|
crazy cloud posted:*** Agreed. crazy cloud posted:They are impoverished because of the actions of the rich countries Even if true, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes. Poor people aren't going to buy 'a better environment' until they have other needs /wants satisfied.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
gaj70 posted:Even if true, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes. Poor people aren't going to buy 'a better environment' until they have other needs /wants satisfied. ugh, these grubby poors with their soot and bricks laying about *flushes toilet into modern first world waste stream that produces enormous oceanic dead zones and hormonal extinction of multiple species*
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:Even if true, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes. Poor people aren't going to buy 'a better environment' until they have other needs /wants satisfied. implying that people in countries being hollowed out by american corporations have any say in their own development, what a heartwarming fiction to tell yourself
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
self unaware posted:implying that people in countries being hollowed out by american corporations have any say in their own development, what a heartwarming fiction to tell yourself the alternative is introspection and change, so lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ugh, these grubby poors with their soot and bricks laying about *flushes toilet into modern first world waste stream that produces enormous oceanic dead zones and hormonal extinction of multiple species* You need to travel more. Poor people poop too, except without the modern first world sewage treatment plants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:You need to travel more. Poor people poop too, except without the modern first world sewage treatment plants. oh tell us how wise you are from traveling the world 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Capitalism is great! Hmm? No I've never heard of the British Empire why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Can't wait for people to explain how the USSR's disastrous ecological record is also the fault of the decadent kkkapitalist west The real answer isn't that capitalism is particularly poo poo at the environment, but that people are generally
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Can't wait for people to explain how the USSR's disastrous ecological record is also the fault of the decadent kkkapitalist west That's a classic whataboutism and really not a very salient point. The USSR can have had devastating environmental consequences while at the same time the fundamental nature of capitalism leads it to ignoring externalities and common goods, like the environment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
tired : this is classic whataboutism wired : tu cuck
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
et tu, cucke?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
This is the dumbest derail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Can't wait for people to explain how the USSR's disastrous ecological record is also the fault of the decadent kkkapitalist west I mean, even ignoring the giant tu quoque fallacy plastered all over this post, you're kind of missing the point by several miles. Climate change isn't really an environmental issue so much as it is as a massive, global example of market failure. The USSR's policies being ecologically disastrous is completely irrelevant because just being environmentally unfriendly isn't really the same thing. It's not even in the same ballpark. The reason market based solutions all rely on non-existent, future technologies is because there's literally no way for markets to solve this problem on their own if there doesn't happen to be an economically efficient technological answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Well, I was going to try and post that statement from that French bank where they admitted that Marx was right, but instead I'm just going to offer a profuse apology for kicking off a horrible derail. Seriously, proper ashamed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
I'm just gonna say that tu quoque doesn't actually apply to anything y'all are using it for For it to be a fallacy, it has to be immaterial to your actual argument; if you're trying to say that communism has done better than capitalism on this front, then pointing out that it factually hasn't is not a tu quoque
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Dameius posted:This is the dumbest derail. Worse than the Fishmech Classic “but what is a city, really?”
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I'm just gonna say that tu quoque doesn't actually apply to anything y'all are using it for The fallacy is in asserting anyone ITT is praising communism's record on environmental issues, then calling that hypocrisy to question their statements. I don't feel like this is a necessary statement most of the time, but: Criticism Of Capitalism Is Not Inherently Praise For Communism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The fallacy is in asserting anyone ITT is praising communism's record on environmental issues, then calling that hypocrisy to question their statements. If no better alternative is offered then criticism merely amount to fine tuning and it's meaningless to talk of "capitalism" as the root of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
The implied alternative is socialism, unless D&D now has people promoting...mercantilism? Feudalism? Besides, my point is that it's not really a flaw in the economic system, be that capitalism or socialism, and the fact that two economic systems that are directly opposed to each other did the same lovely things supports this idea. It's more like a flaw in modernization, that technological development can outpace our ability to handle technology responsibly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Bates posted:If no better alternative is offered then criticism merely amount to fine tuning and it's meaningless to talk of "capitalism" as the root of the problem. You are being a special kind of dumb. 'Oh, you don't have a sweeping solution for all the world's problems, so clearly there's no point to defining them' is a horrible argument and idiotic on it's face. Cicero posted:The implied alternative is socialism, unless D&D now has people promoting...mercantilism? Feudalism? We're going 2 for 2 on the dumb stances stakes tonight I see. I'll give you a hint, and see if you can figure it out. What or who motivated developing countries in the last century to cause the vast majority of their environmental problems? Was it local business, or the direct actions of first-world economic interests using them to externalize the consequences of consumerism? Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:
quote:I'll give you a hint, and see if you can figure it out. What or who motivated developing countries in the last century to cause the vast majority of their environmental problems? Was it local business, or the direct actions of first-world economic interests using them to externalize the consequences of consumerism? Cicero fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Is this really necessary? Attempting to reduce the cause to 'industrialization' only serves to remove the agency of the people who intentionally set out to cause this specifically because they decided it was cheaper to have these problems happen to someone else rather than take more expensive means in order to meet the environmental and labor regulations imposed once the problems of industrialization were realized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
Does pointing out that inner city gang violence is fueled by poverty and systemic oppression remove anyone's agency? Does pointing out that NIMBYs in California are incentivized to vote against housing because of prop 13 remove their agency? You're not wrong about how those environmental problems happened, but we can see that even with a different economic framework, people made essentially the same lovely choices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Attempting to reduce the cause to 'industrialization' only serves to remove the agency of the people who intentionally set out to cause this specifically because they decided it was cheaper to have these problems happen to someone else rather than take more expensive means in order to meet the environmental and labor regulations imposed once the problems of industrialization were realized. Agency only matters so much if known alternatives (besides “stay subsistence farmers forever”) would have led to the same problems in a slightly different way. Billions of people increasing their standard of living will gently caress poo poo up without strict controls (which have proven to be either unprofitable or politically undesirable), except in nuclear powered automated luxury gay space communism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 10:01
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
JustJeff88 posted:Well, I was going to try and post that statement from that French bank where they admitted that Marx was right, but instead I'm just going to offer a profuse apology for kicking off a horrible derail. Please, it might actually be useful elsewhere, this derail isn't ending anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 10:10
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Worse than the Fishmech Classic “but what is a city, really?” I actually thought about it before saying that. Fishmesh's derails are all dumb, but usually get lost in the weeds on a tangent from a salient point because he just can't resist himself. This is just dumb. I was interested in checking out that translation though, and this dumb derail killed it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:It's probably the opposite; environmentalism is a luxury good. If you want to observe the effect yourself, travel through a few poor countries and then a few rich countries. do you honestly not know the footprint per capita compared to say the US or AUS and poor countries? Replacing that car ever 3 years does more harm than most people on this planet can do in a lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Cicero posted:You're not wrong about how those environmental problems happened, but we can see that even with a different economic framework, people made essentially the same lovely choices. So what you're saying is that it's irrelevant who owns the means of production. And that communism is bad. And that capitalism is responsible for low prices(but for things where prices aren't low it's not capitalism it's lack of regulation). Got it. does make you wonder why America seemed so interested in overthrowing south american and central american leftist governments, I guess we really cared about the pollution 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
self unaware posted:So what you're saying is that it's irrelevant who owns the means of production. quote:And that communism is bad. quote:And that capitalism is responsible for low prices(but for things where prices aren't low it's not capitalism it's lack of regulation). Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
We already have a "mix of capitalism and socialism". This isn't about capitalism v socialism, it's about the current global economic paradigm destroying the planet and you breathlessly defending it while you work for the largest advertising company on the planet making billions advertising poo poo people don't need to them. Saying "well, socialism didn't have much a better track record" ignores the colonization of the developing world. I'm not saying a communist country wouldn't turn Nigeria into a client state to extract their natural resources, but either way the Nigerians didn't have any say in it.
90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
I'm not defending destroying the planet, actually. Try reading what I wrote rather than relying on what you imagined in your head?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm not defending destroying the planet, actually. Try reading what I wrote rather than relying on what you imagined in your head? Cicero posted:Besides, my point is that it's not really a flaw in the economic system, be that capitalism or socialism, and the fact that two economic systems that are directly opposed to each other did the same lovely things supports this idea. It's more like a flaw in modernization, that technological development can outpace our ability to handle technology responsibly. It is a flaw in the economic system, we don't price externalities appropriately. Why? Because there's too much money to be made doing otherwise. You're trying to reduce this down to "Capitlism" v "Socialism" (hence you starting this whole derail trying to equate capitalism and competitive markets) when the reality is it's about inequality and power. The reason poor countries are industrializing so dirtily is because the first world made them choose to do so or went in and overthrew their government with the military.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
self unaware posted:It is a flaw in the economic system, we don't price externalities appropriately. Why? Because there's too much money to be made doing otherwise. What is the system and scenario that provides for "clean" industrialization?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
self unaware posted:It is a flaw in the economic system, we don't price externalities appropriately. Why? Because there's too much money to be made doing otherwise. For any particular implementation of capitalism, socialism, etc. yeah I agree that harm to the environment is usually not priced appropriately. quote:You're trying to reduce this down to "Capitlism" v "Socialism" (hence you starting this whole derail trying to equate capitalism and competitive markets) quote:when the reality is it's about inequality and power. The reason poor countries are industrializing so dirtily is because the first world made them choose to do so or went in and overthrew their government with the military. edit: feel like we're mostly talking past each other, honestly. Me saying that dirty industrialization was probably inevitable because of human nature isn't the same thing as "defending it" or saying it's okay. Cicero fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
self unaware posted:We already have a "mix of capitalism and socialism". This isn't about capitalism v socialism, it's about the current global economic paradigm destroying the planet and you breathlessly defending it while you work for the largest advertising company on the planet making billions advertising poo poo people don't need to them. Saying "well, socialism didn't have much a better track record" ignores the colonization of the developing world. I'm not saying a communist country wouldn't turn Nigeria into a client state to extract their natural resources, but either way the Nigerians didn't have any say in it. If a country with a dense population industrialises without massive amounts of development aid targeted at environmental sustainability its environment will get hosed hard (though if its population is sufficiently dense its environment will get hosed anyway). Whether that industrialisation happens because imperialists want cheap widgets or because there's internal demand for better livelihoods only matters in terms of whether the locals get anything worthwhile out of it. self unaware posted:It is a flaw in the economic system, we don't price externalities appropriately. Why? Because there's too much money to be made doing otherwise. Yes, but this has been a flaw in every major economic system going back to imperial Rome, so pointing it out is trivially true yet unhelpful. TheNakedFantastic posted:What is the system and scenario that provides for "clean" industrialization? suck my woke dick posted:nuclear powered automated luxury gay space communism. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:There is another time bomb waiting to hit retail. Containership over capacity and thr resultant low freight rates can't last forever. The recent-ish line failures and mergers / new alliances have temporarily kept poo poo from blowing up, but the underlying sources of over capacity have not slowed down. Can you explain (even if it's technical) this in more detail? I've always been fascinated about containerization and logistics and how that plays into current retail cost. I"m not joking here..I ended up watching like 2 straight hours of incoterms explanation for no got damned reason the other night because I've regretted for almost 20 years now that I never actually went into shipping as a career and should have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:do you honestly not know the footprint per capita compared to say the US or AUS and poor countries? Replacing that car ever 3 years does more harm than most people on this planet can do in a lifetime. The bottom 4-5 billion aren't going to voluntarily stay where they are, and it's morally unjust to ask them to do so. Project that trend forward...if you want to save the environment, you need to speed their transition to the point where they'll be willing to spend scarce resources on things like sewage treatment facilities, garbage collection, catalytic converters, insulation, nuclear/solar power, wildlife preserves, high intensity farming, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:The bottom 4-5 billion aren't going to voluntarily stay where they are, and it's morally unjust to ask them to do so. Project that trend forward...if you want to save the environment, you need to speed their transition to the point where they'll be willing to spend scarce resources on things like sewage treatment facilities, garbage collection, catalytic converters, insulation, nuclear/solar power, wildlife preserves, high intensity farming, etc. Really the biggest thing will be convincing everybody the world over that conspicuous consumption is bad. One of the biggest issues is that Americans are horribly wasteful. We live in a heavily consumerist, throw away society where the only correct answer is "more." A great many people are looking at that and thinking "I want it too!" It's hard enough to consider Americans to move to slightly more expensive but far more sustainable electricity or to eat less drat beef because holy poo poo are cows a horrible catastrophe right now. Now try telling people that are dreaming of that "no, you can't have it either. We'll be giving it up any day now I swear."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Can you explain (even if it's technical) this in more detail? I've always been fascinated about containerization and logistics and how that plays into current retail cost. I"m not joking here..I ended up watching like 2 straight hours of incoterms explanation for no got damned reason the other night because I've regretted for almost 20 years now that I never actually went into shipping as a career and should have. Bunch of South Asian nations have subsidized shipyards. Shipyard economics are such that you want to keep them operating to make money. Steel is cheap and subsidized by some nations. Some vessel ownership became financialized after 2008 crash. Lines over bought. Economies of scale are forcing them to continue over buying. Bigger is cheaper both in ships and the companies. Two (one openly) of the big lines are trying to drive the smaller lines out of business. All the small lines are merging or failing. Expected growth in international trade has not materialized. Basically it's get bigger or die right now. Getting bigger also makes everything worse for all the shipping lines freight rate wise. That's the phone post version. I did my grad school work on this. Give me several days and I'll post some of that. I haven't posted from a computer in forever. Why does this effect retail? Everything is made everywhere. Supply chains are truly international anymore. Nobody really has inventory anymore. It's all in transit, just in time on the containerships.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
gaj70 posted:The bottom 4-5 billion aren't going to voluntarily stay where they are, and it's morally unjust to ask them to do so. Project that trend forward...if you want to save the environment, you need to speed their transition to the point where they'll be willing to spend scarce resources on things like sewage treatment facilities, garbage collection, catalytic converters, insulation, nuclear/solar power, wildlife preserves, high intensity farming, etc. This comes up in the climate change thread all the time too, but the problem is that climate change is actually a much different problem from "environmentalism" in general and lumping it in with other environmental causes never works. The reality is that there's a finite carbon budget and we (first world nations and China, basically) have already used a lot of it up. The real world effect of seriously exceeding that budget - aside from, you know, death and destruction - is going to be a massive drag on the world economy. This isn't a moral judgment. As a real, practical matter there is no way to speed development of the less developed nations except through means that won't emit CO2. Doing anything else is like slamming the accelerator to the floor when you're already running on empty. Most of them won't actually make it before the effects of what we've done take hold, those that do won't be able to economically transition away from emitting technologies, and ultimately the negative economic effects of climate change will undo their growth anyway. It's really hard to overstate the depth of our gently caress up here and just how much it's going to affect every kind of economic/development policy going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2018 04:39
|
|