excel:Hey, man, if it saves your self esteem, trash me as much as you want.
OK! You are a grundle-sniffer.
excel:Go on...
Huh?
excel:Venus has clouds made of sulphuric acid. I'm sure noone shall ever sleep soundly in their beds.
Not on Venus, at least, LOL! I don't see how that's relevant. Do I need to break it down for you again?
excel:LOL, no.
Oh. So, what were you saying, then?
Jackson LaRose: OK! You are a grundle-sniffer.
I'm not sure what that means. I'm not going to google it, as it may offend my delicate sensibilities.
Jackson LaRose: Huh?
I thought you were going somewhere with that.
Jackson LaRose:Not on Venus, at least, LOL! I don't see how that's relevant. Do I need to break it down for you again?
Don't you care about the universe? All those poor venusians are living in acid!
Jackson LaRose: Oh. So, what were you saying, then?
I was saying, that if you're not worried about chemical bombing of another planet, and you're not worried about poor venusian children growing with their faces melted off (or something, Acid how does it work?!), why would you be worried about where the trash goes, as it won't have any more impact on you than either of those two?
excel:t may offend my delicate sensibilities.
After all that grundle, I doubt your sensibility of smell can be very delicate anymore!
Jackson LaRose: After all that grundle, I doubt your sensibility of smell can be very delicate anymore!
Douché, sir!
Jackson LaRose: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.
But according to you, the entire universe is one's "landbase". Otherwise, what do you mean by "landbase"?
Jackson LaRose: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.
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.
I'll note for the record that you don't mean "homes" in the traditional sense of "dwelling place" (e.g. house or apartment). But you're right that resource utilization is in no way the same thing as biodiversity. Nor do I think it should be. You see, I don't value biodiversity for its own sake. Even if species like the buffalo or the prairie dog get wiped out, I probably won't shed a tear.
What I do care about is people dumping harmful (to humans) by-products onto other people's land, water, and/or air. Actually, the by-products don't even have to be harmful. If a mining company dumps inert slag on my land, I won't like it, and I'll take action so that they'll stop, by force if necessary. Notice that that has nothing to do with biodiversity. In fact, even if dumping inert slag on my land were to somehow increase my land's "carrying capacity", I still wouldn't like it and would still take action against it.
Jackson LaRose: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.
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.
I hope you understand that this entails a rejection of any division of labor or social cooperation. In other words, this entails a rejection of civilization.
Also, I'll note that what you mean by "freedom" is better served IMO by the word "power".
Jackson LaRose: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.
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.
I don't understand your concern with "indefinitely". You seem to be jumping between proximate and ultimate causes when you think one or the other suits you.
On the other hand, if you think anyone who doesn't live entirely off of a certain (yet to be defined) amount of surrounding land is an "exploiter", then I, for one, will proudly stand "guilty as charged".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Jackson LaRose:Suspending disbelief that world energy consumption will rise linerarly.
A constant growth rate of 1.9% per year is not a linear growth rate. It's an exponential growth rate - vf = vp * (1 + r)^t, where vf is the future value, vp is the present value, r is the growth rate, and t is the number of time periods.
Jackson LaRose:Suspending disbelief that we will devise a way of collecting ALL of the Sun's energy with 100% efficiency.
That's an entirely moot concern.
Jackson LaRose:Suspending disbelief that this calculation is anything besides an intellectual exercise...
Of course it's an intellectual exercise. What's wrong with that, exactly?
excel:I thought you were going somewhere with that.
I did. Basically, I'm trying to say this,
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?
is an incorrect, or at least an incomplete inpterpretation of what I'm saying. This response,
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". Also, you've dropped the whole Jevon's Paradox in that definition, which is crucial to the idea of sustainability vis a vis industrial production.
Is an explanation why I think that. All caught up?
excel:Don't you care about the universe? All those poor venusians are living in acid!
Sigh, you are either stupid, or a liar.
Do the sulphuric acid clouds on Venus,
Jackson LaRose:[Cause] "Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure."
Since I don't plan on visiting/living on Venus anytime soon, I'd say that's a no.
or,
Jackson LaRose:[cause] ...the carrying capacity of my landbase [to be] reduced.
Well, again, since I don't live on Venus, I'd say the answer is no.
Again, don't gett all butt-hurt because you don't take the time to understand the context of passages I'm quoted in.
excel:I was saying, that if you're not worried about chemical bombing of another planet, and you're not worried about poor venusian children growing with their faces melted off (or something, Acid how does it work?!), why would you be worried about where the trash goes, as it won't have any more impact on you than either of those two?
Utter non-sequitur. Where toxic waste goes on this planet certainly has the potential to,
and,
As far as non-toxic waste, I keep some of that right in my back yard! As you said,
excel:in the complete interconnectedness of all things what is one man's garbage can be some other organism's treasure
Also, this passage assumes that Venusians would be unequipped to survive in their home, which is stupid. Again framing everything in this solar system with the primacy of humans as the presupposed fact!
And I still don't understand how you think that poisoning some distant planet equates to poisoning my home, how you interpreted that from what I've said, and how you havent realized that wasn't what I had said, after multiple attempts to correct you.
Yo dog, I think youz be TROLLIN'!!!
Jackson LaRose: excel:I thought you were going somewhere with that. I did. Basically, I'm trying to say this, 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? is an incorrect, or at least an incomplete inpterpretation of what I'm saying. This response, 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". Also, you've dropped the whole Jevon's Paradox in that definition, which is crucial to the idea of sustainability vis a vis industrial production. Is an explanation why I think that. All caught up?
But you said earlier that you consider production sustainable if it can continue indefinitely, barring external uncontrollable factors. One such factor is the sun going out, and the availability and scarcity or resources is another(Ie. we can't control how much iron or available iron we have access to, in the same way we can't control the sun going out). By those parameters Jevons Paradox is irrelevant to sustainability. Thus the only factor left in regard to sustainability is damage done to carry capacity either through erosion or poisoning from waste, or at least those are the two other factors I can remember you mentioning.
Jackson LaRose: Utter non-sequitur. Where toxic waste goes on this planet certainly has the potential to,
So now it's all conceivable potential influences, no matter of improbable? Ie, a recycling plant in germany is of great concern to you, because it might explode and the concrete be flung away and land on your house in the US?
Jackson LaRose: Also, this passage assumes that Venusians would be unequipped to survive in their home, which is stupid. Again framing everything in this solar system with the primacy of humans as the presupposed fact!
Lot's of people have a home that's on fire. Is it a smart thing to assume that they must therefore be 'equipped' to survive fire? Is it stupid to assume that humans may not be equipped to survive on the bottom of the ocean? After all, it's part of their 'home'...
Jackson LaRose: And I still don't understand how you think that poisoning some distant planet equates to poisoning my home, how you interpreted that from what I've said, and how you havent realized that wasn't what I had said, after multiple attempts to correct you.
And I don't understand why you keep carping on about how holistic non-atomism makes you care about the whole universe, even though you weasel away from that assertion when you're called on it, and then STILL maintain that you do in fact care about the entire universe, rather than a simple "i care about things that can directly or indirectly affect my well-being." No need for pseudo-scientific nonsense and weasel-wording.
Autolykos:But according to you, the entire universe is one's "landbase".
I don't think I would equate the two. The term "landbase" comes from some Derrick Jensen books I've been reading. I don't think there is a textbook definition out there, but I've been using to mean,
"The area and resources required to sustain your way of life."
More or less, so if I was a self-sufficient localvore, my landbase would be all the land, water, air, biome required to sustain my life, or maybe my WAY of life.
My concern is universal, because it is impossible to divorce "my landbase" from "Autolykos' landbase", from "Adam's landbase". They are all woven together on a planetary continuum. I can be the best steward of my landbase as I can be, but if the oceans are trashed, then the carrying capacity of my landbase is reduced, regardless of my efforts.
And of course, this planet is just part of the solar sytem continuum, which is part of the milky way continuum, and so on.
The chain of causality sucks, LOL.
Autolykos:I'll note for the record that you don't mean "homes" in the traditional sense of "dwelling place" (e.g. house or apartment).
No, I don't. I mean it in the REALLY traditional sense, LOL.
Autolykos:You see, I don't value biodiversity for its own sake. Even if species like the buffalo or the prairie dog get wiped out, I probably won't shed a tear.
I wouldn't say that I do either, but I consider biodiversity important because it is vital to the perpetuation of ecological systems that I cannot survive without.
Humans have great power to alter the landscape, and the biomes on this planet. Like Spiderman said,
"With great power comes great responsibility."
If we want to grasp that fruit from the tree of knowledge, or Prometheus' fire, we have to be willing to weild with the power of the Gods responsibly.
Even the most cynical among us (that's me) should be able to realize that this issue can boil down to even so crude a motivation as mere self-preservation.
Autolykos:What I do care about is people dumping harmful (to humans) by-products onto other people's land, water, and/or air. Actually, the by-products don't even have to be harmful. If a mining company dumps inert slag on my land, I won't like it, and I'll take action so that they'll stop, by force if necessary. Notice that that has nothing to do with biodiversity. In fact, even if dumping inert slag on my land were to somehow increase my land's "carrying capacity", I still wouldn't like it and would still take action against it.
But that's just it. Is property as a concept equipped to deal with the interconnectedness of the biosphere?
How effective can torts really be in ensuring that the carrying capacity of a landbase is preserved?
What if they keep the slag on their land, but toxins leach into the groundwater, giving you pancreatic cancer 35 years later? Can you prove it?
What if CO2 emissions acidify the oceans, killing coral reefs, which affects plankton populations, which causes anchovy populations to crash, which cause smelt populations to crash, which cause salmon populations to crash, so they don't spawn in your river anymore? Try proving that one in court!!
Or what? Resort to violence? Where do you draw the line? If a local dam is 100 steps removed from your carrying capacity reduction, but is still a causal factor, do you have the right to demolish it?
Autolykos:I hope you understand that this entails a rejection of any division of labor or social cooperation.
I would disagree with this characterization. It may be a rejection of the division of labor, or social cooperation as WE in modern Western society understand it, but it certainly doesn't require a rejection of those concept outright.
People are diverse, unique, and their abilities/talents are as well. If I am a better fisherman, then why don't I fish? If you are good weaver, then make some baskets. Boom, division of labor! This is fundamentally different than specialization under some central authority (boss, king, priest, whatever), for the promise of compensation.
Social cooperation? Take wage labor out of the equation, and watch some REAL social cooperation! Ever heard of band societies? How about Gift Economies?
Autolykos:In other words, this entails a rejection of civilization.
Which may not be necessarily bad, given my ends.
The etymology of the word comes from the same Latin root as "citizen", and "city". This implies to me that as a concept, it automatically presupposes a class-based society (citizens vs. non-citizens) and unsustainable human population densities supported by remote resource importation (cities, in general).
Off to a bad start...
I'll go through some other less than desireable characteristics from the Wikipedia page...
Wiki:All civilizations have depended on agriculture for subsistence. Growing food on farms results in a surplus of food
So there you have it. Civilization is inheirently unsustainable. Agriculture is almost always unsustainable (almost), and it certainly is how we've been doing it since the dawn of western civilization (the ancient Chinese get a pass). Not only that, but given Jevon's Paradox, a surplus in food will lead to more population, thus requiring even more food. Expansion is a requirement.
Wiki:A surplus of food permits some people to do things besides produce food for a living: early civilizations included artisans, priests and priestesses, and other people with specialized careers. A surplus of food results in a division of labor and a more diverse range of human activity, a defining trait of civilizations.
Strike two.
Specialization and centralization in this regard are almost synonymous to me. Specialization leads to priests centralizing mysticism, which leads to religion, leads to temple/granaries, leads to centrilization of food (power over life), which leads to pharoahs.
Wiki: Compared with other societies, civilizations have a more complex political structure, namely the state.[12] State societies are more stratified[13] than other societies; there is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class, normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises its will through the actions of a government or bureaucracy. Morton Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, have classified human cultures based on political systems and social inequality. This system of classification contains four categories:[citation needed] Hunter-gatherer bands, which are generally egalitarian.[14] Horticultural/pastoral societies in which there are generally two inherited social classes; chief and commoner. Highly stratified structures, or chiefdoms, with several inherited social classes: king, noble, freemen, serf and slave. Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.
Compared with other societies, civilizations have a more complex political structure, namely the state.[12] State societies are more stratified[13] than other societies; there is a greater difference among the social classes. The ruling class, normally concentrated in the cities, has control over much of the surplus and exercises its will through the actions of a government or bureaucracy. Morton Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, have classified human cultures based on political systems and social inequality. This system of classification contains four categories:[citation needed]
Strike three. I think this one is pretty self-explainitory for everyone here
Autolykos:Also, I'll note that what you mean by "freedom" is better served IMO by the word "power".
I don't see a distinction, personally.
Autolykos:I don't understand your concern with "indefinitely".
Because it is the only way to exist peacefully. If you run out of something vital to your way of life, you are going to want more. If you don't find any willing partners to trade with, then what? You will fight for it.
Autolykos:You seem to be jumping between proximate and ultimate causes when you think one or the other suits you.
How so?
Autolykos:On the other hand, if you think anyone who doesn't live entirely off of a certain (yet to be defined) amount of surrounding land is an "exploiter", then I, for one, will proudly stand "guilty as charged".
Then your way of life cannot exist without violence, past, present, or future, and I would thinki it is bound to end sooner or later.
Do you think that the destroyers of the commons should be proud of that fact? How are the destroyers of occupied territory (us) any more or less morally culpable?
excel:But you said earlier that you consider production sustainable if it can continue indefinitely, barring external uncontrollable factors.
Yep.
excel:One such factor is the sun going out, and the availability and scarcity or resources is another(Ie. we can't control how much iron or available iron we have access to, in the same way we can't control the sun going out).
excel:By those parameters Jevons Paradox is irrelevant to sustainability.
Why?
excel:Thus the only factor left in regard to sustainability is damage done to carry capacity either through erosion or poisoning from waste, or at least those are the two other factors I can remember you mentioning.
I think the Paradox is still relevant here, because even if your process is initially sustainable (i.e. one guy fishing), unceasing increase indemand will drive innovation, which increases production efficiency, which leads to the modern floating fish processing facilities which are stripping the oceans bare.
excel:So now it's all conceivable potential influences, no matter of improbable? Ie, a recycling plant in germany is of great concern to you, because it might explode and the concrete be flung away and land on your house in the US?
LOL, and you had the stones to accuse ME of being unimaginative? Explosion shrapnel is the best way you think a recycling plant in Germany affects my self and my own? How about greenhouse gas emissions? The trucks to collect the waste, the power plants to run it. Where does the power come from, anyways? How about all of the food necessary to keep workers running the plant? How about the section of the black forest that is now the footprint of the plant? How about the CO2 thats being released, which acidifies the oceans, and causes the global oceanic foodweb to collapse? How about where all of those recycled materials came from? How about all of the capital equipment at the plant? How about all of the toxic ore mines that metal came from?
Dummy.
excel:Lot's of people have a home that's on fire. Is it a smart thing to assume that they must therefore be 'equipped' to survive fire?
I hope you aren't stupid enough to think this is a fair analogy.
excel:Is it stupid to assume that humans may not be equipped to survive on the bottom of the ocean? After all, it's part of their 'home'...
Stupid or a liar.
excel:And I don't understand why you keep carping on about how holistic non-atomism makes you care about the whole universe, even though you weasel away from that assertion when you're called on it, and then STILL maintain that you do in fact care about the entire universe, rather than a simple "i care about things that can directly or indirectly affect my well-being." No need for pseudo-scientific nonsense and weasel-wording.
LOL, so explaining where you went wrong in your interpretation of a quote is now considered "weaseling"?
I care about the universe, insamuch as it affects my self and my own. That's what I said the first time, that's what I'm saying now, that's what Ive said THIS WHOLE TIME.
Again, don't blame me for your thick-headedness.