or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Two philosophical questions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Two philosophical questions - Page 2

post #41 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Well you said this

"The point was (and is) that there isn't any rational point in pursuing those other methods because simply mining natural copper is still cheapest approach comparatively"

And thats why I'll never be a republican or believe in reganomics.

The thought that we just consume and consume a resource because it is the cheapest option, because all we ultimately care about is the bottom-line, margin and profit - Then wake up one day and find that all the resource has gone and we have made no provision for the future - is not what I stand for.

Afterall, if it was left to the republicans - we would have no wind, solar, geothermal, fusion, fission, hydrothermal, hydrogen, fuel cells...we would just keep drilling the oil and keep denying were screwing the atmosphere.

In the end, margin and profit only work for a short time , before you one day wake up broke.

I think you've misunderstood.

First, if we some particular resource starts to become more scarce (i.e., we start running out) then its price will rise. That price increase is a signal to all consumers of the resource to conserve. The price rise is also a signal to producers to find ways to find more. Both of these actions result in finding more and using less. This dynamic then results in lower prices (again). which may then result in increased demand which can restart the cycle all over again ad infinitum.

Second, the pricing of resources reflects how we should be consuming because built into that price is all of the resources that must be expended in order to produce and deliver it. In other words it provides a mechanism for rational economizing and conservation of resources.

Finally, I'm not going to address or get into the political baiting I'm simply trying to illuminate what we've actually seen happen over hundreds (even thousands) of years.
post #42 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I think you've misunderstood.

First, if we some particular resource starts to become more scarce (i.e., we start running out) then its price will rise. That price increase is a signal to all consumers of the resource to conserve. The price rise is also a signal to producers to find ways to find more. Both of these actions result in finding more and using less. This dynamic then results in lower prices (again). which may then result in increased demand which can restart the cycle all over again ad infinitum.

Second, the pricing of resources reflects how we should be consuming because built into that price is all of the resources that must be expended in order to produce and deliver it. In other words it provides a mechanism for rational economizing and conservation of resources.

Finally, I'm not going to address or get into the political baiting I'm simply trying to illuminate what we've actually seen happen over hundreds (even thousands) of years.

Does nature, in and of itself, have monetary value?

Trick question.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

The original question was

"1. Are things better today than in the past? I'm talking about the long-term trend, and not the shifts that occur from year-to-year or decade-to-decade. I'm talking about today compared to 100 years ago, 500 years ago, a thousand years ago. This can be according to whatever definition of "better" you want.
"

its impossible to answer in any meaningful way unless some qualification is done. Are we talking relatively, absolutely....

I think if we are talking absolutely, its almost a pointless question.

Give us any measure that you want and let's discuss whether things are better or worse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

If we are talking relatively, we need to normalise the results so they mean something.

I suggest we did this with

"Is quality of life as good as can be expected given what is possible of the era in regards to quality of life."

This is a fine question. But it's very different. I think that just about anyway you want to measure or quantify things, the world is is better off now than in the past. The longer the time span you choose the more obvious this is. Sometimes in the short term (few years) things look like they're getting worse, but over the long term things have gotten undeniably better. Heck I wouldn't even want to go back to the 1970's or the 1980's compared to today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

You must be aware that every few years a survey is done that measures how happy a nation is. Yet we find that at best we aren't happier than we were 50 years ago.

I cannot comment on people's media induced pessimism of the state of the world and their lives.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

If you want to compare now with 1000 years ago, then you need some sort of common benchmark that is fair across both eras in determining whether things are better today than they were.

So pick one. Life expectancy. Infant mortality. Access to food, clothing, shelter and health care. Communications. Transportation. Etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

You cant say... well today we have computers and mobile phones, so now is better...

I think you certainly can! Those are things that make our lives better in real ways.
post #44 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

The stuff runs out.

Like what?
post #45 of 95
... cavemen or cavemen with cars?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #46 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Like what?

Like oxygen.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #47 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Patience!

Well mine hasn't run out (despite being quite tested in these here forums). I'm sorry of yours has. But seriously, what have we run out of?
post #48 of 95
1) Yes.

2) Science.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #49 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Patience!

Two scenarios.

One we either run out of cheap fossil fuels with a planetary population of 12,000,000,000 people.

The other is Earth says fuck you to human social economics and we go instinct.

Earth moves forward in either case, unaware of the existence or nonexistence of a single species formally known as homo sapiens.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #50 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

The original question was long term - not decades or years, long term

Yes it was. So? It doesn't invalidate the question. I think people are often far too short term focused anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Why not?

I misspoke. I Should have said I won't. It's a different discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Ok, I'll pick communication.

Communication was better 1000 years ago, because I didn't have to have a licence to own a flag, I didn't have to pay monthy subscription to wave a flag, I wasn't locked into renting a flag from one of 2 crap companies on 18 month contract, my flag waving wasn't looked upon as if I was automatically a terrorist. My flag was not covertly monitored by the state. My flag always worked.

Therefore communication has gone rapidly downhill

What you seem to be talking about is the effect of government actions on people's lives. If we want to bring that into the equation, then I will agree that government intervention invariably makes people's lives worse insofar as it drifts from a smaller core set of functions of protecting people's liberty and property.
post #51 of 95
I posit that governance correlates strongly to population.

To govern, or to be governed, that is the question.

No that's not quite right is it?

To govern, or not to govern, that is the question.

I posit that societies would not exist without governance.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #52 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

At this present moment in time, I cannot think of anything that has run out.

Okay then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

That doesn't mean there isn't a major problem looming

That might be true. I've never claimed differently. How will we know what problem (I'm back to discussing resource shortages here) is looming?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Some of the essential metals we use on a day to day basis have less than 10 years of discovered deposits remaining.

Key word here is discovered (at this time).


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Peak oil will happen some day.

Possibly. Of course this has been predicted (wrongly) since virtually the beginning of the refinement of oil)


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Maybe it has, maybe there is 500 years left. At this point we simply do not know.

And when we do, we'll find a solution. As you say, it may be that the people who live 500 years from now may be the ones tasked with that problem.
post #53 of 95
The Misanthropic Principle

I'm going to dig up the entire Earth and horde all of it's natural resources.

And you can't have any.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #54 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

You cant expect for every problem that there is going to be a solution on tap that is magically going to solve a crisis when it arrives.

So the thing is, do we act now knowing that there is going to be a problem in the future, so we avert the problem, so that we do not wake up one day and find out to our suprise that there is no economically extractable oil left and society collapses because he have not found a solution ...ala what has happened when the credit suddenly ran out - multiplied by a factor of 1000

Or do we take a bit of a hit on our bottomlines and profits today so that we can keep making a profit in the future and mankind does not have to face a crisis of problems that screw us all over until hopefully a magical solution is rushed through by the skin of our teeth - or more likely after half the world has died and the economy has evaporated under 20 years of depression while someone frantically found this solution.

One way is a forward looking liberal position, the other is a short-sighted republican position.

There are social conservatives and then there are nature conservatives.

In other words, me first versus we first.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #55 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

I already have made a suggestion.

Is quality of life as good as can be expected given what is possible of the era in regards to quality of life

Thats my suggestion for continuing the discussion in a meaningful way.

I don't think I made my original question clear enough. I'm not asking about quality of life relative to the era or anything of the sort. I'm talking about it in an absolute sense.

To get more specific: Has the world become more or less violent over the past several thousand years? That's not a question that calls for a relative or normalized response. You could, for example, try to estimate the proportion of people who die a violent death today, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. Or you could look at health measures like longevity. Or education. I think you could even talk about subjective things like pain and suffering or the amount of control people have over their lives - they are a bit trickier, but I don't think impossible to talk about.

IMO, "civilization" - laws and agreements among people - has made life better over time, and not just a little better, but significantly, hugely, massively better.
post #56 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

1) Yes.

2) Science.

Damn you and your concision!

I really wasn't thinking about science, but clearly that's right. I was thinking more along the lines of values, like humanism and rationalism. But I don't think it's accidental that the rise of those liberal values coincided with the rise of science. Science is really a part of rationalism. And science wouldn't necessarily result in better lives for people unless it's implemented with liberal values to guide it.

I was also thinking along the lines of Robert Wright's Nonzero.

Quote:
In Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Wright asserts that, ever since the primordial ooze, life has followed a basic pattern. Organisms and human societies alike have grown more complex by mastering the challenges of internal cooperation. Wright's narrative ranges from fossilized bacteria to vampire bats, from stone-age villages to the World Trade Organization, uncovering such surprises as the benefits of barbarian hordes and the useful stability of feudalism. Here is history endowed with moral significance?a way of looking at our biological and cultural evolution that suggests, refreshingly, that human morality has improved over time, and that our instinct to discover meaning may itself serve a higher purpose.

If we think in terms of cultural (and biological) evolution as about creating more and more non-zero-sum situations I think sslarson would also agree, because that's such a central element of capitalism.
post #57 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

You cant expect for every problem that there is going to be a solution on tap that is magically going to solve a crisis when it arrives.

Well I wouldn't say magically or mystically. There is human effort and ingenuity involved. But other than that (i.e., magical) aspect, sure I can.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

So the thing is, do we act now knowing that there is going to be a problem in the future,

What do we know there is going to be a problem with?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

so that we do not wake up one day and find out to our suprise that there is no economically extractable oil left and society collapses because he have not found a solution

I'm willing to bet that won't happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

One way is a forward looking liberal position, the other is a short-sighted republican position.

Cute.
post #58 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I don't think I made my original question clear enough. I'm not asking about quality of life relative to the era or anything of the sort. I'm talking about it in an absolute sense.

To get more specific: Has the world become more or less violent over the past several thousand years? That's not a question that calls for a relative or normalized response. You could, for example, try to estimate the proportion of people who die a violent death today, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, etc. Or you could look at health measures like longevity. Or education. I think you could even talk about subjective things like pain and suffering or the amount of control people have over their lives - they are a bit trickier, but I don't think impossible to talk about.

IMO, "civilization" - laws and agreements among people - has made life better over time, and not just a little better, but significantly, hugely, massively better.

The world has clearly become more violent, as we have weapons of mass destruction and the potential for their global use at anytime, we have built up a massive amount of weaponry at all levels from the individual to national and regional scales (e. g. NATO).

Starvation and genocide continue unabated.

Civilization has been around for a long time.

Laws have been around for a long time.

War has been around for a long time.

Those are not new or modern things.

All have existed for several thousand years.

Locally than globally.

So then, why is life better over time, and not just a little better, but significantly, hugely, massively better?

Science, engineering, and technology would be my answer. In that order.

Right now, in the here and now, life may be better, in a relative era of peace.

But at any time in the future, shit can and will hit the fan.

Unfortunately history does repeat itself, always has, and I posit always will.

What once was will no longer be what once was.

Count your blessings.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #59 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Damn you and your concision!

I really wasn't thinking about science, but clearly that's right. I was thinking more along the lines of values, like humanism and rationalism. But I don't think it's accidental that the rise of those liberal values coincided with the rise of science. Science is really a part of rationalism. And science wouldn't necessarily result in better lives for people unless it's implemented with liberal values to guide it.

That's precisely how I was thinking about it. Humanism can't really function in a world where, say, the landowners hunt the peasants for sport, and so once you have an idea that people are, well, people, and not animals, you sort of have to care about them, and so it gets really difficult to say "Fuck those poor people! They're poor because they're a nation of whiners!" Or they're poor because God hates them. Or whatever. Once you get this notion of the value of the common man in place, labor conditions start to change. Couple that with an interest in disease (because the poor are living in cesspools of disease, making them a functional laboratory) and how it spreads, and you get massive improvements in the living and working conditions of everyone.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #60 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The world has clearly become more violent, as we have weapons of mass destruction and the potential for their global use at anytime, we have built up a massive amount of weaponry at all levels from the individual to national and regional scales (e. g. NATO).

Built-up weapons doesn't equal violence. In fact, the massive rise of weapons has coincided with a huge drop in violence.

Check out this paper by Steven Pinker on the History of Violence, or see the video version here.
post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Built-up weapons doesn't equal violence. In fact, the massive rise of weapons has coincided with a huge drop in violence.

Check out this paper by Steven Pinker on the History of Violence, or see the video version here.

I'll give it a read tomorrow, and respond at that time. Thanks for the link.

Then that would explain WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the dozens of other regional conflicts that have occured over the past century?

Even if per capita violence has decreased globally, and I have no doubt that it has, IMHO millions of people still die violent deaths each year.

We shouldn't be satisfied with the status quo, we should never be satisfied with the status quo, because I do believe in an ever better future, but we must be vigulant, in this pursuit of an ever better future.


BTW, I happen to be a perfectionist, so I always see the potential for an ever better future.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

So - in response to the question of what is running out.

Oil, Gas, Metals, Minerals.

Im not going to bother to expand on that and spend months trotting out all the same facts that have discredited your position for the last 100 times through this cycle - because it is not necessary. I'd have to do it again next month anyway.

Simply, there is a finite amount of anything within the finite volume of the Earth and we are using up these resources at increasing rates. At some point they will run out.

To argue differently, is to argue that 2+2 does not equal 4.

You don't have to spend the time. Let's talk again when we do run out (NOTE: Not when you think we might, maybe, possibly, all of the data says we're going to soon...when we actually do). You should appreciate this challenge because either way you win. If we don't run out then you don't have to talk to me. If we do, then your point is proven correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse View Post

Only because forward looking people created a solution before there was a major crisis

Exactly. And there's nothing to make me assume that forward thinking people aren't, at this very moment, working on solutions to the things that we may be running out of. That's one of the great things about the market. I don't have to worry about it personally (particularly if the prices of these things are allowed to float freely so I know when they are starting to become more scarce). You and others can go on worrying about it. I choose not to. I'm betting on the people (in the respective fields of various materials research, development and production) that are actually actively doing something about it*.

*Of course if we choose to do something stupid like tax certain industries so-called "windfall" profits (or other major restrictions on their ability to find the new resources we need), then all bets are off because we will have created an extremely strong disincentive for them or handcuffed them quite severely.

I'm going to continue my optimism about the future with only a caveat regarding massive government intrusion and control which invariably makes life worse. In those areas I definitely am much more pessimistic and recent events have confirmed my pessimism.
post #63 of 95
Awesome freaking discussion. I am more inclined to just read on instead of stating anything right now. But I had thought of two books written by John Brunner that I'd pass along as interesting examples of what he thought the future would bring. A lot of it is dated, but many topics he writes about are prescient to today's issues...

Stand on Zanzibar



Quote:
The story is set in 2010, mostly in the United States. A number of plots and many vignettes are played out in this future world, based on Brunner's extrapolation of social, economic and technological trends. The key main trends are based on the enormous population and its impact: social stresses, eugenic legislation, widening social divisions, future shock, extremism. Certain of Brunner's guesses are fairly close, others not, and some ideas clearly show their 1960s mind-set.

The Sheep Look Up



Quote:
With the rise of a corporation-sponsored government, pollution levels in big cities have reached extreme levels and most (if not all) people's health has been affected in some way. Continuing the style used in Stand on Zanzibar, there is a multi-strand narrative and many characters in the book never meet each other; some characters appear in one or two vignettes only. Similarly, instead of chapters, the book is broken up into sections which range from thirty words in length to several pages. The character of Austin Train in The Sheep Look Up serves a similar purpose to Xavier Conroy in The Jagged Orbit or to Chad Mulligan in Stand on Zanzibar: He is an academic who, despite predicting and interpreting social change, has become disillusioned by the failure of society to listen. This character is used both to drive the plot and to explain back-story to the reader.

Carry on, I'm going to get some coffee...
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Exactly. And there's nothing to make me assume that forward thinking people aren't, at this very moment, working on solutions to the things that we may be running out of. That's one of the great things about the market. I don't have to worry about it personally (particularly if the prices of these things are allowed to float freely so I know when they are starting to become more scarce). You and others can go on worrying about it. I choose not to. I'm betting on the people (in the respective fields of various materials research, development and production) that are actually actively doing something about it*.

*Of course if we choose to do something stupid like tax certain industries so-called "windfall" profits (other other major restrictions on their ability to find the new resources we need), then all bets are off because we will have created an extremely strong disincentive for them or handcuffed them quite severely.

Natural resources have absolutely nothing to do with "the market."

Never have.

Never will.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #65 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Damn you and your concision!

I really wasn't thinking about science, but clearly that's right. I was thinking more along the lines of values, like humanism and rationalism. But I don't think it's accidental that the rise of those liberal values coincided with the rise of science. Science is really a part of rationalism. And science wouldn't necessarily result in better lives for people unless it's implemented with liberal values to guide it.

Historically, of course, the people who were doing early science were also the ones who lead the early rationalism movement. The point is that the idea that all things should be considered leads to both humanism and science. It is the intellectual framework that you are as you come that dominated most of the history of human civilization only to be replaced by rationalism, and self-definition.

However, I still argue that rationalism couldn't have come about if most people spent their time farming instead of thinking... hence the malthusian cycle termination was vastly important...(helped in part by population crashes of late era plagues, ironically)...

sslarson, dollar has this one, but I can point out that crashes do indeed occur, that humanity has experienced famine and death on wide scales and there was no miracle safety net that the free market produced, and that even recently we have been lucky in dealing with environmental issues like the ozone hole when there was and still is no science to prevent its destruction. The very fact that there is progress to be made by limiting human behaviors speaks volumes about the fundamentally over wrought ideas of free market psychology...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #66 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Historically, of course, the people who were doing early science were also the ones who lead the early rationalism movement. The point is that the idea that all things should be considered leads to both humanism and science. It is the intellectual framework that you are as you come that dominated most of the history of human civilization only to be replaced by rationalism, and self-definition.

However, I still argue that rationalism couldn't have come about if most people spent their time farming instead of thinking... hence the malthusian cycle termination was vastly important...(helped in part by population crashes of late era plagues, ironically)...

sslarson, dollar has this one, but I can point out that crashes do indeed occur, that humanity has experienced famine and death on wide scales and there was no miracle safety net that the free market produced, and that even recently we have been lucky in dealing with environmental issues like the ozone hole when there was and still is no science to prevent its destruction. The very fact that there is progress to be made by limiting human behaviors speaks volumes about the fundamentally over wrought ideas of free market psychology...

... solve all that ails humankind. You see we've never had a truly lawless truly free market ever.

And we will never know if all of humanity (6,700,000,000 people and counting) would be completely filthy rich (trillionaires) without having had a try at a truly lawless truly free market system.

I happen to think that the meek would indeed inherit the Earth if a truly lawless truly free market were allowed.

But we'll never know for sure until we have a truly lawless truly free market now will we?

Free market. Chirp. Free market. Chirp. Free market. Chirp. Free market. Chirp. ...

Who knows what the future will bring, but I am enternally optimistic that a truly lawless truly free market will solve all that ails humanity.

Lawless. Truly lawless.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


I happen to think that the meek would indeed inherit the Earth if a truly lawless truly free market were allowed.

You must be joking.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #68 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

You must be joking.

I think he's channeling sslarson.
post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I think he's channeling sslarson.

I don't think so. I haven't suggested lawlessness. In fact, the idea that free-market = lawlessness is a misunderstanding about what is meant by free-market.

Of course we must have law. We must have law that protects people's individual rights of liberty, life and property. We must also have the rule of law which says that no one (not even the government) is above, beyond or outside of the law.

Now some people make a distinction between law and legislation. Others also question if government = law.

These are important questions of societal, legal and political philosophy. But we spend most of our time begging the question on them and "debating" (by which I mean, of course, calling names and throwing rocks at one another when we're not making irrational and emotional judgements about others and their views) trivialities.
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I think he's channeling sslarson.

BTW, read the less violence article you linked too. Don't think I'd agree 100% with what was stated wrt overall acts of violence.

For instance per capita crime is higher in urban areas relative to rural areas, as time moves forward a higher fraction of people live in or around urban areas.

Also, more criminals per capita are probably incarcerated today then ever before. But this is just a WAG on my part.

That there is now less per capita killing/dying there can be no doubt.

Things are definitely better in the killing/dying department, but that doesn't mean that the current situation could be even better now or significantly better in the future than it would otherwise be.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #71 of 95
To protect the poor.

To protect the infirmed.

To protect the mentally ill.

To protect the worker.

To protect the handicapped.

To protect each and every individual person.

To protect all our children.

To protect all our minorities.

To protect all our women.

To protect those that need protection from those who would do them harm.

To protect our ecosystem.

To protect our environment.

To protect those from want in a global economy that can provide for all it's people.

To protect ... ad infinitum ... ad nauseam.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #72 of 95
Nearly 53,000 Chinese children sick from milk.

If the milk makes you sick, don't buy it! The free market works people!
post #73 of 95
... is the primary cause of our advancement as a civilization and population.
[CENTER]



Annual Population Growth (percent)


Past and projected population growth. The vertical axis is logarithmic (millions).[/CENTER]
[LEFT]

Africa and Asia have by far the largest present and/or future populations. Considered next to the modern Western world most of these people live in abject poverty.[/LEFT]
[CENTER] [/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #74 of 95
Quote:
generalised observation of behavior of a group of people here who do not have any genuine intent of discussion

Yep, that's exactly what you cannot do - make a negative "observation of people here."
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #75 of 95
Things are definitely better now than in the past. Our ability to control pain alone, is enough to qualify. Also, think about a time when the Greeks were in their Ivory tower watching The Bacchae, while their slaves died in the silver mines. Think about a time when, under Roman law, a father had the right of life and death over his children (IIRC his wife, too).

It's definitely better -- although I would have to say that both Good and Evil are getting more and more self-conscious.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #76 of 95
Things are better for a percentage of people, more than ever.

But if things get bad they will get very very bad, worse than in the 'dark ages' because we will have lost the sense of a something beyond us that might temper our moral. We will be completely without rudder.

And the 'Religious' malso will have lost it . . they allready have for the most part.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #77 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

Back to that thread I alluded to earlier, you sure seemed to be in the tank for Julian Simon and buy his crazy beliefs.

Thanks for your sharing opinion about both my position and Julian Simon's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

Ignored my questions...


Here you go...


Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

Care to explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/T...heCommons.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

Was the endorsement by the Cato Institute where he was a Senior Fellow?

Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

Is this wrong?

I don't have the book handy to verify or dispute the claim made by the Wikipedia entry. Until I can do that it would be premature to address the claim out of context.


Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

...and a pretty weak defense, don't you think?

No.


There you go. Now you can finally let it go.


Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

...and let yourself be played by dollarcollapse.

I don't agree with that assessment, but...You're entitled to your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

Sounded like indoctrination to me.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion.
post #78 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Does nature, in and of itself, have monetary value?

Trick question.

Quote:
The Earth is in the midst of the sixth mass extinction of both plants and animals, with nearly 50 percent of all species disappearing, scientists say.

But heck, I gots my widescreen TeeVee!
post #79 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Thanks for your sharing opinion about both my position and Julian Simon's.





Here you go...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/T...heCommons.html




Yes.




I don't have the book handy to verify or dispute the claim made by the Wikipedia entry. Until I can do that it would be premature to address the claim out of context.




No.


There you go. Now you can finally let it go.




I don't agree with that assessment, but...You're entitled to your opinion.




Again, you're entitled to your opinion.

Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson
(e.g., pollution) you see an absence of any private property rights, and instead you have so-called "public property" in which the problem of the tragedy of the commons comes into play.

Care to explain this?

Not aswered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
haha! This guy just said.

"The more we use of the natural resources....the more we have of them"

What a short-sighted fucking prick.

Quote:
Interesting. Perhaps you'll take the time to read his book before jumping to conclusions and making any rash judgements. You should watch the video in its entirety.

That makes sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
But to think that this can go on forever - under the guise of more and more people using a resource - creates more of the resource more cheaply (especially when you're talking about mined resources FFS!) is just ridiculously dumb.

This guy - from watching the first video is a loon. He has no understanding of the concept that this system is unsustainable.

Quote:
Then prove him wrong. Better minds than mine (and perhaps yours) have tried for years and failed. You have a challenge though. The data has been on his side.

Ug huh, The Joe the Plumber argument, look it up yourself.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
in any of his videos, does he explain the sleigh of hand that has to occur, that once his ever increasing consumption has consumed all the (say) copper - where does the new copper come from

Quote:
I don't recall if he does in the video. I may have read somewhere else that he suggested (and this could be in his book, again I don't recall for sure) that (possibly) copper could be produced derivatively. I don't have a direct link.

His ultimate theory (pardon the pun), simply put, is that the "ultimate resource" is the human mind and human ingenuity and that we have always found a way and that we alway will (when given the chance).

And to the point of copper (as only one specific example). We have had ever increasing demand (same for oil) and we haven't run out. If we do, he's wrong. Until we do, he's not.

I see, until he's proven wrong he's right, and we won't know until we continue to plunder until there's nothing left to plunder.
Then and only then would he be wrong.

Yeah, lets go with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
When you say derivatively do you mean that it will be produced by nuclear synthesis?
Quote:
It wasn't my claim, and I don't really know anything about copper, its related technologies or what could possibly be done to produce it derivatively. The point was that if we needed it, we'd find a way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
dont you think that is pushing the boundaries of his principle somewhat to suggest such a radical solution to the problem that there is a finite amount of resource in the Earth.
Quote:
I think that the solution might not seem to radical at some point in the future. I'd say that many of the things we do today (technology-wise) would be considered radical or even inconceivable a few generations ago, so I'm unwilling to limit my imagination on the future.

Keep on plundering because the more you use the more there is and if there isn't we'll use Star Trek technology to make more.

And then there's this,
Quote:
Simon also listed numerous claims about severe environmental damage and health dangers from pollution as "definitely disproved". These included claims about lead pollution & IQ, DDT, PCBs, malathion, Agent Orange, asbestos, and the chemical contamination at Love Canal.

I'd like to see this in it's original context.

And of course,
Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
You cant expect for every problem that there is going to be a solution on tap that is magically going to solve a crisis when it arrives.
Quote:
Well I wouldn't say magically or mystically. There is human effort and ingenuity involved. But other than that (i.e., magical) aspect, sure I can.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
So the thing is, do we act now knowing that there is going to be a problem in the future,
Quote:
What do we know there is going to be a problem with?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dollarcollapse
so that we do not wake up one day and find out to our suprise that there is no economically extractable oil left and society collapses because he have not found a solution
Quote:
I'm willing to bet that won't happen.

Don't worry, be happy.
post #80 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener

Not aswered.

Yes it was:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Two philosophical questions