IGX

Perhaps you need a snack or some time to meditate? Reread what we’ve both said and then let’s begin again.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:00 pmDo you have children?

Hell, no! I absolutely dislike any non-adult human life.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:04 pmThat's the opposite of sensible, since only child bearers are ensuring a future tax base. There are countries that need additional births--like the USA or Japan--and countries that don't. Countries that need additional births should have social policies, like in Hungary, that promote child bearing. In countries that don't need additional births, pressure should be brought to bear to tamp down the rate of births, and no possible outlet should be available to these societies via out-migration.

Wrong again.

We are on the verge of a new automation era at an unimaginable scale. Quite soon, most non-qualified jobs will be extinct and, as Bill Gates suggested, machines will have to "pay taxes".

In twenty years there will be no cab drivers, no truck drivers and most of those who work at a factory will be laid off. And that's just the beginning.

I'm no luddite and I think this is a HUGE and good step in the right direction. Because the Ponzi scheme that is the tax and social security system will no longer need more and more taxpayers and, hopefully, people will start to breed less and less.

Bram wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:35 am Get out of here with your gaslighting.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Do you maybe mean he's using a strawman tactic?

SubClaw wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:35 am
I'm no luddite and I think this is a HUGE and good step in the right direction. Because the Ponzi scheme that is the tax and social security system will no longer need more and more taxpayers and, hopefully, people will start to breed less and less.

The only thing that will encourage people to breed less is atheism.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:02 am Wealthy comfortable populations don't breed like rabbits.
The best way to create those populations is western democratic capitalist liberalism.

Truth

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:14 am Perhaps you need a snack or some time to meditate? Reread what we’ve both said and then let’s begin again.

Lol, after writing that response I was like "Shit, I better go meditate." Very beautiful sunset meditation with very anxious mind :D

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:09 am

Bram wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:35 am Get out of here with your gaslighting.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Do you maybe mean he's using a strawman tactic?

Any reference to Princess Bride works for me.

Ah yes, I looked up the definition of both, you are right.

Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Gaslight: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.

I do not for a moment believe that with 7.5 billion people on this planet, with millennia of collective history, of religion, philosophy and scientific growth....

that the brilliant solution to our dilemma of overpopulation and over exploitation of resources is to fuck over the poor and unlucky.

That is a great way to accomplish nothing. While simultaneously operating from a place of evil.

Nothing I am suggesting involves any form of direct violence or killing. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that your article is completely accurate and that the demographic information I posted is correct.

The article (Turner) says: "You’d have to halve the birth rate, you’d have to have net zero immigration, you’d have to go totally renewable energy and double efficiencies in every sector of the economy, and the really key thing is you’d have to reduce the working week over time so that it would become half of what it is.”

Now, if we halve the birthrate in America, what do we see? In 2018, there were 3,788,235 births, and if we half that number we get 1,894,117 births net reduction. By comparison, if we halve the birthrate in China, what do we see? Well, in 2018 the PRC reported 15,230,000 births, and half of that is 7,615,000 births. In India, the numbers of births in 2018 was 24,116,000, and half of that is 12,058,000. So if we all held hands and reduced births by half, America would give up 1.8 million births, whereas India would give up 12.05 million births, and China would give up 7.6 million births.

Surely you can see how there's no way to effect the very things you say you want without it being visited most severely on Asia and Africa. And, never mind how you could ever enforce such a policy without serious force, here again, brought to bear on the Third World.

And no immigration speaks for itself. You can't take the 90 percent of the 3rd world and raise it to Western living standards without sinking the whole ship. No amount of belt tightening by Westerners can change that.

If you are serious about a sustainable future, you have to totally let go of the idea that a clear eyed appraisal of the situation is somehow trying to "fuck over the poor and unlucky". There are too many of them and we have to stop contributing to that or it's over.

SubClaw wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:35 am

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:04 pmThat's the opposite of sensible, since only child bearers are ensuring a future tax base. There are countries that need additional births--like the USA or Japan--and countries that don't. Countries that need additional births should have social policies, like in Hungary, that promote child bearing. In countries that don't need additional births, pressure should be brought to bear to tamp down the rate of births, and no possible outlet should be available to these societies via out-migration.

Wrong again.

We are on the verge of a new automation era at an unimaginable scale. Quite soon, most non-qualified jobs will be extinct and, as Bill Gates suggested, machines will have to "pay taxes".

In twenty years there will be no cab drivers, no truck drivers and most of those who work at a factory will be laid off. And that's just the beginning.

I'm no luddite and I think this is a HUGE and good step in the right direction. Because the Ponzi scheme that is the tax and social security system will no longer need more and more taxpayers and, hopefully, people will start to breed less and less.

I'm not wrong. You don't have kids and don't have any useful contribution other than "muh automation".

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:39 pmI'm not wrong. You don't have kids and don't have any useful contribution other than "muh automation".

This little outburst reveals your complete lack of arguments.

There's no argument brah, you're saying something might happen in the future but you can't say what, at what rate, and what it's impacts will be. There will be increasing automation in the future, but it won't happen overnight, and it doesn't change the basic principals of demographics or economics. Also, since you don't have a kid and, by your own admission don't care what happens after you die, what do you think you have to offer to this conversation?

Fat Cat/Makena,

Destroying the environment is not an "American" problem or solution, it is a global one. It's going to require a global solution.

Let's look at ideas that are reasonable and operate from a place of good.

If Earth is fucked either way, I'd rather go out swinging in the name of love than hate.

I don't think Capitalism is equivalent with love, I think it's equivalent with selfishness.

My friend told me earlier that both socialism and capitalism are aimed at maximizing production, I don't know that that is true, but please educate me!

I think that a reasonable solution involves moving to an economic system that does not involve maximizing production.

Bram wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:11 am Fat Cat/Makena,

Destroying the environment is not an "American" problem or solution, it is a global one. It's going to require a global solution.

Let's look at ideas that are reasonable and operate from a place of good.

If Earth is fucked either way, I'd rather go out swinging in the name of love than hate.

I don't think Capitalism is equivalent with love, I think it's equivalent with selfishness.

My friend told me earlier that both socialism and capitalism are aimed at maximizing production, I don't know that that is true, but please educate me!

I think that a reasonable solution involves moving to an economic system that does not involve maximizing production.

Before FC gives you an educated reply, consider this; the US has been the world's most successful capitalist country by far. And, it's cleaner than ever. Animals that were on the brink of extinction are thriving. Los Angeles has many millions more people than it did 50 years ago while the air is many times better. Our water used to be so polluted it would regularly catch on fire in major cities. There are thousands more examples. And, our greenhouse gas emissions surpass the goals of the Paris Climate Accords while we've become energy independent. Compared to 50 years ago this is a MIRACLE beyond comprehension. All accomplished through capitalism.

Meanwhile communist China is a filthy cesspool of pollution and they're exporting environmentally disastrous energy generation around the world via the belt & road initiative. The Han Communist leaders are the most damaging people on the planet right now in regards to basic human freedoms and the environment.

IMO the worst thing that US capitalism has done to the planet (and our people) is to ship our people employing and environmentally managed manufacturing offshore to the most dangerous and environmentally damaging country on the planet. Democratic capitalist freedoms with a light regulatory hand may not be THE answer but it's the best answer available.

All IMO of course.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:53 pm

Bram wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:11 am Fat Cat/Makena,

Destroying the environment is not an "American" problem or solution, it is a global one. It's going to require a global solution.

Let's look at ideas that are reasonable and operate from a place of good.

If Earth is fucked either way, I'd rather go out swinging in the name of love than hate.

I don't think Capitalism is equivalent with love, I think it's equivalent with selfishness.

My friend told me earlier that both socialism and capitalism are aimed at maximizing production, I don't know that that is true, but please educate me!

I think that a reasonable solution involves moving to an economic system that does not involve maximizing production.

Before FC gives you an educated reply, consider this; the US has been the world's most successful capitalist country by far. And, it's cleaner than ever. Animals that were on the brink of extinction are thriving. Los Angeles has many millions more people than it did 50 years ago while the air is many times better. Our water used to be so polluted it would regularly catch on fire in major cities. There are thousands more examples. And, our greenhouse gas emissions surpass the goals of the Paris Climate Accords while we've become energy independent. Compared to 50 years ago this is a MIRACLE beyond comprehension. All accomplished through capitalism.

It's an interesting mix. I still remember the story of a private owner having a huge swath of old growth forest which he logged responsibly, then sold it to some (other) capitalists who immediately moved to take all of the profit out of the forest, i.e., clear-cut it, which was resulting in poor water quality downstream and other knock-on effects. But then the various environmental groups got their rage on and used our democracy to make some changes, that we could afford to make ultimately because we are a rich country.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:53 pm
Before FC gives you an educated reply, consider this; the US has been the world's most successful capitalist country by far. And, it's cleaner than ever. Animals that were on the brink of extinction are thriving. Los Angeles has many millions more people than it did 50 years ago while the air is many times better. Our water used to be so polluted it would regularly catch on fire in major cities. There are thousands more examples. And, our greenhouse gas emissions surpass the goals of the Paris Climate Accords while we've become energy independent. Compared to 50 years ago this is a MIRACLE beyond comprehension. All accomplished through capitalism.

Meanwhile communist China is a filthy cesspool of pollution and they're exporting environmentally disastrous energy generation around the world via the belt & road initiative. The Han Communist leaders are the most damaging people on the planet right now in regards to basic human freedoms and the environment.

IMO the worst thing that US capitalism has done to the planet (and our people) is to ship our people employing and environmentally managed manufacturing offshore to the most dangerous and environmentally damaging country on the planet. Democratic capitalist freedoms with a light regulatory hand may not be THE answer but it's the best answer available.

All IMO of course.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply!

I'd like to be clear that I think capitalism, communism, and socialism are all lacking, and that a new economic system is a possible solution to the challenges humanity faces. One not focused on maximizing production, because we have a crazy amount of people on this planet, and only so many resources -- and the production of those people and resources, and the results of that in increasing pollution, further hampers the resources we have.

The criticism I have heard for years is that the Western capitalist system is not sustainable globally, that if the entire world shifted to this (cars, homes, tons of items, huge amounts of trash thrown out yearly, etc.) that we would be in trouble much, much faster.

I don't disagree that many things are better than they used to be!

https://www.footprintnetwork.org/conten ... er_GFN.pdf

Globally, we are using 1.4 Earths’ worth of biocapacity every year. Some nations, however, use a lot less than this, and some use a lot more. Here is how many Earths we would need if everyone lived like a resident of the following countries, according to Global Footprint Network’s 2008 National Accounts.

• United States 4.5 Earths
• United Kingdom 3.1 Earths
• Germany 2.5 Earths
• Argentina 1.2 Earths
• Costa Rica 1.1 Earths
• South Africa 1.0 Earths
• India 0.4 Earths

Global Footprint Network calculates the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of more than 200 nations
and looks at how these nations compare.

Carbon is the primary culprit of our ecological overspending. Humanity is emitting carbon faster than the planet can reabsorb it. Our carbon Footprint (the amount of land and sea it would take to absorb all the carbon we emit) has increased 700% since 1961. Now over 50% of our Ecological Footprint comes from carbon emissions. We are now emitting so much carbon, the planet can’t absorb it all, so it is building up in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change.

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:53 pm Before FC gives you an educated reply, consider this; the US has been the world's most successful capitalist country by far.

What do you mean by successful? "Most successful" for that matter?

Sangoma wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:33 am

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:53 pm Before FC gives you an educated reply, consider this; the US has been the world's most successful capitalist country by far.

What do you mean by successful? "Most successful" for that matter?

Highest GDP and most amount of wealth created are two metrics to which US capitalism can lay claim.

What we have to do is make sure we don't fall into the trap of "the thing that worked better than what came before is THE thing and cannot ever be improved upon". Capitalism has clearly been a much better way of running an economy than Soviet style Communism. And both produced a higher standard of living than the feudal types of economy of the pre-industrial revolution.
Where the US, and the rest of the world now that Capitalism emerged as the clear winner of the current systems, need to be careful is that we now treat Capitalism like a religion. It cannot be questioned on a fundamental level.
But as technology improves, new economic possibilities open up. I think we'll eventually be able to move toward a Resource Based Economy, where we can keep track of worldwide resource use and keep extraction/consumption at a level that allows for sustainability/replenishment. This steady-state with the planet should be our next goal, with technology providing the efficiency wedge to keep quality of life the same or better across the board. And it should be actively pursued as a matter of policy.
Automation, 3rd or 4th gen 3D printing, AI systems that can manage resource consumption on a worldwide level. All of these things are on the near to medium term horizon. They're going to be disruptive. We should plan now on having them be disruptive in a way that lets people work less for the same quality of life, not increase consumption demand for bullshit. At the heart of that might need to be a pivot toward a new way to measure quality of life.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:59 pm You have to contain them, make the pressure unbearable, and allow no out-migration. Then, internal pressures can force societal change. Also, stop all funding, vaccinations, and food aid. I know, I know, I'm a monster but you said you wanted to save the planet!

There are vaccines against human HCG, causing miscarriage.

"The HSD vaccine proceeded to Phase II trials conducted in 3 major centers in India. 14 women were exposed to the risk of pregnancy for 12 months and 2 completed 19 months without becoming pregnant.

Research results also indicate that a recombinant vaccine in a live vector such as vaccinia would require less frequent injections, and elicit a high antibody response capable of preventing pregnancy. "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1514026/


By all means, vaccinate away.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:19 am
I think we'll eventually be able to move toward a Resource Based Economy, where we can keep track of worldwide resource use and keep extraction/consumption at a level that allows for sustainability/replenishment. This steady-state with the planet should be our next goal, with technology providing the efficiency wedge to keep quality of life the same or better across the board. And it should be actively pursued as a matter of policy.

Sounds like Central Planning with a different motivation. von Hayek discussed this in his book "Fatal Conceit - the limits of knowledge". This book was based upon his Nobel prize in economics.

His acceptance speech - "The pretense of knowledge".

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/econo ... k/lecture/

Sustainability is stagnation. By driving demand for substitutes it may be possible to offset despoilment.

Capitalism is not the end all and be all. Creating a bureaucracy to "guide" has been tried in many places, including the US. Central Planning has limits and should be questioned as a method of managing people and the planet.

nafod wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:34 pm But then the various environmental groups got their rage on and used our democracy to make some changes, that we could afford to make ultimately because we are a rich country.

Bloomberg gave $100 million to the Sierra Club for "clean power". They lobbied against coal. Bloomberg sells "Alternative Energy Investment" at $25,000 per terminal. He made out on the deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/clim ... -coal.html

He bought Mayor de Blasio and Mayor Potato for a pittance, probably to sell more terminals.

https://www.bloomberg.org/press/release ... challenge/

Wonder who paid these protesters to demonstrate?

Sangoma wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:33 am

DrDonkeyLove... wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:53 pm Before FC gives you an educated reply, consider this; the US has been the world's most successful capitalist country by far.

What do you mean by successful? "Most successful" for that matter?

If you're looking for statistics, I'm too lazy to look them up. Below, when I say US I mean a wealthy capitalist US.

No US, WW2 ends badly for everybody except totalitarians. No US, no NATO. No US, no effective UN (at one time effective), No US, none of the magnificent technology from the space race. No US, Eastern block still Soviet client states. No US, no S. Korea. No US, no Marshall Plan after Europe destroyed itself for the umpteenth time. No US, none of the many billions (trillions?) of $$ aiding 3rd world countries. No US, no world's police force protecting shipping lanes & etc. No US, and the rest of the free world would be less free or have a smaller welfare state because they have Uncle $$$am contributing substantially to their defense. No US, no one to effectively hinder the Communist Han Chinese menace. No US, and only a fraction of the world's poor would have had a place where they could emigrate and advance from terrible poverty to wealth in a generation.

The world has benefitted enormously from the magnificent magnanimous and, so far, successful US empire. When its flame peters out in a generation or 3, the world will be a darker, poorer, and scarier place.

Anyone can make a cherry picked list, including a list of many negatives resulting from US capitalist wealth & success. But that's a quick thumbnail answer to your question of what I mean by US success.