've already decided that western civilization is evil and doomed
Evil? No. Doomed? I'm becoming more convinced, considering this is the best responses I've gotten so far,
"Meh, future technology will take care of it."
"Salmon farms and tree plantations are just as good as functioning ecosystems... Maybe even better, because there's profit to be had!"
NEPHiLiX:I'd *love* to see you try and substantiate this Foucault throwback. This is complete and utter nonsense
OK, then what is the cultural goal? What is the underlying zeitgeist of our society?
NEPHiLiX:They were asked but, strangely, they didn't answer, which everyone thought was strange considering what was at stake. In the end, the "owner" took the silence and non-opposition as tacit consent. I mean, after all, he asked.
LOL, that's right... the woods are stupid, and don't talk. Let's go jerk off to Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett about how awesome humans are, and how we have it all figured out (except those bloody savages, who think everything has a soul... fucking primitives).
NEPHiLix... is that a reference to the Nephilim? Because THAT is definitely a whole credible can of worms right there... Nibiru, save me!
NEPHiLiX:Whoopty-do. I don't. If phytoplankton scarcity was caused by harvesting it from the ocean for such uses, and now it isn't because it can be cultured and harvested artificially, then YES it IS helping to reverse the decline, isn't it? The fact is that, however, it wasn't harvesting that caused this, but rather natural phenomena, which capitalism isn't making worse by culturing. Again, your example doesn't support your case.
What are you talking about here? Phytoplankton are dying from climate change. Harvesting them and using them in a farm is NOT the same as having wild populations in the ocean. How are domesticated strains in shrimp ponds going to keep oceanic food webs functioning? It's completely apples and oranges. Your "point" also assumes that domesticates and wild animals are the same.
Pug vs. grey wolf?
We were having a great conversation before your aggro-hate fest started because I had the audacity to suggest that maximum production and output may be a stupid ultimate societal goal, considering we are killing ourselves (and lots of other things) to do it. I don't think you have to be a chaod about it.
NEPHiLiX:But isn't that irrelevant, according to you? Earlier in this thread, you defended your argument semantically per your argument that because resources are finite and that human demand for them is not, resource depletion must follow.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but is that the case? That's what this whole thread is about,
"Can capitalism as a system of production ever be sustainable, given Jevon's Paradox?"
NEPHiLiX:You keep skirting the advent of economic recycling (mass recycling made economically competitive in production as against other uses of the scarce factors of production) in spite of the fact that free market capitalist production over time tends toward sustainability, and that it does this far better than any other economic system. In any case, let's keep economic recycling out of the picture for now and continue to address this.
So recycling is your perpetual motion solution? Tell me, aren't there external input required for recycling? Water and energy come to mind, for me.
NEPHiLiX:The fact is that any human population (assuming infinite temporal existence as a species) producing anything from finite (non-renewable) resources (with no potential for mass recycling!) over a stretch of infinite time semantically *must* run out of non-renewable resources.
OK, I'm with you so far...
NEPHiLiX:Thus resource extinction is guaranteed by the very fact of the existence of humans engaging in production over infinite time using non-renewable (finite) resources. If you don't see a problem with your formulation, then hey, good luck to you.
LOL, well, it begs the question. If you can figure out what question, you get a gold star!
NEPHiLiX:Why don't you try and find out why Jevon's Paradox only applies to fuels, and why it is only a proposition, because your current application of it as a Law to all production is highly problematic.
I don't really know a whole lot about it. I came across it, and went to the forums to find out more, or at least see what the rebuttals against it were. If you are so privy to this knowledge, then please, enlighten me padre.
excel:Obviously optimum satisfaction of human wants is implied in the premise, as there would otherwise be incentive and material available to continue production unabated. (Ie, converting matter and energy into goods that satisfy human wants more optimally than is already in existence).
I don't understand.
excel:The sun is finite. Yes or no?
Yes.
excel:A finite sun means that at some point, H/G and agriculture will no longer be sustainable. Yes or no?
excel:It's really quite simple; you don't want to apply the same ridiculous criteria of sustainability (the universe is finite thus matter and energy is finite whereas humans and human production is potentially infinite) to the production methods that you want to espouse as 'sustainable' that you do to methods of production that you would consider unsustainable because in your mind you have accepted that all methods of production will in such a situation be unsustainable.
You got me. I modified my definition of "sustainable" just for this very reason,
Jackson LaRose:able to continue indefinitely, barring external influences beyond our control.
Jackson LaRose:I don't understand.
In the infinite growth model that we assume, as long as something exists which is not employed to optimally satisfy human wants, then it must by the definitions of the paradox be employed as a capital good for the production of goods that more optimally does satify human wants.
Jackson LaRose:You got me. I modified my definition of "sustainable" just for this very reason; "able to continue indefinitely, barring external influences beyond our control."
Will you tell me whether this restatement of my understanding of your position on sustainable v/ unsustainable production is an accurate description of your position: "Methods of production are sustainable as long as production can continue indefinitely barring external influences beyond our control, modern methods of production is unsustainable in that production cannot continue indefinitely due to either damage made to the factors of production done by human actors (ie, the damage done has a direct or indirect anthropogenic source) or from the depletion of natural resources. (Which includes only over-harvest, as the amount of matter in the universe and its distribution on the planet is beyond our control)."?
JLR:Are you so rhetorically feeble that you MUST only engage with fellow acolytes?
JLR:OK, then what is the cultural goal? What is the underlying zeitgeist of our society?
JLR:Let's go jerk off...fucking primitives...be a chaod...
JLR:NEPHiLiM... is that a reference to the Nephilim? Because THAT is definitely a whole credible can of worms right there... Nibiru, save me!
JLR:What are you talking about here? Phytoplankton are dying from climate change.
NEPHiLiX:The fact is that, however, it wasn't harvesting that caused this, but rather natural phenomena, which capitalism isn't making worse by culturing.
JLR:Your "point" also assumes that domesticates and wild animals are the same.
JLR:So recycling is your perpetual motion solution?
JLR:LOL, well, it begs the question. If you can figure out what question, you get a gold star!
NEPHiLiX:Why don't you try and find out why Jevon's Paradox only applies to fuels, and why it is only a proposition, because your current application of it as a *Law* to *all* production is highly problematic.
JLR:I don't really know a whole lot about it.
JLR:If you are so privy to this knowledge, then please, enlighten me padre.
excel:In the infinite growth model that we assume, as long as something exists which is not employed to optimally satisfy human wants, then it must by the definitions of the paradox be employed as a capital good for the production of goods that more optimally does satify human wants.
OK, I'm with you now. Yes, since the paradox suggests demand is constant and unceasing, I can understand what you are saying here.
excel:"Methods of production are sustainable as long as production can continue indefinitely barring external influences beyond our control, modern methods of production is unsustainable in that production cannot continue indefinitely due to either damage made to the factors of production done by human actors (ie, the damage done has a direct or indirect anthropogenic source) or from the depletion of natural resources. (Which includes only over-harvest, as the amount of matter in the universe and its distribution on the planet is beyond our control)."?
I would also include damage done to ecological webs, but yeah, that seems about right.
NEPHiLiX:I would never make a claim that there is a zeitgeist that I'm capable of identifying and defining. You did. And because you can't substantiate your own definition doesn't put the onus on me. If you couldn't substantiate your claim, you shouldn't have made it. You do this alot.
Than what is the end goal in production? Or of accumulating capital? Happiness or satisfaction can't be it, because it does not linearly trend with increases in production.
So why keep producing? What is the point?
But you are able to just say "nuh uh", and move on, as if you have sufficiently addressed the issue. It's only fair, I suppose. I usually just reply to assertions in the same fashion.
NEPHiLiX:As for the flora and fauna example, you were the one who claimed that "asking" was relevant, I was pointing out the absurdity hoping that you' wouldn't (again) take it literally and respond to that rather than to concede the absurdity of these kinds of comments and simply cut to the chase.
Spare your patronizing bullcrap. Why is it an absurd proposition? Oh, because you are a reductionist, materialist, humanist, science worshipper who equates shrimp farms with opean ocean ecosystems.
NEPHiLiX:It's strange what happens when you don't digest responses before responding, huh?
LOL, it's also strange how completely assured you are that climate change is a natural phenomena...
NEPHiliX:Nope, and if you actually read and digested my responses on this, you'd know that.
Care to explain it then? Remember, I'm a stubborn idiot.
NEPHiLiX:I'll take that as a no. Good luck to you, then.
Lazy, lazy. The question begged is,
"Why do you presuppose humans must use non-renewable resources in order to exist?"
NEPHiLiX:Yes because you've proven yourself so amenable to counterpoints so far...
LOL, it must be hard to type while you are up on the cross! We were having a fine conversation before you "outed" me, and became a total douche from thereon, because you had made up your mind that I was some shit-head enviromentalist.
NEPHiLiX:Why wouldn't I want to continue this conversation with such an abrasive, abusive and repellent discussant? Hmmmm, let me think...
OK, then see you around the block...
Jackson LaRose:OK, how about this one, "Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure."
Do you draw any line for what you're counting as "injure"? Although it isn't a chemical, we're all constantly bombarded by radiation, at least some of which disrupts molecules in our bodies.
Jackson LaRose:LOL, no, I see it as an example of a rhetorical combatant trying to pin me in to some logical trap, so they can declare rhetorical supremacy. Or, as you would call it, trying to help you understand the logical implications of what you're saying. In any case, I was refering to the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs, which I went on to mention anyways.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not engaging in rhetoric. Hence I have no desire to declare rhetorical superiority. I try to remain as logical as possible. Logic is not at all the same thing as rhetoric.
Thank you for pointing out which part of your response to EmperorNero was relevant. Now then, just so I'm on the right page, you're defining "having my home ruined" as "the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs", right? If so, that brings up two questions in my mind. First, how big of an area are you talking about? Second, going with your definition of the verb "poison", this means there must be sufficient PCBs in the rivers in your area to kill or injure you. Do you know whether that's the case?
Otherwise, if you're not defining "having my home ruined" as "the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs", then what are you defining it as?
Jackson LaRose:What will fly is completely sidestepping your previous assertion, In that case, we're hardly the only environmentally destructive species, and there are plenty of non-living things that are environmentally destructive. Or do you mean "human activity" when you say "activity"? because you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of a species which reduces the carrying capacity of its landbase.
How about cane toads, after they were brought to Australia?
Jackson LaRose:Oh. Now that's a tough one, to which I haven't come up with a satisfactory answer.
So if you have no idea which influences are not beyond our control, then that means you have no idea which kinds of production are unsustainable.
Autolykos:Do you draw any line for what you're counting as "injure"?
Sigh, do you draw any line for semantics?
Causing adverse health effects, maybe?
Autolykos:Although it isn't a chemical, we're all constantly bombarded by radiation, at least some of which disrupts molecules in our bodies.
Can we control that? Did we evolve for that contingency?
Autolykos:Now then, just so I'm on the right page, you're defining "having my home ruined" as "the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs", right?
Among other things. Generally, it means having the carrying capacity of my landbase reduced.
Autolykos:how big of an area are you talking about?
As I said before, I am unable to function atomistically, and therefore am forced to take a holistic approach to this answer,
The universe.
Autolykos:Second, going with your definition of the verb "poison", this means there must be sufficient PCBs in the rivers in your area to kill or injure you. Do you know whether that's the case?
Well, it WOULD certainly be the case if I started eating fish around here, and I DO eat farmed salmon, but I haven't gotten any blood tests, if that's what you're asking. Even if the average daily dose is small, PCBs are known as Persistent Organic Pollutants, so exposure has a cumulative effect.
Autolykos:How about cane toads, after they were brought to Australia?
LOL, who brought them there? Next you might start blaming chainsaws for logging!
Autolykos:So if you have no idea which influences are not beyond our control, then that means you have no idea which kinds of production are unsustainable.
Hey, it's not my fault you are too vague to make sense. Who exactly is "our" in this quote?
Jackson LaRose: I would also include damage done to ecological webs, but yeah, that seems about right.
I would have mentioned it, but figured that damage done having an indirect anthropogenic source would cover this. This makes top-soil erosion an interesting topic, in that the direct damage done is due entirely to external factors beyond our control (currently). Ie, rain fall run-off and wind. On the other hand, if we assume that indirectly, bad management of land can be a factor in this, (in that farmers don't use different known or unknown methods to combat top-soil erosion, of which there are quite a few), how do we determine which factor should be the deciding one in determining whether production is sustainable? Ie, we can look at it and say that production is sustainable because the top soil erosion is caused by external factors beyond our control. Or we can look at it and say that production is unsustainable because the top soil erosion could have been alleviated or stopped completely by applying technologies that we either possess (we have several top soil prevention measures available) or that we could presumably develop.
Jackson LaRose: As I said before, I am unable to function atomistically, and therefore am forced to take a holistic approach to this answer, The universe.
Then luckily, we can assume that nothing is poisoned anywhere, since compared to all the matter and energy contained in the universe, the amount of poison dumped in your backyard is insignificant, even if we dumped all the poison and radiation in the world into it. Problem solved!
excel:This makes top-soil erosion an interesting topic, in that the direct damage done is due entirely to external factors beyond our control (currently). Ie, rain fall run-off and wind. On the other hand, if we assume that indirectly, bad management of land can be a factor in this, (in that farmers don't use different known or unknown methods to combat top-soil erosion, of which there are quite a few), how do we determine which factor should be the deciding one in determining whether production is sustainable?
First, this post struck me as absurd, because it seems to completely ignore the function of the biosphere is mitigating soil erosion, and therefore essentially tries to sneak by any sort of potential for anthropogenic causality in said soil erosion.
Disregarding that rather important omission, it all comes down to whether or not the production reduces the carrying capacity of the land. If said production exeeds the enviroment's ability to replenish any resources used, then I would consider the production unsustainable.
excel:Or we can look at it and say that production is unsustainable because the top soil erosion could have been alleviated or stopped completely by applying technologies that we either possess (we have several top soil prevention measures available) or that we could presumably develop.
Sort of. The sustainability or unsustainability of an economic activity has nothing to do with whether one has the technology to produce in a way that does not reduce (or reduces less, or more slowly) the carrying capacity of the landbase. I mean, technically, we already have the technology to produce sustainably (paleolithic).
You do raise an interesting point, though. There are certainly extant technologies we possess in order to increase the carrying capacities of land (without resorting to the stone age, LOL!). Since we are fortunate enough to have the constant energy input of the Sun, we can devise systems of nutient cycling in which we can produce valuable products over and over again from the same materials.
Integrated farms come to mind. Terra Preta as well.
Of course, the model relies on cyclical nutrient exchange, so it would be tough to reconcile these models with global trade! I think it can be doable, though... perhaps requiring a holistic view of global nutrient cycles. Unfortunately, if production continues, those natural nutrient exchange mechanisms my be gone by the time we try to work with them!
excel:Then luckily, we can assume that nothing is poisoned anywhere, since compared to all the matter and energy contained in the universe, the amount of poison dumped in your backyard is insignificant, even if we dumped all the poison and radiation in the world into it. Problem solved!
Your reasoning is absurd, LOL! As I said before, I am concerned with myself and my own. My concern for what is immediate in my life forces me to care about that which is outside of my immediate area, because of the inheirent inter-relatedness of everything.
I don't care about averages in the least, so your deduction is silly.
Jackson LaRose:Your reasoning is absurd, LOL! As I said before, I am concerned with myself and my own. My concern for what is immediate in my life forces me to care about that which is outside of my immediate area, because of the inheirent inter-relatedness of everything. I don't care about averages in the least, so your deduction is silly.
Then your holistic reasoning that the entire universe is your concerned area is as absurd.
excel:Then your holistic reasoning that the entire universe is your concerned area is as absurd.
Non sequetur. Why?
Jackson LaRose: Non sequetur. Why?
Because if we magically and without cost dropped 600 trillion tons of cyanide and rat poison onto the surface of OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb the effect on you would be non-existent.
If we dropped 10 tons of cyanide and rat poison on your house, the effect would be immediate and pressing.
So either you don't give a flying rats anus about what happens on the surface of OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, or you're already convinced you're dying because there exists far more than 600 trillion tons of cyanide, as well as all the components of rat poison, already within the universe, and they therefore affect your situation with an equal amount of damage that dropping it all on an exoplaned thousands of lightyears away from earth does.
Ie, your reasoning is absurd.
Jackson LaRose: Which creates a whole myriad of further capital demands (cages, feed, time, etc.), which again, requires expansion of the resource base (growth).
Which creates a whole myriad of further capital demands (cages, feed, time, etc.), which again, requires expansion of the resource base (growth).
No. It does not. All that is required is some wood to build fences, and if you take care of them, you don't have to chop down trees everyday to maintain them. Trees grow back, and if you really wanted and were careful, you would not have to worry about deforestation.
What animal husbandry actually does is allow people to satisfy their immediate needs much easier, which then allows people to seek more. Animal husbandry in and of itself does not require very much. All it does is allow people to do not have to spend all day hunting.
Jackson LaRose: I love how you guys are so willing to decry state intervention in markets, but are equally as willing to accept human intervention in ecologies.
I love how you guys are so willing to decry state intervention in markets, but are equally as willing to accept human intervention in ecologies.
One has nothing to do with the other. Besides, every living thing intervenes in ecologies...
Jackson LaRose: Remember, centralization does not work! Coercion does not work!
Huh?
Jackson LaRose: LOL, isn't that what I said?
No, it is not what you said. If it is what you meant, you were very unclear.
Jackson LaRose: Who said they matter any more than your little rabbits?
Is this your opinion? That the people of America do not matter more than rabbits? I certainly think that most people matter more than rabbits. What is the point of this question?
Jackson LaRose: Sure it is. Who owns the United States? Those in power. Who's interests are the only ones considered when calculating the economy of an action? The deciding party, obviously, which are the owners, obviously.
No, it is not. The United States government could deregulate the prohibitions and rules regarding domestic energy production, such as oil drilling, oil refinement, wind farms, nuclear energy, etc. It does not. War is also incredibly costly, and the Powers That Be in America have yet to reap the rewards of warring for oil. Pipelines won't be up for another several years or so, the ones that are supposed to connect Iraq to Europe. Whereas, if the PTB preferred, they could deregulate domestic energy restrictions. Your analogy is not accurate.
Jackson LaRose: It's no different when the "owner" of a forest decides to clearcut it. Is that particularly beneficial to the inhabitants of the forest? No. But then again, they weren't asked, now were they?
Is it beneficial to the sheep when the wolf eats it? Did the wolf even ask? What's your point?
Jackson LaRose: Everyone here seems to forget that nations are just someone's (a king) or some corporate entity's (the federal government) large piece of property. No more, no less. All the citizens are just the property of the land "owner".
I would like you to substantiate this assertion. It has been my experience that most people here are very much aware of the fact that the state essentially owns us and our property. There is a reason that the analogy of taxation being akin to slavery, in fact the only difference is the matter of degree. It is also why many of us talk about "just" ownership. We consider the state to "unjustly" own things. So, if you please, I would appreciate that you substantiate this ridiculous assertion.
Jackson LaRose: Why, are you going to also give up your legal right to the now rabbit-less land you previously inhabited? Seems unlikely.
Have nodamic societies ever actually claimed to own the land? Maybe some have, but I've been under the impression that nomads are nomads precisely because they don't own land. When nomads move, all they have done is shift. They have not expanded.
Jackson LaRose: OK, uncle. Perhaps growth isn't needed initially, but is required eventually, if one produces unsustainably. Can we agree on that, at least?
No. I cannot agree to that because it is not true. Growth is not a requisite for capitalism. Capitalism produces growth. It may use this growth to expand further, but it is never a requisite.
Jackson LaRose: So, old growth forest is completely equitable with 10 year old Douglas Fir monocultures? That is a sick thought, and why we are fucked.
This is neither a counterexample nor even a counterargument to my point.
Jackson LaRose: Then you will drown in your own waste, like the rest of us.
I can only hope you are speaking figuratively, because I see no indication that this will actually happen.
Jackson LaRose: What are you talking about? Is this just a naked assertion? Why?
As stated before, socialist leaning societies are the ones that use up resources and have to move on. Capitalist leaning societies do not have this problem. Look at agriculture. We are so wealthy in food that the US government pays farmers to not farm their land. Socialist leaning societies are just the opposite. They need donations from capitalist leaning societies so that their population will not starve to death. Africa is rich in resources, but because of their socialist type economies, you would never know it.
It is true that capitalist societies do expand in many ways, but the key words in my statement were "do not have to". Capitalist societies do not have to keep expanding, whereas socialist societies "do have to" keep expanding.
Jackson LaRose: Nonsense. Domestication of animals as a method of achieving sustainability is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out.
No, for the reasons above.