FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Questions:
1. If not capitalism, and if not "centralized economies", then what type of economic system do you envision would accomplish what you wish?
Well far more localised economies that cut out wasted energy of transportation of sending things around the world three times. Less wasted resources on frivolous trash that is no sooner bought than discarded. It isn't about capitalist or centralised economies, it is about doing what is necessary so our descendents have a planet to inherit and if that means junking big cars, long distance holidays or air conditioning every time one feels a little discomfort through heat so be it, fit the traditional way of coping with heat into ones life if necessary. Maybe science will come up with a wonder cure for polluting energy and wasted resources but its doubtful it will be 100%. It's a change in priorities, a change in what is important to us, not us settling for life in a gulag.
So, you believe in restricting people's freedom of movement, and freedom to purchase products that will make their life easier, more entertaining and interesting because of your concerns for the environment, is that what you are saying?
You don't believe that central planning economies are the way to this world. You don't believe that free enterprise is the way to this world. What way do you theorize will get us to the "small world utopia" that you nebulously envision?
What methods, techniques or manners of force, regulation or persuasion do you see as necessary to get people to buy into your vision?
To me, your vision sounds interestingly close to feudalism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
2. What, exactly is it that you "wish"? What is your definition of success for the human race on the planet Earth?
Beyond enough to eat, a roof over peoples heads and clothes on their back, knowledge and social intercourse. Everything else is a distraction, all capitalism's toys and gizmos are meaningless in the scheme of things.
This is a very vague statement. I'm for "world peace" as well .... but wishing for "something" doesn't do anything towards achieving it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
3. Why are you so quick to accept the "findings" of a "study" that is put out by an admittedly partisan organization? I reviewed both articles, and they are about the very same "report", and there is no link or path to find the study for a detailed analysis.
It isn't one organisation, its just about every credible scientist on the planet that is not in the pay of interested parties that say we are over consuming, destroying the planet's eco-system and altering the climate beyond what it would have naturally changed to and its going to have wide spread negative effects, especially for poor countries. But who cares about them anyway? Not you I guess.
First, I ask that refrain from trying to poison the discussion with comments such as I have highlighted above. You and I certainly disagree, but I see no reason to attribute either stupidity or crudity in all it's forms to either of us simply because we have a different set of beliefs.
Second, while I don't specifically want to get into a debate about Global Warming, I do have my suspicions and I do have a point of view about why it has been embraced so readily by many people such as yourself.
While I'll use you as an example to illuminate this point, I fully understand that your personal journey to your beliefs may not mirror exactly what I am about to say, but that doesn't invalidate the overall thrust of my argument.
I find that many (most) of the "Global Warming" true believers are the same sort who earlier embraced "Global Freezing". The same sort of personality who embraced "Silent Spring". The same sort of personality who embraced "Over Population" and just about ever other proposed "mankind is seconds from disaster" type of belief system.
Global Warming is simply the latest "chicken little" belief system to come down the pike for people who are partial to accepting this type of belief system. And, their acceptance or rejection doesn't necessarily bear any relationship to the facts or reality of "Global Warming".
I'm trying to make a distinction between the "facts" of Global Warming, and why many people may believe in it. I'm not trying to argue whether Global Warming exists or not, simply the politics of it, and how it plays into the beliefs and plans of certain groups and individuals.
Many Global Warming believers come to ascribe to their beliefs in order to support their arguments for the type of political world that mankind lives in. In other words, if it wasn't Global Warming, they would be all hot for some other thing that might support how they want to re-order the world.
Generally, I've found that the most committed and partisan believers in Global Warming:
1. Have an animosity towards free markets,
2. Believe in re-ordering society by force of government edict,
3. Are athestic or agnostic (antagonistic toward religion),
4. Are anti-American,
5. Aren't scientifically minded (are "emotional" rather than "rational"),
6. Have utopian views about how human society should function.
So far, you've not said anything to disabuse me of the notion that you fit this category, because I've been asking specific questions and receive only generalities back.
The study you quoted from the World Wildlife Fund reads much like any other religious tract published by true believers of any belief system (or, at least, the reports about the report, since I've not been able to locate the actual report - which makes me suspicious as well).
I'm also aware that there are still major questions about the entire Global Warming scenarios (because there is more than one), and that many scientist who have dared to question some or all aspects of these scenarios are treated by true believers with such hatred and vehemence as to remind me of how heretics are treated by any other religion. Counter-vailing facts are ignored, and scientist and people who hold contrary views are personally demeaned and excoriated.
Which is not the scientific method. It's a political and sometimes religious method of overpowering critics who point to the lack of clothes on the emperor.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I just have to say, that I've been reading about "the end of the environment" my entire life. Global warming now, global cooling in the 70s ... and it still all seems like scare tactics to me, done for either political, or philosophical reasons, and not substantially for the advancement of mankind's knowledge.
It' makes me distrustful of all such fear-mongering reports of the imminent demise of the planet.
I have to admit to not taking the ice age in the senventies seriously and there are always doomsayers around, you can read them in the bible but in glabal warming, every little bit of new evidence confirms what we see around us, a depletion of natural habitat and a warming of the planet. Even if you don't believe in global warming, you have to have your head stuck firmly in the ground not to believe in depletion of the natural habitat and a wide ranging destruction of species. I only have to think back to my youth, there are plant, insect, mammals and birds I no longer see or if I do then only rarely.
The bold sentence above leaves me curious. It sounds like you are giving a "testimonal" of your personal experience with the reduction and/or extinction of parts of the biosphere. Most people don't have the experience of being exposed to "plants, insects, mammals and birds" that have become extinct or scarce, although they may have the experience of having less exposure to the outdoors as they become older because they start to live in urban environments or spend less time in the wild because of other requirements of life.
What, exactly, is your personal experience with a reduction of non-human life on earth?
I'm curious because a "testimonal" is a religious thing. It's a Christian belief and behavior, used to increase the acceptance of the underlying belief system, based on personal experience. This appears to be exactly what you are attempting.
quote:
ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
But what is good about capitalism? It appropriates people's time (their most precious resource) for the wealth of others.
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Now this is a very interesting (and illuminating) quote that you have made, and definitely worthy of further discussion, but I'll wait for you to clarify which economic system you are recommending to replace it before I comment.
Capitalists would have us believe that we live in a golden age of plenty that has never been with us before. This is not entirely trues. There were periods in the middleages that went on longer than the current age of capitalism where things weren't all that bad in Europe. Most political upheavals would have passed ordinary people by. We look at the 100 years war between France and England, some of the battles in that war had as litttle as 25 men on each side. Meanwhile much of the population were reasonably fed and clothed and had at least 80 days holidays a year, every saint day being a holiday. Of course I'm not advocating a return to the middleages and getting rid of all modernity. What I'm saying is that knowledge and science should be used to give us back our time for the important things in life, not appropriate it so we have at least enough money to get wrecked in the local bar so we can face the monotony and pointlessness of work the next day. The majority of people prefer something useful and interesting and a direction in their life rather than sit around so I'm sure society would evolve in different ways but can you really say that capitalism increases the quality of life for the majority of people? I would say capitalism provides the somnambulant toys that allow people to sleep walk through life and particularly makes them passive to having their time appropriated.
Ok, here is how I interpret your above paragraph:
Capitalism is bad. We don't really have all the good things that another system could deliver to us. Feudalism in the Middle Ages was actually a better time, and more in tune with the soul of mankind. Modern society and capitalism has brought alienation to most people, and therefore should be destroyed so that we can return to the golden age of serfs, lords and manors. Yeah, the average life span might have only been into the late 20's and early 30's, but dyamn ... it was a better time. Even if we didn't live longer, and had to suffer illness, disease, hunger, ignorance, at least we weren't bored.
I'm sorry if you take offense when I disagree with you, meatcleaver.
I'll admit that alienation, boredom and the lack of some overarching vision and challenge to mankind, and men often makes their lives dull and boring. But isn't it grand that we can live in such peace, plenty and possibilities that such boredom is seen as a major problem, as opposed to eating and trying to keep a roof over our families head, and a fire in the fireplace?
No, even if I accepted that capitalism shouldn't be the model for the economic activity of mankind, the simple fact is that it is. So, to get to a vision of the world that you desire (without the negative parts), then you should use the system to achieve your goals. I think it's possible, and even probable over the next century (if not sooner).
Gist for a deeper, longer post or thread, however.
FirmKY
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread