Sorry for the late response, didn't see your post there.
Jackson LaRose: 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: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.
I point out that pollution is getting better, and your response is "compared to when, what about pre-history?". That is utterly irrelevant, the market-environmentalist argument only requires that pollution is declining since 1800 or 1900, not 5000 BC.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:Besides, we're stuck with the industrial age, so how does the comparison matter?We are "stuck" with the Industrial Age?
EmperorNero:Besides, we're stuck with the industrial age, so how does the comparison matter?
Unless you want 98% of the worlds population to starve, a hunter-gatherer economy is not an option.
Jackson LaRose:Are we also "stuck" with the state?
I don't think so, but how is that relevant?
Jackson LaRose: 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?
EmperorNero:No, third world countries actually produce a rather small share of our products.
Well, third world countries don't really produce much of anything. The ones you mention are recently liberalized countries. It might seem as though they produce a lot, but they are specialized in consumption goods that are more visible. Who produced the machine that makes the clothing? Who designed it? Who researched the alloy that sits inside the machine? Wealth is a function of productivity, that's kind of how economics works.
Jackson LaRose: 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!
EmperorNero:If they had the ability to produce lots of stuff they wouldn't be poor, duh.
No, that does not follow, "if they were productive they would be rich" does not imply "they are rich so they must be productive". Bankers are rich because they own and manipulate a monopolized money supply, which has nothing to do with our debate on international wealth distribution.
Jackson LaRose:They are being exploited, so the exploiters make the money at their expense. That's kind of how wage-slavery works.
Exploitation theory is obsolete 19th century Marxist economics based on objective value theories that were refuted by modern economics over a century ago.
Jackson LaRose: 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:Even computers are produced in high wage countries like Japan and Taiwan, they are only assembled in China.
It's not perfect, but Taiwanese per capita GDP was twenty times as high as on mainland China in 1978 (when they started getting market liberalization). My point remains.
Jackson LaRose: 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.
EmperorNero:And rivers are not dirty because of industrial pollution, but because of people pooping in them because they can't afford indoor plumbing.
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.
And how many people did PCB kill? Tens of people? The stuff that was in the drinking water two centuries ago caused abhorrent infant mortality rates and life expectancies of like thirty. It's always amazing how environmentalists ignore facts. Even though the factual evidence tells us that pollution is going down, they simply ignore that and claim that pollution is getting worse using anecdotal evidence.
Jackson LaRose: 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.
EmeperorNero:Rivers and harbors in the west got clean when society became rich enough to dump it's fecies elsewhere.
They are cleaner, which is all my argument requires.
You make it sound so easy, but if people could 'just' quit using their rivers as open sewers, people all over the world wouldn't have to wash their clothing in shit. This is an extraordinary achievement of a few market economies. And it has way greater health benefits than anything modern environmentalism ever did, which is all about theoretical problems that don't actually affect anyone.
Jackson LaRose: 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:The only thing that ever cleaned up the environment is wealth, which is produced by markets, which the environmentalists try to stifle.
Responding that something is "an assertion" is not an argument. That's like saying that my sentences are made up of words, it's just eluding rhetoric. I suspect you do that because you can't really argue with my statements, because they all directly follow from generally agreed upon facts:
Or would you truly dispute that environmental protection relies on wealth? If so, can you name a single country that was better able to protect it's environment when it was half as rich? Can you name a poor country that is better able to protect it's environment than a rich country? Or can you make any theoretical economic argument to the effect that environmental protection does not become easier when a society is richer?
Do you dispute that markets produce wealth? If so you need a little economics lesson.
Or do you dispute that environmentalists want to stifle markets? Because that's pretty much what it means by definition.
Jackson LaRose: 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:Unclean environments were a huge problem two centuries ago, when people were actually dying of the filth around them.
Exactly. They died from pollution all the time, now they don't. Which means that - see if you can follow me here - pollution has decreased.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:Our beliefs are both "just assertions", but mine fits the empirical data.No, they don't.
EmperorNero:Our beliefs are both "just assertions", but mine fits the empirical data.
Yes, they do. You claim that the environmental movement was a response to growing discomfort, I claim that it was a claim to growing wealth and leisure. To support your theory, the dada should show growing discomfort up to the beginnings of the environmental movement, to support my theory there would have to be declining discomfort. There is declining discomfort, ergo the data confirms my theory and contradicts yours.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:It's not just about collectivism, but about poverty, which is caused by lack of property rights.What does this even mean?
EmperorNero:It's not just about collectivism, but about poverty, which is caused by lack of property rights.
It means that you can't create wealth if you can't own stuff.
Jackson LaRose:Are we to respect the property rights of the state? How about the large corporate arms of the state?
If the state had to respect property rights, it would just be another competitive company.
Jackson LaRose:How does labor/resource exploitation factor into this equation?
It doesn't, because it's a fallacy.
Jackson LaRose: EmperorNero:Animist socialists are still inept social engineers without the ability to do economic calculation.Which is inferior why?
EmperorNero:Animist socialists are still inept social engineers without the ability to do economic calculation.
As to why socialist economic performance is inferior, I refer you to the economic sucess of the Soviet union.
Jackson LaRose: 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.
EmperorNero:For example, that's why they're using natural gas instead of (much dirtier) wood these days.
So humanities choice of resources is like some huge conspiracy? It has nothing to do with, like, physical properties and cost? How do they manage to get all the inventors and engineers on board?
And actually from the point of view of the ruling class oil and natural gas are a problem because they are too abundant. They can't really keep a lid on it, which is why the environmental socialist movement comes in handy.
Jackson LaRose:Maybe that is also why we desperately cling to a fossil fuel economy, when cheap, decentralized energy alternatives already exist and are proven.
Like what?
Jackson LaRose: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?
If plankton is truly this important then it is 'marketable' in the sense that you and likeminded people will care about voluntarily protecting it.
But your argument was that market-environmentalism wouldn't save non-marketable species. To that I responded that it shouldn't, because there are opportunity costs to saving species. It would be a good thing to let useless species go, because there are more valuable things we could do with those resources, like saving children with leukemia. Are you really saying that there should be no cost-accounting when it comes to environmental protection? This good should be purchased without thought or discretion?
Jackson LaRose: 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: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.
If Chinese and Indians produced as many resources as Americans, they would be a lot more abundant.
Jackson LaRose: 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: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.
Aren't we told that the default response in the absence of evidence is supposed to be disbelief? We don't know of any flying spaghetti monsters, hence we should not believe in them. We don't know of any limits to growth, hence we should not believe in them. The thing is that you are saying that even though we have no evidence of any limits to growth, we should just assume there is one somewhere, since that's kinda plausible.
The funny thing is that this line of thought has been wrong over and over again. In the 60's Paul Ehrlich and his ilk told us that the world would be starving by the 80's, and in the 80's they told us it would be starving by the 2000's. The end of oil has been predicted literally every decade since it's commercialization, yet reserves only grow. How often does a theory have to be disproven before people stop believing it? And you're the one accusing me of blid faith?
Jackson LaRose: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.
Ok, to keep providing the same standard of living we would need to constantly raise resource input. (But it is not a problem, since the resource base is not meaningfully finite and input can just grow indefinitely.) And this is not the same as "capitalism needs growth to exist". For one this applies to any form of production, especially "sustainable" production, as we have to maintain an exponentially growing amount of inefficient wind-turbines. (Where will the food come from when most of the land is used for transition lines?) But also capitalism doesn't 'require' growth because if there aren't any more resources then there just wouldn't be any growth, it wouldn't somehow crash the system.
excel:your reasoning is absurd.
No, your example is absurd.
excel: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.
Well, this completely disregards causality, here. Why should this example be "magically, and without cost"? Perhaps that is the only way you can shoe-horn this example into fitting your argument?
Furthermore, how do you know it would have no effect?
Look, if you could help me out in this situation, I would appreciate it. Even if I only start by caring about my self (ego), I am forced to care about my body, and therefore food, water, and shelter, and the inputs for those resources, and so on, and so on, until... what? The state? The nation? Continent? Planet? Solar System? What do you think?
excel:If we dropped 10 tons of cyanide and rat poison on your house, the effect would be immediate and pressing.
Very true.
excel: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.
How does this follow? As I said before, if I am concerned with my self and my own, I must also be concerned with the universe outside of my own, since it is completely one and the same. I cannot concieve of an alternative.
Ultimately, the concern is still for the self. If magic cyanide bombs do not affect me, let them drop. If they are house cyanide bombs, I have a problem with that. If OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb goes supernova because of the magic bomb, and showers my own with radiation, I have a problem with that.
So, I can be concerned with both, in relation to how they affect my self and my own.
Jackson LaRose:If magic cyanide bombs do not affect me, let them drop.
I respectfully and humbly accept your concession that your reasoning was absurd, and that you are not concerned with the entire universe.
excel:I respectfully and humbly accept your concession that your reasoning was absurd, and that you are not concerned with the entire universe.
LOL, if you bothered to read the rest of the post, you'd understand that I AM concerned with the rest of the universe vis a vis how it affects myself and my own.
I humbly accept the fact that you fail to understand that, and somehow think that a deadly dose of poison dropped on a distant star somehow equates to one dropped on my dwelling. If that dose of poison dropped on the star homehow affected me, then I would certainly be concerned.
Do you understand?
gotlucky:All that is required is some wood to build fences
Chickens eat fences? I know mildew does, at least!
gotlucky:Trees grow back, and if you really wanted and were careful, you would not have to worry about deforestation.
LOL, OK, so one chicken fence (?) every what, 100 years? Maybe 20-40 if you don't mind permanently destroying old-growth habitat.
gotlucky: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.
Nonsense. Animal husbandry exists so we can produce an artificially high amount of meat per square mile (kilometer, meter, whatever), to support our own artificially inflated population densities (i.e., cities). It's essentially antropogenically induced ecological overshoot.
This ecological intervention (much like economic intervention) creates many more problems than it ends up solving. Domestic animals are more docile, so need protection (mangers, sheepdogs, coops, pens, etc.). Since they are now confined, they require food and water provided by humans, and since they are bred for higher productivity, they become weak and over-bred compared to the wild parent species (turkeys that can't mate, more susceptable to disease, less hardy, etc.).
They even have a word for the carrying capacity reduction brought on by domestic animals:
Overgrazing
Hell, why do you think the Middle East is a desert now?
gotlucky:One has nothing to do with the other.
I would disagree.
gotlucky:Besides, every living thing intervenes in ecologies...
And every concious actor intervenes in an economy, and every individual is a state of one...
gotlugky:Huh?
When you domesticate an ecology, what are you doing? You are taking a decentralized ecology, and bringing it to heel under one ruler (the human), usually by force (slash and burn, tilling, sowing, weeding, grazing, etc.)
I mean, take a look at a chainsaw of herbicide commercial sometime. It's a war out there!
gotlucky:I certainly think that most people matter more than rabbits.
Why? As a side note, I find this sentence very ironic coming from a guy with a rabbit as his avatar (not an american citizen)!
gotlucky: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.
Who is "The United States Government" in this passage?
gotlucky:War is also incredibly costly, and the Powers That Be in America have yet to reap the rewards of warring for oil.
Who are "the Powers That Be in America" in this passage? Do you think they are the same as "The United States Government"? For whom is war incredibly costly? How do you know they have not "reaped any rewards"?
gotlucky:Whereas, if the PTB preferred, they could deregulate domestic energy restrictions.
Why do you think the regulators would want to reduce regulations?
gotlucky:Is it beneficial to the sheep when the wolf eats it? Did the wolf even ask? What's your point?
Totally inaccurate analogy. Not to mention the fact that it is beneficial to the local sheep poulation in general.
My point is, is that you are conflating the average American (i.e. little to no power), to the owners of America (i.e., those with all of the power).
What benefits one almost certainly runs counter to the best interests of the other, and vice versa. I used to subscribe to that "raises all boats stuff", but I certainly am starting to believe the "class struggle" point of view more and more.
gotlucky:I would like you to substantiate this assertion.
Wait, which one? That we are property, or that everyone forgets that? LOL!
gotlucky: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.
That may be well and good, but answer me this... Why is everyone to vehemently defending the state/corporate tandem that has been shitting in our homes for the last two centuries? What is with this fetishization of production, of growth, of maximum exploitation? Is that why you want to be free? So you can sqeeze every last drop of product from your God (or Man, depending on what you worship) given "property"?
Does cutting down rainforests "enrich" us?
Is the elimination of 200 species a day "enriching" our lives?
Does aquisition material goods always equate to happiness for everyone, all of the time?
Why should the satisfaction of "Human" (not individual) wants be the highest goal, and the ultimate good?
There are some strange premises everyone here seems to take for granted.
gotlucky: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.
Yeah, they shift... just like those goalposts, LOL. So, we've gone from rabbit farmers to nomads just like that, huh? Property external to the self (i.e., what you can carry with you) only exists because of sedentary agriculture. Of course nomads don't "own" land! They also don't farm rabbits!
gotlucky:It may use this growth to expand further, but it is never a requisite.
Then please explain, barring perpetual motion. If you produce unsustainably, you will be unable to produce the same amount indefinitely, yes? I think we can agree on that, at least...
gotlucky:This is neither a counterexample nor even a counterargument to my point.
Because your "point" was mainly focused on fighting some socialist strawman. I merely wanted to point out the sociopathy in your twisted reasoning, and you phenominal ignorance in regard to trees being able to be "just replanted".
gotlucky:because I see no indication that this will actually happen.
It has before...
gotlucky:As stated before, socialist leaning societies are the ones that use up resources and have to move on.
As stated before, monkeys fly out of my butt riding unicorns when no one else is watching. That doesn't mean anything.
And you are still fighting the boogey-socialist strawman. Right, left... it is industrial production I am discussing here. Capitalism seems to sidestep the "tragedy of the commons" of socialism, but since discovering Jensen's books and Jevon's paradox, I am less than sure even private ownership is capable of being the "magic bullet" that allows industrial production to ever be indefinitely sustainable.
gotlucky:Capitalist leaning societies do not have this problem.
Still haven't proven this.
gotlucky:We are so wealthy in food that the US government pays farmers to not farm their land.
They also subsidize production (corn subsidy), so figure that one out... Also, if they didn't, food would be worthless, everyone in the world would be fed, and that would be bad for two reasons.
1. The paradox would kick in, and the population would grow until there was no surplus in food
2. There would be no need for "food aid" to be distributed to political allies and cronies.
gotlucky:Africa is rich in resources, but because of their socialist type economies, you would never know it.
LOL, that could be a whole new thread. Neo-colonialism ring a bell? We constanly exploit the resources of the third world, in order to maintain our way of life.
gotlucky: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.
Bullshit. Societies that produce beyond a sustainable level (i.e. a level that does not decrease the carrying capacity of the land) have to expand. Whether that production occurs publicly (socialism) or privately (capitalism) is wholly irrelevant to the eventual outcome.
Expansion. Domination.
EmperorNero:I point out that pollution is getting better, and your response is "compared to when, what about pre-history?". That is utterly irrelevant, the market-environmentalist argument only requires that pollution is declining since 1800 or 1900, not 5000 BC.
LOL, well, maybe for your strawman to work. I guess I'm not making the "market-enviromentalist argument" (which sounds really flawed, anyways).
It is relevant to me, since I am discussing unsustainable production. That has been going on since the Neolithic Revolution.
EmperorNero:Unless you want 98% of the worlds population to starve
I don't really care about them. Malinvestment.
EmperorNero:a hunter-gatherer economy is not an option.
Did I mention Hunting/gathering?
EmperorNero:I don't think so, but how is that relevant?
Well, because saying "we are stuck with..." x, y, or z. Is silly. I was trying to demonstrate that is was a goofy cop-out.
EmperorNero:Well, third world countries don't really produce much of anything. The ones you mention are recently liberalized countries. It might seem as though they produce a lot, but they are specialized in consumption goods that are more visible. Who produced the machine that makes the clothing? Who designed it? Who researched the alloy that sits inside the machine? Wealth is a function of productivity, that's kind of how economics works.
How are you defining "third world"? I was essentially using it to mean "developing country" (which in retrospect already presupposed that production is the ultimate goal, being that "developed countries" are all completely reliant on industrial production for sustenance. Oh well.)
We also seem to be operating on two different definitions of "production" here, or you've moved the goalposts,
"Developing nations don't produce anything."
"How about our clothes?"
"Oh, yeah, they produce that, but not the machine that the clothes are made on (which is bullshit, BTW), which is what I meant."
Something isn't jibing there.
EmperorNero:No, that does not follow, "if they were productive they would be rich" does not imply "they are rich so they must be productive". Bankers are rich because they own and manipulate a monopolized money supply, which has nothing to do with our debate on international wealth distribution.
What do you mean by "rich" in this passage? OK, so we must also assume there are productive people who do not become rich, right? I don't think I'm debating about internation wealth distribution. I think I'm talking about the ability of industrial production to ever be sustainable.
EmperorNero:It's not perfect, but Taiwanese per capita GDP was twenty times as high as on mainland China in 1978 (when they started getting market liberalization). My point remains.
Sigh, again with the left vs. right strawman...
Why does GDP matter?
Convieniently ignored the challenge to find anything built anywhere but China nearby...
EmperorNero:And how many people did PCB kill? Tens of people?
LOL, whoa! Never thought I'd see an Austrian go all utilitarian on me! Is it for the "greater good" that those people should die?
EmperorNero:The stuff that was in the drinking water two centuries ago caused abhorrent infant mortality rates and life expectancies of like thirty. It's always amazing how environmentalists ignore facts.
LOL, chicken and the egg! How about before there were cities? No PCBs AND no fecal pathogens! It's amazing how "Austrians" can distort facts to suit there own biased narratives!
Also, it amazes me how you assume that markets have gotten more liberalized in the last century, in order to make any sensible argument.
EmperorNero:Even though the factual evidence tells us that pollution is going down, they simply ignore that and claim that pollution is getting worse using anecdotal evidence.
LOL, what are you smoking? The pollution has just been exported to the colonies! We've moved it out of our backyards (because it was killing us), and into developing nations!
Reduced pollution?
Nope, no pollution here!
Anad once more, just the drive the point home, you are confusing correlation with causality. Do you have any evidence that market liberalization (assuming it happened, I would disagree) has been the causal factor in pollution reduction (instead of the loss of manufacturing, regulation, etc.)?
EmperorNero:You make it sound so easy, but if people could 'just' quit using their rivers as open sewers, people all over the world wouldn't have to wash their clothing in shit. This is an extraordinary achievement of a few market economies.
LOL, you are a crazy person. For 99% of human history people didn't have to worry about dying from fecal contamination when coming in contact with a river.
Thanks to industrial production they do, and you consider it a triumph of industrial production that very few of us (I would argue none of us) don't have to worry about it anymore (which is total bullshit. If you doubt me, take a swig of your nearest large river.).
EmperorNero:And it has way greater health benefits than anything modern environmentalism ever did, which is all about theoretical problems that don't actually affect anyone.
Yeah, type 2 diabetes is AWESOME!!!! And the Black Death? MMMMMFFFFFFFnnnnnnnnnn SSSSSSSWWWWWEEEEEEEEETTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not an "enviromentalist", so I can't comment on how shitty they are.
EmperorNero:Or would you truly dispute that environmental protection relies on wealth?
I dispute that.
EmperorNero:If so, can you name a single country that was better able to protect it's environment when it was half as rich?
Kind of a sneaky question, no? If I were to answer to answer it as it was presented, I'd have to make some shaky presuppositions, such as,
"The enviroment didn't matter or exist before the concept of a "country" had been pan-globally instituted."
I can name a continent that was much cleaner before the concepts of "countries" and "wealth" existed on said continent (Hell, I could name seven if it makes you feel better).
EmperorNero:Can you name a poor country that is better able to protect it's environment than a rich country?
What does this even mean? The native American tribes were much more able to protect their enviroment than the settlers, even though they didn't even have a concept of "wealth" in the Western sense. When they didn't want to engage in our model of exploitation and industrial production, we got rid of them, or functionally destroyed their way of life, allowing them to be co-opted into our social system. Same with the native Africans, Europeans, South Americans, Australians, Phillipinos, Siberians, etc.
EmperorNero:Or can you make any theoretical economic argument to the effect that environmental protection does not become easier when a society is richer?
If we didn't have the concept of "rich", then the enviroment wouldn't need protection, QED.
EmperorNero:Do you dispute that markets produce wealth?
In what sense of the word?
EmperorNero:Exactly. They died from pollution all the time, now they don't. Which means that - see if you can follow me here - pollution has decreased.
Stupid. People die from pollution all of the time. In the present tense.
EmperorNero:There is declining discomfort, ergo the data confirms my theory and contradicts yours.
Where is this "declining discomfort"? Does it rock and decline? Because that would be wicked discomfortable...
EmperorNero:It means that you can't create wealth if you can't own stuff.
Why is wealth creation more important than poisoning ourselves?
EmperorNero:If the state had to respect property rights, it would just be another competitive company.
I think you misunderstood me, but since that has the ability to become a HUGE tangent, I'll drop it.
EmperorNero:As to why socialist economic performance is inferior, I refer you to the economic sucess of the Soviet union.
Again, you misunderstand. I was asking being an inept social engineer with an inability to do economic calculation is necessarily inferior.
EmperorNero:So humanities choice of resources is like some huge conspiracy? It has nothing to do with, like, physical properties and cost? How do they manage to get all the inventors and engineers on board?
Yeah. Have you ever heard of Standard Oil? Or maybe American hegemony? Do we doubt that there is distortion in markets caused by artificial monopolies?
EmperorNero:And actually from the point of view of the ruling class oil and natural gas are a problem because they are too abundant. They can't really keep a lid on it, which is why the environmental socialist movement comes in handy.
You are just making this up.
EmperorNero:Like what?
Wood pyrolisis, methane digesters.
EmperorNero:If plankton is truly this important then it is 'marketable' in the sense that you and likeminded people will care about voluntarily protecting it.
LOL, OK. I'll put on my thinking cap and figure out a way to change ocean chemistry and temperature on a global scale!
EmperorNero:But your argument was that market-environmentalism wouldn't save non-marketable species. To that I responded that it shouldn't, because there are opportunity costs to saving species. It would be a good thing to let useless species go, because there are more valuable things we could do with those resources, like saving children with leukemia. Are you really saying that there should be no cost-accounting when it comes to environmental protection? This good should be purchased without thought or discretion?
LOL, luekemia caused by pollution?
Ah, now the mask comes off!
We see in your passage that anything "not marketable equates to useless", which is about the most retarded thing I've read all day. So the basis of the entire pelagic ocean food chain is "useless", because our pea brains cannot understand that it is the reason that all of the "useful" animals can exist!
I don't think we should devote any money to enviromental issues. If we stopped devoting money to industrial fishing fleets, we'd be in even better shape. I'm all for cutting spending, rather than increasing it!
EmperorNero:If Chinese and Indians produced as many resources as Americans, they would be a lot more abundant.
Nobody "produces" resources. Everyone exploits resources to produce "goods".
EmperorNero:We don't know of any limits to growth, hence we should not believe in them. The thing is that you are saying that even though we have no evidence of any limits to growth, we should just assume there is one somewhere, since that's kinda plausible.
What are you talking about? Even those on this thread who agree with you know that growth must be limited. Talk to to Autolykos about thermodynamics, if you don't belive me. Talk about magical thinking!
EmperorNero:And you're the one accusing me of bli[n]d faith?
The only faith I can see myself placing is in arethmetic. If you take more than you give, you are bound to exhaust your supply.
EmperorNero:Ok, to keep providing the same standard of living we would need to constantly raise resource input.
OK, now we are getting somewhere! And since demand will always increase (according to the paradox) not only do you have to expand in order to maintain, you must expand even further in order to satisfy the ever growing demand.
LOL, of course this exponential increase in required resources is no problem, because,
EmperorNero:(But it is not a problem, since the resource base is not meaningfully finite and input can just grow indefinitely.)
Well, that is comforting. I feel better already.
EmperorNero:And this is not the same as "capitalism needs growth to exist".
Why not? We've already established that unsustainable production requires growth, and that Capitalism (as it exists now) is one form of unsustainable production.
EmperorNero:For one this applies to any form of production, especially "sustainable" production, as we have to maintain an exponentially growing amount of inefficient wind-turbines. (Where will the food come from when most of the land is used for transition lines?)
LOL, strawman. You are so prejudiced! Please show me where I equated "Wind turbines" with sustainable. I'll bet you think I drive a Prius, too!
EmperorNero:But also capitalism doesn't 'require' growth because if there aren't any more resources then there just wouldn't be any growth, it wouldn't somehow crash the system.
AHA!!! Now we are getting to an intertesting tidbit. What would capitalism without expansion of the resource base look like? That's something I'd really like to discuss, because I have no idea.
Jackson LaRose: Chickens eat fences? I know mildew does, at least!
So what? That's what upkeep is for.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, OK, so one chicken fence (?) every what, 100 years? Maybe 20-40 if you don't mind permanently destroying old-growth habitat.
Ever notice how there are some houses from 200 years ago or more? There are far more houses that are only 50-90 years old. Guess what, people don't have to keep knocking down walls and rebuilding them. Oh, and also of note, there wooden string instruments lasting for hundreds of years, often having some of the original parts. Luthiers do repairs, and sometimes they have to replace sections if an instrument is damaged enough, but guess what, most instruments that are even 100 years old are entirely original except for maybe the sound post and bridge. Wood can last a long time.
Jackson LaRose: Nonsense. Animal husbandry exists so we can produce an artificially high amount of meat per square mile (kilometer, meter, whatever), to support our own artificially inflated population densities (i.e., cities). It's essentially antropogenically induced ecological overshoot.
No. This is just incorrect. Animal husbandry predates large societies. Check out this neat chart.
Jackson LaRose: This ecological intervention (much like economic intervention) creates many more problems than it ends up solving. Domestic animals are more docile, so need protection (mangers, sheepdogs, coops, pens, etc.). Since they are now confined, they require food and water provided by humans, and since they are bred for higher productivity, they become weak and over-bred compared to the wild parent species (turkeys that can't mate, more susceptable to disease, less hardy, etc.).
What's your point?
Jackson LaRose: They even have a word for the carrying capacity reduction brought on by domestic animals: Overgrazing Hell, why do you think the Middle East is a desert now?
This is why farmers have learned techniques to not overgraze...
Jackson LaRose: I would disagree.
That's great, but you are still wrong. Maybe you would like to provide an actual argument.
Jackson LaRose: And every concious actor intervenes in an economy, and every individual is a state of one...
Jackson LaRose: When you domesticate an ecology, what are you doing? You are taking a decentralized ecology, and bringing it to heel under one ruler (the human), usually by force (slash and burn, tilling, sowing, weeding, grazing, etc.) I mean, take a look at a chainsaw of herbicide commercial sometime. It's a war out there!
What's your point? Some animals are higher up on the food chain. Some animals control their environment better than others. So what?
Jackson LaRose: Why? As a side note, I find this sentence very ironic coming from a guy with a rabbit as his avatar (not an american citizen)!
There is no reason why. You either value humans in general more than other animals, or you do not.
Jackson LaRose: Who is "The United States Government" in this passage?
The people who make and enforce the laws of the US state. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Jackson LaRose: Who are "the Powers That Be in America" in this passage? Do you think they are the same as "The United States Government"? For whom is war incredibly costly?
Who are "the Powers That Be in America" in this passage? Do you think they are the same as "The United States Government"? For whom is war incredibly costly?
Are you unfamiliar with the phrase the "Powers That Be"? They are the people that exert a great deal of influence and control over society. They may or may not be in government or allied with people in government. The war is costly because it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The PTB use tax money so as to shift the cost to other people, but it doesn't change the fact that the cost is still extraordinarily high.
Jackson LaRose: How do you know they have not "reaped any rewards"?
How do you know they have not "reaped any rewards"?
Well I didn't actually say that, did I? I said that "the Powers That Be in America have yet to reap the rewards of warring for oil." I notice how you did not quote the following sentences that talked about the pipelines that have not been finished. Some have not even begun construction. Iraq is planned to be hooked up eventually to a pipeline that will go all the way to Austria. Some of the pipelines have not even begun construction. So when I say they haven't reaped the rewards of oil, I mean they are not making money on it. Can I be 100% certain? No. But it seems like some of these goals regarding oil is long term and not immediate.
Jackson LaRose: Why do you think the regulators would want to reduce regulations?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they wanted to.
Jackson LaRose: Totally inaccurate analogy.
Totally inaccurate analogy.
The analogy is accurate. You are accusing humans of not asking animals and plants before hunting and harvesting. Neither do wolves ask sheep. So what?
Jackson LaRose: Not to mention the fact that it is beneficial to the local sheep poulation in general.
Not to mention the fact that it is beneficial to the local sheep poulation in general.
In your opinion. Why don't you ask the sheep that gets hunted if it wanted to be hunted?
Jackson LaRose: My point is, is that you are conflating the average American (i.e. little to no power), to the owners of America (i.e., those with all of the power).
No I have not. Please point out where you believe I have done so.
Jackson LaRose: What benefits one almost certainly runs counter to the best interests of the other, and vice versa. I used to subscribe to that "raises all boats stuff", but I certainly am starting to believe the "class struggle" point of view more and more.
No. By definition, voluntary exchange benefits both parties or it would not have occured.
Jackson LaRose: Wait, which one? That we are property, or that everyone forgets that? LOL!
Your baseless accusation that "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."
Jackson LaRose: That may be well and good, but answer me this... Why is everyone to vehemently defending the state/corporate tandem that has been shitting in our homes for the last two centuries?
That may be well and good, but answer me this... Why is everyone to vehemently defending the state/corporate tandem that has been shitting in our homes for the last two centuries?
Again, another baseless accusation. I ask that you substantiate such a ridiculous claim.
Jackson LaRose: What is with this fetishization of production, of growth, of maximum exploitation? Is that why you want to be free? So you can sqeeze every last drop of product from your God (or Man, depending on what you worship) given "property"?
What is with this fetishization of production, of growth, of maximum exploitation? Is that why you want to be free? So you can sqeeze every last drop of product from your God (or Man, depending on what you worship) given "property"?
We like computers. It seems that you do too, seeing as you use one. What else is there to say?
Jackson LaRose: Does cutting down rainforests "enrich" us?
Maybe. Maybe not. Value is subjective.
Jackson LaRose: Is the elimination of 200 species a day "enriching" our lives?
Jackson LaRose: Does aquisition material goods always equate to happiness for everyone, all of the time?
Obviously not. It happens to be the case that most people like acquiring material goods, but it is not true for everyone.
Jackson LaRose: There are some strange premises everyone here seems to take for granted.
Not everyone shares the same values, and therefore not everyone starts with the same premises.
Jackson LaRose: Yeah, they shift... just like those goalposts, LOL. So, we've gone from rabbit farmers to nomads just like that, huh? Property external to the self (i.e., what you can carry with you) only exists because of sedentary agriculture. Of course nomads don't "own" land! They also don't farm rabbits!
The goalposts have not shifted. Nomads are people who do not live in the same place all year long. They roam. Most nomadic societies also follow their food. Seeing as you were talking about a group of people who fit the description of nomads, that is, they picked up and moved and they are to repeat this as their lifestyle, I used the word "nomads".
Furthermore, you have made another baseless assertion that "property external to the self (i.e., what you can carry with you) only exists because of sedentary agriculture". This is easily disproven, as nomadic societies typically have food and weapons and means of travel (they don't walk everywhere). Furthermore, I would like to enlighten you as to the uses of "i.e." and "e.g.". "I.e." is used to mean "that is to say". It is used to give a precise and exact explanation of what you said. "E.g." is for examples. Hopefully you will see why I brought this up.
Jackson LaRose: Then please explain, barring perpetual motion. If you produce unsustainably, you will be unable to produce the same amount indefinitely, yes? I think we can agree on that, at least...
But this has nothing to do with capitalism, which is what you were trying to make a claim about.
Jackson LaRose: Because your "point" was mainly focused on fighting some socialist strawman. I merely wanted to point out the sociopathy in your twisted reasoning, and you phenominal ignorance in regard to trees being able to be "just replanted".
You have still not provided a counterexample or a counterargument. Please, keep insulting me. Maybe you'll get around to addressing the arguments when you are done.
Jackson LaRose: It has before...
So, because I don't want to live in the woods, Hurricane Katrina happened? My goodness, I must be powerful.
Jackson LaRose: As stated before, monkeys fly out of my butt riding unicorns when no one else is watching. That doesn't mean anything.
When did you state this before?
Jackson LaRose: And you are still fighting the boogey-socialist strawman. Right, left... it is industrial production I am discussing here. Capitalism seems to sidestep the "tragedy of the commons" of socialism, but since discovering Jensen's books and Jevon's paradox, I am less than sure even private ownership is capable of being the "magic bullet" that allows industrial production to ever be indefinitely sustainable.
Okay. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Jackson LaRose: Still haven't proven this.
And you certainly haven't disproven it.
Jackson LaRose: They also subsidize production (corn subsidy), so figure that one out... Also, if they didn't, food would be worthless, everyone in the world would be fed, and that would be bad for two reasons. 1. The paradox would kick in, and the population would grow until there was no surplus in food 2. There would be no need for "food aid" to be distributed to political allies and cronies.
Ah, so if only the PTB would just stop paying farmers to not grow food, then the world hunger problem would be solved. Forgive me for not taking you seriously.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, that could be a whole new thread. Neo-colonialism ring a bell? We constanly exploit the resources of the third world, in order to maintain our way of life.
America is rich in resources, and from our standard of living, it's pretty obvious. Japan is not rich in resources, but from their standard of living, you wouldn't know it. If you have a problem with the centrally planned economies of Africa, blame their governments and the USA government that helps keep them in power. No need to say that I am "constantly exploiting the resources of the third world."
Jackson LaRose: Bullshit. Societies that produce beyond a sustainable level (i.e. a level that does not decrease the carrying capacity of the land) have to expand. Whether that production occurs publicly (socialism) or privately (capitalism) is wholly irrelevant to the eventual outcome. Expansion. Domination.
This does not actually address my point, so I will repost it for your ease:
gotlucky: 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.
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: LOL, if you bothered to read the rest of the post, you'd understand that I AM concerned with the rest of the universe vis a vis how it affects myself and my own. I humbly accept the fact that you fail to understand that, and somehow think that a deadly dose of poison dropped on a distant star somehow equates to one dropped on my dwelling. If that dose of poison dropped on the star homehow affected me, then I would certainly be concerned. Do you understand?
First off, the PLANET that the poison was dropped on, is a PLANET. And therefore it is not a STAR. I know it seems pedantic, but apparently it's necessary to be so.
Jackson LaRose:If that dose of poison dropped on the star homehow affected me, then I would certainly be concerned.
See this quote? You typed this. In the very same post in which you pretended to make an argument that you are concerned with the whole universe, you specifically state that you are not concerned with dropping deadly poison on a distant star, which once again, means you're NOT concerned with the whole universe, but only those parts that affect you. (And even that I doubt.) Do YOU understand?
excel:See this quote? You typed this. In the very same post in which you pretended to make an argument that you are concerned with the whole universe, you specifically state that you are not concerned with dropping deadly poison on a distant star, which once again, means you're NOT concerned with the whole universe, but only those parts that affect you. (And even that I doubt.) Do YOU understand?
I am not concerned, IF IT DOES NOT AFFECT MY SELF AND/OR MY OWN. Do you notice that qualifier?
Therefore, I am concerned for the entire universe AS IT AFFECTS MY SELF AND MY OWN.
Maybe the poison bomb on that distant planet will eventually affect me, but my ignorance obscures that fact. Maybe your example is the only free lunch in the universe, and nothing will happen when the bomb is dropped, who knows?
The point is that I am still concerned, IF IT AFFECTS MY SELF OR MY OWN.
I don't know why you think I MUST be equally as concerned if a poison bomb drops on my house, or a few lightyears away for me to be concerned about both (or either) is stupid. Total non-sequitur.
Jackson LaRose:Sigh, do you draw any line for semantics?
No.
Jackson LaRose:Causing adverse health effects, maybe?
That doesn't provide any additional information.
Jackson LaRose:Can we control that? Did we evolve for that contingency?
Your revised definition of the verb "poison" contained no implication, let alone explicit mention, of control being a necessary element.
Jackson LaRose:Among other things. Generally, it means having the carrying capacity of my landbase reduced.
You didn't say "among other things" before. So once again, you're being inconsistent.
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.
The universe.
So why aren't you complaining when distant stars go supernova, potentially wiping out life-bearing planets and releasing potentially deadly radiation out into space?
Jackson LaRose: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.
You're actually talking about bioaccumulation, which occurs when a toxic substance is absorbed by the body faster than it can be eliminated. It doesn't mean that the toxic substance can never be eliminated by the body.
My point here is that the dose makes the poison. As you noted before, even water can be poisonous beyond a certain amount. So the mere presence of a substance in some amount does not necessarily mean that it will damage anyone's tissues or interfere with his metabolic processes. For example, there's typically some amount of arsenic in drinking water. Arsenic is highly toxic to us, yet the amount in water is typically so small that one would likely die from water poisoning first. In other words, the complexities of the issue of pollution cannot be swept under the rug or otherwise ignored.
Jackson LaRose:LOL, who brought them there? Next you might start blaming chainsaws for logging!
By that reasoning, Jeffrey Dahmer's parents were responsible for his murders. Wait, no, it would his parents' parents, wouldn't it? Wait, no...
Jackson LaRose:Hey, it's not my fault you are too vague to make sense. Who exactly is "our" in this quote?
It's the same "our" that you were talking about originally. Remember?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
On the subject of exponential growth:
Jackson, I think you underestimate just how much energy there is to be obtained in the universe. Our own sun, for example, has a current power output of 3.86x10^26 watts. That's 3.86x10^26 joules every second. So over the course of a year, the sun emits about 1.22*10^34 joules of energy. In comparison, current energy consumption by all of human civilization is about 5.2*10^20 joules per year. In other words, we use 0.0000000000043% of all the energy available to the solar system as a whole. Given a population growth rate of 2% per year, and assuming that per-capita energy use would remain constant, it would still take over 1500 years at the very least for the human population to grow to the point of utilizing the entire energy output of the sun. Think about that.
gotlucky:Ever notice how there are some houses from 200 years ago or more? There are far more houses that are only 50-90 years old. Guess what, people don't have to keep knocking down walls and rebuilding them. Oh, and also of note, there wooden string instruments lasting for hundreds of years, often having some of the original parts. Luthiers do repairs, and sometimes they have to replace sections if an instrument is damaged enough, but guess what, most instruments that are even 100 years old are entirely original except for maybe the sound post and bridge. Wood can last a long time.
Hmm, comparing Stradivarius' to chicken coops?
Also, what keeps the wood preserved? Constant maintenence, surface finishes, climate control, roofing. More and more auxillary goods required.
gotlucky:Animal husbandry predates large societies. Check out this neat chart.
I suggest you check the chart. The dog was the only species domesticated before the neolithic revolution, and even then only in small numbers for hunting/draught purposes. As you can see by my own neat chart, domestication and the rise of cities go hand in hand.
gotlucky:What's your point?
My point is, that all of this requires more capital and maintenence to sustain. An even broader resource base is required, which requires more expansion. Not to mention the fact that by artificially pumping up the resource output (chickens) from your land by providing external resources (feed, buildings, water, etc.), you will also inevitably increase demand for chickens (if we assume Jevon's paradox holds true).
gotlucky:This is why farmers have learned techniques to not overgraze...
Which is all fine and good, and a sensible thing to do, but the damage is done. There is hardly any topsoil left in the Middle East. The ecological overshoot is so great, and so sustained, that the landbase has been almost completely ruined. What was once lush savanna/cedar forest is now salty desert.
gotlucky:That's great, but you are still wrong. Maybe you would like to provide an actual argument.
LOL, I love how you guys are such sticklers for "actual arguments", unless you are the ones doing the asserting! Get ready to argue with yourself,
I can't wait to read your response to yourself, LOL!
My point is, when you say stuff like,
gotlucky:every living thing intervenes in ecologies...
you are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I'm saying. In order to exist, we must act. Those action have consequences. That's just a fact of life. For you to imply that I'm attempting to argue the contrary is silly.
I was addressing complete control and centralization of ecological functions, such as a factory farm, or a modern corn field. Man is not equipped to effectively simulate ecologies! The system is far too complex.
That is a concession we all seem to be willing to make to the market, but we seems far too haughty to admit for ecologies (which are just the "energy/nutrient markets" in nature).
It's all holographic, and the same principles apply.
gotlucky:Some animals are higher up on the food chain.
LOL, let me guess, humans are on the pinnacle? That 400lb fatty rolling up to the drive thru window at McDonald's is the apex of evolution?
That is a stupid argument. So, since we have figured out how to kill stuff (we need tools to be at the top of the chain), we have earned the right to force animals to live in factory farms?
Or rather, to steal a favorite line of yours,
gotlucky:Some animals control their environment better than others.
LOL, again, the implication seems to be that humans are the best at "controlling their enviroment" (which is a virtue why?), which is bullshit anyways, because everywhere we go, the landbase's carrying capacity is diminished. That's like saying locusts are second best at "controlling their enviroment".
More anthropocentric nonsense. Man as ruler of the Earth.
gotlucky:You either value humans in general more than other animals, or you do not.
Yeah, but all of your positions seem to implicitly hold humans as naturally superior to the world from which they originated, and the rightful exploiters of the planet's resources.
Also, this is a stupid reifications of "humans in general". What the Hell does that even mean? If some dude rapes my wife (or me, for that matter), you'd better believe I value his life MUCH less than either of my dogs.
gotlucky:The people who make and enforce the laws of the US state.
Oh, OK. So lets plug that in here,
gotlucky:The people who make and enforce the laws of the US state could deregulate the prohibitions and rules regarding domestic energy production, such as oil drilling, oil refinement, wind farms, nuclear energy, etc.
Why would they do that? How would that benefit them?
gotlucky:They are the people that exert a great deal of influence and control over society. They may or may not be in government or allied with people in government. The war is costly because it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The PTB use tax money so as to shift the cost to other people, but it doesn't change the fact that the cost is still extraordinarily high.
So, the PTB declares a war, then uses other people's money in order to fund it. This is still making sense from their point of view, no?
And it still doesn't prove that the PTB haven't achieved any of their objectives in the war.
gotlucky: Well I didn't actually say that, did I? I said that "the Powers That Be in America have yet to reap the rewards of warring for oil." I notice how you did not quote the following sentences that talked about the pipelines that have not been finished. Some have not even begun construction. Iraq is planned to be hooked up eventually to a pipeline that will go all the way to Austria. Some of the pipelines have not even begun construction. So when I say they haven't reaped the rewards of oil, I mean they are not making money on it. Can I be 100% certain? No. But it seems like some of these goals regarding oil is long term and not immediate.
I left that part out because it was a big red herring. Why do you consider the pipelines the sole goal of the invasion? If you don't then why are you treating it as such?
gotlucky:Why are you putting words in my mouth? I didn't say they wanted to.
LOL, OK, then could you explain this sentence to me?
gotlucky:You are accusing humans of not asking animals and plants before hunting and harvesting. Neither do wolves ask sheep. So what?
Well, first, you don't know that wolves don't ask sheep (or at least thank them), and plenty of humans ask animal/plant spirits all of the time before utilizing them, and thank them afterwards. In fact, it was pretty common practice before industrial production, and the global pre-eminence of the dominator culture.
If you treat something as just existing for your pleasure, you are bound to abuse it. If I thought my wife only existed to serve me, I would probably treat her like shit, no?
gotlucky:In your opinion.
LOL, no.
gotlucky:Why don't you ask the sheep that gets hunted if it wanted to be hunted?
Of course not. I mean, what animals (besides crazy ones) want to die? But, nature abhors a vaccuum. If there were too many sheep, they would exceed the carrying capacity of the landbase, and the population would crash whilst reducing the future carrying capacity of the landbase. Nature is a self-correcting system (market), as long as there isn't distorions caused by human actors interfering!
gotlucky:No I have not. Please point out where you believe I have done so.
That whole "war being expensive" nonsense.
gotlucky:By definition, voluntary exchange benefits both parties or it would not have occured.
Since when are we talking about voluntary exchange? Taxes aren't voluntary, so we being exploited, right?
gotlucky:Again, another baseless accusation. I ask that you substantiate such a ridiculous claim.
Uh, I've been basically called an asshole for being pissed that there is PCB (among many other pollutants) eveywhere around my home, and that all of the salmon are dead.
gotlucky:We like computers. It seems that you do too, seeing as you use one. What else is there to say?
I don't understand. I would prefer no lead (cadmium, arsenic, chromium, dioxin, PCB) poisoning the groundwater to having and using a computer, if that's what you're implying.
gotlucky:Maybe. Maybe not. Value is subjective.
LOL, you certainly don't seem to be treating that way, given the primacy of humans implicit in almost all of your arguments.
gotlucky:Obviously not.
Then why do you treat it as such?
gotlucky:The goalposts have not shifted. Nomads are people who do not live in the same place all year long. They roam. Most nomadic societies also follow their food. Seeing as you were talking about a group of people who fit the description of nomads, that is, they picked up and moved and they are to repeat this as their lifestyle, I used the word "nomads".
Bullshit. We were talking about rabbit farmers. Farmers are sedentary. To suit your point, you switched to nomads, who aren't sedentary.
gotlucky:Furthermore, you have made another baseless assertion that "property external to the self (i.e., what you can carry with you) only exists because of sedentary agriculture". This is easily disproven, as nomadic societies typically have food and weapons and means of travel (they don't walk everywhere). Furthermore, I would like to enlighten you as to the uses of "i.e." and "e.g.". "I.e." is used to mean "that is to say". It is used to give a precise and exact explanation of what you said. "E.g." is for examples. Hopefully you will see why I brought this up.
That was a typo. It should read,
Jackson LaRose:Property external to the self (i.e., what you can't carry with you) only exists because of sedentary agriculture.
And I used "i.e." just fine in that passage.
Jackson LaRose:Property external to the self (that is, what you can't carry with you) only exists because of sedentary agriculture.
See?
gotlucky:But this has nothing to do with capitalism, which is what you were trying to make a claim about.
LOL, you wish! I am making a claim about industrial production, regardless of the philospohy it produces under. My doubt is that the feedback mechanisms in capitalism are adequate to prevent ecological collapse (a position that I had previously maintained), or that capitalism without growth can exist.
gotlucky:You have still not provided a counterexample or a counterargument.
Yes, I did.
10 year old Douglas Fir monoculture doesn't equal an old growth forest.
gotlucky:So, because I don't want to live in the woods, Hurricane Katrina happened?
LOL, yeah, that's what I said...
gotlucky:Ah, so if only the PTB would just stop paying farmers to not grow food, then the world hunger problem would be solved. Forgive me for not taking you seriously.
Oh, so market have all the answers until your rhetorical opponent says so, than I'm being goofy?
If they didn't, than food would be produced in such abundance, it would become practially non-scarce. It happened in the depression. Crop prices fell through the floor, because of bumper crops. Farmers went out of business because of the record low prices!
So, we have to realize that in today's global markets, prices wouldn't fall, because there is a surplus of malnourished people.
You tell me what would happen.
gotlucky:America is rich in resources, and from our standard of living, it's pretty obvious.
LOL, give me a break, man! OK, then argue against yourself here,
gotlucky:Japan is not rich in resources, but from their standard of living, you wouldn't know it.
How do you reconcile these sentences?
gotlucky:If you have a problem with the centrally planned economies of Africa, blame their governments and the USA government that helps keep them in power. No need to say that I am "constantly exploiting the resources of the third world."
But we both are, every day! It would be foolish to say we don't personally benefit from the rape of the developing world.
OK, well then explain how! What does capitalism without expansion look like? What does sustainable capitalism look like? I'm dying to know here, because that is the whole crux of the issue here!
I want to believe that voluntary exchange is the easy solution to the paradox, but I am losing faith here!
I'm afraid that our whole societal ethos will have to shift.
Jackson LaRose: I am not concerned, IF IT DOES NOT AFFECT MY SELF AND/OR MY OWN. Do you notice that qualifier?
LOL, no, as it turns out I don't. In fact, quite often, I don't notice qualifiers that are only added later as a CONCESSION.
A concession which is, once again, noted.
excel: LOL, no, as it turns out I don't. In fact, quite often, I don't notice qualifiers that are only added later as a CONCESSION. A concession which is, once again, noted.
Whatever. You are convinced that I had to concede something (whatever it is). Fine.
I am convinced that's how I've been framing my concern for the universe the whole time (vis a vis my self), and just failed to explicitly state it previously, fine.
Thae fact still stands that I have a concern for the entire universe.
Good day.
Jackson LaRose:[The] fact still stands that I have a concern for the entire universe.
Do you have equal concern for every part of the universe? Or what?
Autolykos:Do you have equal concern for every part of the universe? Or what?
Obviously not. As we established earlier, one must prioritize in order to act. That's why excel's reasoning is stupid.
I don't see how it follows that,
"unequal concern = NO concern"
I have concern for anything insamuch as it affects my self and my own.
LOL, found this lovely little chart... yeah, market liberal nations are the CLEANEST!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_mun_was_gen-environment-municipal-waste-generation
Jackson LaRose: Obviously not. As we established earlier, one must prioritize in order to act. That's why excel's reasoning is stupid. I don't see how it follows that, "unequal concern = NO concern" I have concern for anything insamuch as it affects my self and my own.
AKA, it's stupid to take Jackson LaRose at his word.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, found this lovely little chart... yeah, market liberal nations are the CLEANEST! http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_mun_was_gen-environment-municipal-waste-generation
You heard it here first, folks. A ton of garbage lining the streets is cleaner than 3 tons of garbage ecologically disposed of.
excel:You heard it here first, folks. A ton of garbage lining the streets is cleaner than 3 tons of garbage ecologically disposed of.
How do you "dispose" of something, much less "ecologically dispose" of something?
How are you defining "clean"?
You smell like fromunda cheese.
Jackson LaRose:Obviously not. As we established earlier, one must prioritize in order to act. That's why excel's reasoning is stupid. I don't see how it follows that, "unequal concern = NO concern"
It doesn't follow.
Jackson LaRose:I have concern for anything insamuch as it affects my self and my own.
Right, and since you think the entire universe affects you and your own, you have concern for the entire universe. The question is, which parts of the universe do you have more concern about?
excel:AKA, it's stupid to take Jackson LaRose at his word.
Bullshit. It's not my fault you misunderstood this passage,
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.
As I said before, I am unable to function atomistically, and therefore am forced to take a holistic approach to this answer,
You may be able to take it out of context and make it mean whatever you want it to mean, but since it had already been established in previous posts between Autolykos and I,
Jackson LaRose:I oppose being poisoned, and having my home ruined.
so I'm against "being poisoned" which had been defined as,
Jackson LaRose:"Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure."
and having my home ruined, which I had defined as,
Jackson LaRose:Generally [...] having the carrying capacity of my landbase reduced.
This concern has no limits, since I am unable to understand an atomistic interepretation of existence. Therefore,
Autolykos:how big of an area re you talking about?
Jackson LaRose:I am unable to function atomistically, and therefore am forced to take a holistic approach to this answer, The universe.
So, I oppose anything in the universe that,
Jackson LaRose:[Causes] "Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure."
or
Jackson LaRose:[causes] ...the carrying capacity of my landbase [to be] reduced.
i.e., anything that poisons me, or ruins my home. If you drop a chemical bomb on some distant planet, does it do either of those? If we can be assured it wouldn't, then I wouldn't care.
So, you are just stupid, QED.
Autolykos:Right, and since you think the entire universe affects you and your own, you have concern for the entire universe.
Yes, thank you!
Autolykos:The question is, which parts of the universe do you have more concern about?
Hmm... Are you asking what areas of spacetime do I consider most salient for the well-being of my self and my own?
Jackson LaRose:Hmm... Are you asking what areas of spacetime do I consider most salient for the well-being of my self and my own?
Which areas of spacetime and which things in spacetime, yes.
Jackson LaRose: How do you "dispose" of something, much less "ecologically dispose" of something? How are you defining "clean"? You smell like fromunda cheese.
As I can't imagine an atomic existence, I dispose of things by THE UNIVERSE! Clean is simply the holistic manifestation of THE UNIVERSE! You smell like wednesday.
Jackson LaRose: Bullshit. It's not my fault you misunderstood this passage,
Bullshit. It's not my fault you lack the capacity to make a clear point, but must instead backpedal into jackassery to cover your tracks.
excel:As I can't imagine an atomic existence, I dispose of things by THE UNIVERSE! Clean is simply the holistic manifestation of THE UNIVERSE! You smell like wednesday.
Ah, the vehement VENGANCE TROLL! GRR, I WAS CALLED OUT ON A MISTAKE, NOW I MUST MAKE ALL THOSE WHO EXPOSE MY IGNORANCE PAY... PAY..!
You are silly.
I though the whole "meh, technology will figure it out" argument hinged on the conservation of matter.
How are you reconciling the conservation of matter with "disposal"?
Let me guess... "THE UNIVERSE!", LOL...
excel:It's not my fault you lack the capacity to make a clear point, but must instead backpedal into jackassery to cover your tracks.
Concession accepted, LOL. You suck.
Autolykos:Which areas of spacetime and which things in spacetime, yes.
Good question...
It's a tough one to answer outright, because my goals vs. my situation are so different.
I'd like to be locally self-sufficient, but as it stands, I am almost wholly reliant on long, convoluted supply routes for my sustenance.
Well, I need clean water to drink.
I need safe food to eat.
I need a place to live.
So, in order to become locally self-sufficient, I would need:
A source of potable, clean water nearby.
Clean soil.
A dwelling that will prevent me from dying of exposure. Capacity to have a fire would also be a big plus.
What are you getting at with this question?
Jackson LaRose: Ah, the vehement VENGANCE TROLL! GRR, I WAS CALLED OUT ON A MISTAKE, NOW I MUST MAKE ALL THOSE WHO EXPOSE MY IGNORANCE PAY... PAY..!
Captain Projection to the face-save!
Jackson LaRose: I though the whole "meh, technology will figure it out" argument hinged on the conservation of matter. How are you reconciling the conservation of matter with "disposal"?
Surely someone with a holistic view of the universe, would know that in the complete interconnectedness of all things what is one man's garbage can be some other organism's treasure?
I thought that the "sustainability" argument hinged on reusability (for example, recycling) and the use of resources in such a way that waste-products do not damage you or the carrying capacity of your land? Since you've conceded that dropping chemical bombs on far away planets and suns do not concern you, the subject of disposal should not be beyond your struggling imagination?
Jackson LaRose:Concession accepted, LOL. You suck.
Oh, the barbed taunts of such a rapier wit... be still, my trembling heart!
excel:Surely someone with a holistic view of the universe, would know that in the complete interconnectedness of all things what is one man's garbage can be some other organism's treasure?
In the grand scheme of things, yes. Doesn't much adress the point at hand now, does it?
excel:I thought that the "sustainability" argument hinged on reusability (for example, recycling) and the use of resources in such a way that waste-products do not damage you or the carrying capacity of your land?
It's not just waste. It's the whole idea of any sort of activity that reduces the carrying capacity of the land. I think you are taking a much too myopic, literalistic view of it as some sort of "extreme recycling". Alos, you've dropped the whole Jevon's Paradox in that definition, which is crucial to the idea of sustainability vis a vis industrial production.
excel:Since you've conceded that dropping chemical bombs on far away planets and suns do not concern you,
LOL, if we know it doesn't affect me. I'm no astrophycisist, though.
excel:the subject of disposal should not be beyond your struggling imagination?
I don't understand. Are you suggesting we just shoot trash into space?
excel:Oh, the barbed taunts of such a rapier wit... be still, my trembling heart!
LOL, don't be butt-hurt because you suck.
Jackson LaRose:Good question... It's a tough one to answer outright, because my goals vs. my situation are so different. I'd like to be locally self-sufficient, but as it stands, I am almost wholly reliant on long, convoluted supply routes for my sustenance. Well, I need clean water to drink. I need safe food to eat. I need a place to live. So, in order to become locally self-sufficient, I would need: A source of potable, clean water nearby. Clean soil. A dwelling that will prevent me from dying of exposure. Capacity to have a fire would also be a big plus. What are you getting at with this question?
Honestly, I wanted to see what kind of answer you'd give me. This answer seems straightforward enough to me. Also, I think I can understand your environmental concerns better now that you've explained how you want to ultimately live off the land.
Another post on exponential growth:
This time, let's assume zero population growth - the world's population stays right where it is today, around 7 billion people. Let's also assume a constant growth rate in global energy consumption of 1.9% per year. (This is based on a population-weighted average of the projected growth rates from here for OECD and non-OECD countries, using the OECD population figure from here.) How long, then, would it take for the world's population, holding at 7 bllion, to use all of the sun's energy? Given that the sun outputs about 3.86*10^26 joules per second, and global energy consumption is about 1.65*10^13 joules per second (calculated from here), it would take over 1600 years for the latter figure to equal the former. At that point, per-capita energy use would be over 5.5*10^16 joules per second - in other words, every person on Earth would have over 3000 times more power at his disposal than all of human civilization collectively has today.
Jackson LaRose: LOL, don't be butt-hurt because you suck.
Hey, man, if it saves your self esteem, trash me as much as you want.
Jackson LaRose: It's not just waste. It's the whole idea of any sort of activity that reduces the carrying capacity of the land. I think you are taking a much too myopic, literalistic view of it as some sort of "extreme recycling". Alos, you've dropped the whole Jevon's Paradox in that definition, which is crucial to the idea of sustainability vis a vis industrial production.
Go on...
Jackson LaRose: LOL, if we know it doesn't affect me. I'm no astrophycisist, though.
Venus has clouds made of sulphuric acid. I'm sure noone shall ever sleep soundly in their beds.
Jackson LaRose: I don't understand. Are you suggesting we just shoot trash into space?
Autolykos:Also, I think I can understand your environmental concerns better now that you've explained how you want to ultimately live off the land.
That's just it. If you don't utilize your landbase to support yourself, I would argue that you aren't a "native" in a sense, perhaps the most important sense.
This is an important point, because it almost runs parallel to the "tragedy of the commons". Call it the "tragedy of occupation".
Since we all are about as reliant on imported goods as any Jamestown colonist, we don't have any connection to our land other than potential "resources" (read:dollar signs).
Our values get all switched up, and since we don't rely on our homes for sustenance, it makes perfect sense to destroy them. The ultimate goal of ownership becomes maximum resource extraction per unit of time. Very little consideration is given to the carrying capacity of the land, because it doesn't much affect our lives, or our bottom line.
The problem arises for me vis a vis freedom, because reliance on imports is a renunciation of autonomy, in a sense.
If I am reliant on imports, then I am also reliant on the importers, the manufacturers, the regulating governments, my employer, etc. for my very livelihood, which is a position that makes me rather uncomfortable.
On the other hand, if we are expecting our landbases to be our lifeblood, it becomes much more sensible to place sustainablility of activities above the potential profit margin of an activity.
Self-determination is freedom. Autarky is freedom.
Unless we all live off the land, we are only colonists/occupiers, not natives. We may be able to live in one place, but we are able to do so because of resources from far and away.
Exploitation, exportation, exhaustion, and expansion. That is how we survive today, and I am hard pressed to imagine how it can go on indefinitely, especially considering Jevon's Paradox.
Autolykos:let's assume zero population growth
Suspending disbelief that the world's population growth will be zero.
Autolykos:Let's also assume a constant growth rate in global energy consumption of 1.9% per year.
Suspending disbelief that world energy consumption will rise linerarly.
Autolykos:How long, then, would it take for the world's population, holding at 7 bllion, to use all of the sun's energy? Given that the sun outputs about 3.86*10^26 joules per second, and global energy consumption is about 1.65*10^13 joules per second
Suspending disbelief that we will devise a way of collecting ALL of the Sun's energy with 100% efficiency.
Autolykos:it would take over 1600 years for the latter figure to equal the former. At that point, per-capita energy use would be over 5.5*10^16 joules per second - in other words, every person on Earth would have over 3000 times more power at his disposal than all of human civilization collectively has today.
Suspending disbelief that this calculation is anything besides an intellectual exercise...