|
nimby posted:I don't know if it'd actually be profitable to invent the technology. Nobody's going to be happy to pay for your stuff that doesn't generate value. Governments will have to be forced to buy it through supra-national organisations and maybe they'll just steal it 'for the good of the world'. On the other hand, if you made a carbon capture technology that could spit out cheapish hydrocarbons then you'd probably be in business. Assuming the Saudi chainsaw assassins kept drinking your poisoned tea.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
breaking the econ talk to mention how the recent big portuguese social media scandal involved the youths of the major "center-right" party being mad people made fun of their khakis as a class denomination because they posed in front of a dumb billboard against the communist party event
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 13:11
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Socialism would be worse, because people would be put in camps. People are already being put in camps this very day, under and because of capitalism. I want to make sure I know what I'm talking about when talking about these things, because I just know that if I am called to defend a socialist take on society I will have to, so please forgive me for asking, but: The camps are the workcamps in East Asia whose cheap labor builds what we use to keep the capitalist machine grinding. Not sure about the genocides. The animals is easy: pollution caused by industries that prioritize profit over ecosustainabality and safety (that in fact have to do that in order to stay competetive) pollute so much that animals are going extinct. Not sure about the torture. The authoritarian leaders are the ones that can only reasonably get elected if they're rich already, and thus will only ever do the interests of the rich. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
For genocide, look at Latin America, especially in the Amazon, where "landlords" hire people to kill the natives (and any sort of environmental activist) so as to steal more land, cut the trees, and turn them into short-lived farmlands. Three or four years later, the soil is exhausted, so repeat the process. For camps you can also look at the Australian prison camps. For torture just look at America, where in the name of fighting terrorism and using motherfucking Jack Baueur as a precedent, torture has been officially declared cool and good instead of cruel and unusual. Not that it really changed much, but before it had to be done in, well, CIA black sites or outsourced to various dictatorships (including Syria, lol). And the EU is not innocent here:  For authoritarian leaders, again, look at Latin America, where the USA have couped their way so as to make sure every country is run by fascists, the only form of US-friendly government. This is also largely true of Africa and the Middle East; basically any country where the economy is based on extraction/production of primary goods, the capitalist countries will want to put a fascist leader so as to make sure they don't have to share the wealth with the population. Finally, let's be honest: China is a capitalist country. They're even part of the WTO!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
What's the path from socialism -> climate/environment are saved? I'm very unclear on that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's the path from socialism -> climate/environment are saved? I'm very unclear on that one. It's the inverse, no exponential growth/expansion incentives -> not making it worse and at least having the potential to address issues without profit motive getting in the way, unlike capitalism where it's inherent to the system that it must always consume more. I mean this is so obvious that I have to assume you're just lazily trolling at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Nazifascism has, by far, the best political program for saving the planet (kill off 90% of the human species). Therefore, it is the only moral choice to support. QED.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Osmosisch posted:It's the inverse, no exponential growth/expansion incentives -> not making it worse and at least having the potential to address issues without profit motive getting in the way, unlike capitalism where it's inherent to the system that it must always consume more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Nuclear proliferation is good, and it's very odd to see people denounce it as irresponsible or unnecessary when the alternative is the death of the species.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
My music player just served me a very topical verse: "The perfectibility of human nature is infinite: we shall therefore nurture infinite dreams with infinite amounts of blood. Failures are therefore successes and mere steps on the triumphant march towards bliss."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So if I pose a question like, “how can the 3rd world reach western living standards without multiplying CO2 emissions“, your answer is “they won’t”? Without defining "western living standards", you're pretty much just tilting at windmills there, mate. (  )
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So if I pose a question like, “how can the 3rd world reach western living standards without multiplying CO2 emissions“, your answer is “they won’t”? right, 'western living standards' is an antihuman project and needs to be fundamentally rethought. this is an obvious reading of the socialist side of this thread and your not getting it once again outs you as a huge moron or notoriously disingenuous
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So if I pose a question like, “how can the 3rd world reach western living standards without multiplying CO2 emissions“, your answer is “they won’t”? Western living standards have to be seriously lowered because it's absurd that the average American needs over 300 liter of fresh, potable water per day. Especially when they live in an area that would normally be a desert, so that they can justify having the AC running 24/7, and also of course they're gonna have a golf course or three. Also, standards of living means eating meat three times a day, snacking on ready-made industrial junk food that's just concentrated sugar, sat, and fat with some artificial flavoring agents, and taking a car (that runs on coal, obviously, because FREEDOM) every time they need to step more than 10 feet outside of their house. Hey when you weigh 400 kg thanks to your standards of living, you need mechanical assistance! Anyways, western standards of living are not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
But what if 1 billion africans and 1 billion south East Asians and really, everyone but the somewhat less than 1 billion people, out of our population of soon to be 10 billion, who already experience that standard of living, really want all these things?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 07:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's the path from socialism -> climate/environment are saved? I'm very unclear on that one. Socialism only works in theory and will therefore obviously produce an economy laden with such ineffeciencies, regulations, red tape and taxes as to make it practically impossible to extract fossil fuels. Thus saving the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
Fox Cunning posted:Socialism only works in theory and will therefore obviously produce an economy laden with such ineffeciencies, regulations, red tape and taxes as to make it practically impossible to extract fossil fuels. Thus saving the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But what if 1 billion africans and 1 billion south East Asians and really, everyone but the somewhat less than 1 billion people, out of our population of soon to be 10 billion, who already experience that standard of living, really want all these things? Jesus christ dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But what if 1 billion africans and 1 billion south East Asians and really, everyone but the somewhat less than 1 billion people, out of our population of soon to be 10 billion, who already experience that standard of living, really want all these things? Then they suck as much as we do and deserve to not ever have it, just like we deserve to lose it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Then they suck as much as we do and deserve to not ever have it, just like we deserve to lose it. Don't you think that they do in fact want such standards of living?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:23
|
|
|
Do they want to die of diabetes-induced stroke before they're 50?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
I guess we will all die of climate change then
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:42
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Do they want to die of diabetes-induced stroke before they're 50? The West has the highest life expectancies in the world. Well, Japan has right, but you see what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the idea of 'western standards of living' is a false one and a racist dogwhistle in itself. The problem is the requirement to produce endless amounts of garbage to make numbers go up, and to make housing as hostile as possible to healthy human living and as wasteful as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 08:56
|
|
|
it's self-evidently insane to conceive as just only a world in which the completely unsustainable mass consumption of the modern west is extended to the whole world. indeed, a major part of climate justice thinking is the obvious impossibility of this. it can only be addressed by a generally lowered rate of consumption in the west, which once again is clearly contrary to capitalism and the consumer economy
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
What it comes down to is, there are billions of people sharing this planet with us who desire a much more resource- and energy-intensive life style. And they are called ... Bulgarians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
ok best just give up and face to bloodshed then, consumption cannot be limited
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 09:29
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ok best just give up and face to bloodshed then, consumption cannot be limited
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm asking what is the response to the billions who want a more resource- and energy-intensive life style. One approach would be to ignore that there's an inherent tension. One approach would be to say: let us keep growing, and hope we can innovate (and perhaps legislate) our way through. Yours seems to be: "forget it, guys; we don't want you guys to have as much as what we have, we don't even want ourselves to have as much as we have, but you - you should really stash that dream". No, ours is "western living standards" as they are defined today is inherently unsustainable without climate catastrophe. This means that yes, consumption in the west will have to go down. For it to go up for people in the global south means it'd have to go down for us a lot. loving lol at "durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, let's just hope & pray is a more realistic solution than socialism", god you loving suck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm asking what is the response to the billions who want a more resource- and energy-intensive life style. One approach would be to ignore that there's an inherent tension. One approach would be to say: let us keep growing, and hope we can innovate (and perhaps legislate) our way through. Yours seems to be: "forget it, guys; we don't want you guys to have as much as what we have, we don't even want ourselves to have as much as we have, but you - you should really stash that dream". this is wrong and incredibly stupid you may not even realise yourself what you're doing here, which is shoving the global poor in front of your defence of a status quo which is going to kill billions of those people in the next century or so you are choosing this frankly rather distasteful rhetorical thrust over simply reading and interpreting people's posts, because your entire way of thinking revolves around any alternative formulation having to be completely formal and explicit, and you imagine that if you can find a technical flaw of some sort you've won and the lefties were immature/bloodthirsty/positivist/actually racist all along. that sucks, dude
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:No, ours is "western living standards" as they are defined today is inherently unsustainable without climate catastrophe. This means that yes, consumption in the west will have to go down. For it to go up for people in the global south means it'd have to go down for us a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is wrong and incredibly stupid Ok we’ve established I am a moral cretin and utterly detestable, but what IS the answer to my questions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:(and perhaps legislate)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ok we’ve established I am a moral cretin and utterly detestable, but what IS the answer to my questions? no, we've established that you're functionally illiterate and that talking to you on your own terms is pointless i'm sure you're a perfectly decent human being, you're just hopelessly dishonest
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no, we've established that you're functionally illiterate and that talking to you on your own terms is pointless Isn't there a problem in that the total of current resource and energy consumption in the West is much less than desired total consumption in the rest of the world? That we can't really reduce our way out of this? There will be approximately 400 million Nigerians by 2050 (up from 200 today). Currently Nigeria emits about 20x less CO2 per capita than Germany, (at 9 or 10 tons) at 80 million and projected to shrink, does. So 700 million tons of CO2 for Germany right now, 100 million Nigeria. Let's say Germany reduces emissions by 2/3rds, to around 3 tons/capita, and Nigeria rises to the same level (6x growth). That's 60 x 3 + 400 x 3 = 1400 million tons of CO2. Did I get the math right here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 10:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm asking what is the response to the billions who want a more resource- and energy-intensive life style. Here's your answer: --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability Have an example: did you know Saudi Arabia used to be one of the world's greatest exporter of wheat? But the country is pretty much 90% desert, with some mountains in the south. How come they had lush farmlands and rolling meadows? Well they didn't. But they had a lot of groundwater. So they just pumped it up and irrigated their desert fields, and bam! instant agricultural powerhouse. Now if you're good at grammar you might have noticed the use of the past tense in the previous paragraph. The past tense is used to indicate something that is longer actual. So what happened? They pumped up all of their groundwater, until there was no more of it. This killed all their fields instantly. As well as more than a few oases. Somehow, the relentless extraction of resources to pursue a lifestyle not adapted to the land turned out to be bad! Who would have thunk it. Somehow, the Earth's resources are limited instead of limitless! Who would have thunk it. https://www.revealnews.org/article/what-california-can-learn-from-saudi-arabias-water-mystery/ The west's lifestyle is characterized by excess. Excessive production of waste. Excessive use of energy for frivolous purposes. A life of excess is appealing, but it's not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
you're right, we should crush them beneath the boot of imperialism for the good of all or we should encourage the destruction of the world because not doing so is racist anything! anything so long as we don't try and challenge the doctrine of growth at all costs!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
I am still very unclear on how exactly socialism is the answer here. I am not very optimistic the Wikipedia page on sustainability is gonna give me that answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
cingulate, the reason i'm not bothering to seriously engage with you here is because you're very obviously not actually interested in an answer. i know this due to the power of inductive reasoning and literacy, because you systematically ignore points contrary to what you want to be the case and glom onto technicalities which demonstrate your virtue and your opponents' vice there's no point in engaging with you apart from mockery, because that's the level of debate you're at. you assume the present configuration of social forces to be immutable and then say to those who advocate we change them, aha, but what about those immutable social forces? checkmate socialailures 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ok we’ve established I am a moral cretin and utterly detestable, but what IS the answer to my questions? who cares pick up a football nerd
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:cingulate, the reason i'm not bothering to seriously engage with you here is because you're very obviously not actually interested in an answer. i know this due to the power of inductive reasoning and literacy, because you systematically ignore points contrary to what you want to be the case and glom onto technicalities which demonstrate your virtue and your opponents' vice
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:15
|
|