 |
|
|
|
Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 05:32 am  MOTHER NATURES DYING One of the consequences of our leaders allowing the Capitalists to manipulate us into letting our instincts of desire get the better of us, is the damage caused to Mother Nature. The making and transporting of these items of our desire are risking our future generations Environment and standard of life. Our forefathers fought against other peoples desires to safeguard our standard of lives. Now its our turn to face our future generations threat. But our fight is not against another persons desires. Our fight is against our own desires. The only way the future generations will have what they need to survive is if we sacrifice desiring for more than we need to survive. Desireless for our futures sake. Whats harder to fight against? Your own desire or another persons desire? Keep in mind you can always dispose of another persons desire (If you can find them)
| |
| Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 06:08 am Actually, capitalism is good for the environment: Example, old growth forest filters out less CO2 than new, growing forest. Logging companies are capable of maintaining acres and acres of new, perpetually-growing forest for profit. Everyone wins, no desire is sacrificed, nobody loses. By the way, the sacrifice of non-essential, but convenience-allowing goods, like cars, computers, television, radio, etc. DOES sacrifice standards of living. Sacrifice isn't necessary when sustainable profits require sustainable management of resources. Over-logging kills more trees than can be re-grown and hurts future profits. Over-fishing does the same. Once oil becomes scarce, the cost will continue to rise. This will mean that alternative fuels will become more cost-effective than oil. In other words, market forces will solve everything you want without anyone sacrificing anything. Counter-example?
| |
| Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 12:20 am Hi Scarlet. Does Bio-Diversity have any impact on life? Or can man survive alone? Market forces only exists if there is profit to be made. For if there was no profit there would be no market. If a person needed what you had they would come to you, instead of you going to them. To make profit you need to grow. And in a time of cut backs, growing will be hard to do. Which means the market will force cost cuttings. aND THAT WILL BE WHY MOST COMPANIES WILL END UP POLLUTING MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IF THERE WAS NO MARKET. tHE MARKETS ARE GONNA CREATE POLLUTION. Not solve it. Look at BP.
| |
| Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 01:20 am Where diversity within an ecosystem is relevant, part of the ecosystem can be preserved. It's not that difficult. The entire ecosystem need not be preserved. Not all diversity can be demonstrated to be relevant. The fact is that some bio-diversity contains profit potential. Only the short-sighted capitalist would fail to see this (no cure for stupidity). The far-sighted capitalist does. Good resource management along with conservation of future potential resource streams is good... and just as capitalistic as before. Monetary value can be applied to an ecosystem. How much value does clean water add to fishing businesses? How much value does clean water save from water purification plants? How much value could tourism bring? How much value can hunting permits bring? How much potential value is lost in the loss of this species? This brings me to another point. If you happen to be against fur, then you are decreasing the value of preserving the species the fur comes from. If fur is valuable, then keeping the species from which the fur comes from becomes necessary to maintain revenue. In other words, buying fur promotes the conservation of the species from which the fur comes from due to increased value. Market forces at work. There is no point in the preservation of species that do nothing and cannot be shown to do anything to be profitable or useful or even potentially useful. If there's no net benefit to anyone, then there's no point in maintaining bio-diversity.
| |
| Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 01:23 am Regarding the newly added second part: Yes, look at BP. This oil spill is costing them millions in lost revenue, expenses to fix it, bad publicity, etc. I want you to honestly tell me that this oil spill is profiting them. Market forces dictate that oil spills are bad for business and bad for profits. Preventing this spill could've save them much more than it's now costing them. Edit: Counter-point?
| |
| Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 01:03 pm biodiversity is not as important as biostability
| |
| Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 11:41 pm I think I recognize the argument... enough to guess who is making it. However, I will argue that some biodiversity is good. In the case of crops, biodiversity is important as it allow a greater pool of genetic material for the improvement of crop yields through hybridization with disease resistant strains (or some other strains) as the need becomes apparent. This is not to say that all biodiversity is necessary. The species or strains that can be predicted to hold potential monetary value (and hence value to the human race) should generally be preserved. Those that don't have no meaning to the survival of humanity or the survival of any ecosystem that humanity depends on don't need to be preserved. Is this what was meant by biostability? Once more though, this wouldn't hurt the capitalist system and the potential future value is reason enough to conserve some land.
| |
| Friday, June 18, 2010 - 03:19 am Short term profits have no potential future value. That's why they are called short term. And at the moment every-one's gone short. The captains of capitalism are struggling to keep their own boats afloat. You really think their gonna think about the birds and the bees? I can (on the odd occasion) still spend 1/2 an hour watching ants. What we gonna leave the kids with, if the only life left is being used by us? Cartoons? What you grew with, they will dwell upon. Had a couple of beers, not to sure if that last bit made any sense, but I'm gonna leave it anyways cuz I like it.
| |
Friday, June 18, 2010 - 06:41 am
Short term profits require the ability to repeat. Otherwise, you will not have short term profits the next quarter, the next year, the next decade, and your business will be doomed for failure. Anyone foolish enough to think that it's enough to make loads of money once, then retire isn't worthy of the title of "captain of capitalism". Greed dictates that you will want to earn more, forever more, money. Have you ever heard of the goose that laid the golden egg? Greed = Poverty Greed + Intelligence = Money
Birds = Food, Pet Birds, Bird-Watching These generate profit, directly and indirectly. Bees = Honey, Flower Pollination, Fruit Pollination These generate profit, directly and indirectly. Ants = Soil Aeration, Pet Ant Farms These generate profit, directly and indirectly. I'm not sure what your point is. You're going to have to retrench upon a ridiculous instance of what will be lost to capitalism. When you find something that the capitalistic man can't profit off of, be sure to post it. I'll leave you with this image that appears to summarize your view of capitalism (Yes, I did create it with this topic in mind): http://churchofsimcountry.webs.com/Background.gif
| |
| Sunday, June 20, 2010 - 04:39 pm To the second bit (will click the link after), thats what Im talking about. If nature loses its natural habitat and only exists in a controlled habitat, the children will have to go to places to find nature, instead of co-habitating with nature and seeing it everyday. Creating a situation where most kids will have no immediate contact with life other than there own kind and domesticated animals. Which could ultimately leave them without the wonder needed to look further than ones self. Its all about what you had as a kid. Sure, until its gone you might not realise just how important it was to your development. But if you were to think about the time you saw your first Dragon Fly or Butterfly and heard your first cricket, Owl or woodpecker. Or the first time you watched a spider build its web or the team work of a ants nest. As I said, it might seem insignificant now. But I bet at the time it felt like your whole world. We cant risk taking nature away from the kids who cant get to a wildlife sanctuary every day or see any point to going some where to watch a controlled swarm of bees pollinate a farmers field. Ill have a look at your link now. Dont know if I can see all of it, is there a bottom 2 it? You should have a fat cat smashing up some solar panels in the back ground 
| |
| Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 04:28 am Oil 1. Spill 2. ??? 3. Profit This is the message I wished to convey: How do oil companies benefit from spills? Now, I don't think you realize another very important fact: Extermination costs money. Who will foot the bill to exterminate bees and wasps and roaches and ants and flies and spiders and pill bugs and caterpillars and termites and mosquitoes and crickets? I don't know about you, but I've lived and grown up in a developed environment and the insect population DOES NOT just randomly die off because of urbanization. RAID won't get rid of them. Exterminators can't permanently get rid of them. In fact, they just keep coming back. How is it possible to eliminate them? They won't die off easily, and it would take thousands of dollars to kill them all, but to what end? This much money and effort? What is the goal? Oh yeah, whenever they actually make concerted efforts to destroy whole populations of insects it's because they carry lethal diseases like West Nile Virus. Even then, this can't kill them all. Otherwise, individual extermination efforts are ineffective in destroying whole populations. My point is that unless there is a specific reason to kill off some species, nobody will do it because it costs money. This isn't about preserving species, this is about it not being profitable to indiscriminately kill off other species. You simply aren't being realistic, WHO will kill these off? WHY will they do it? HOW will they afford it? WHAT are they hoping to accomplish? WHERE will they profit off this? The animal population doesn't simply die off. I've seen parrots (not the natural habitat by thousands of miles), foxes, pigeons, mice, squirrels, possums, various other birds, woodpeckers, stray cats, stray dogs, etc. Don't miss the part where this area has been developed for nearly 5 decades and is surrounded on all sides by miles and miles of suburbia (literally, every city that borders my city is bordered on all side by developed cities that are bordered on all sides by developed cities). Do these qualify as domesticated? Some are no longer anyone's pets, some have never been, and some have never been intended to be. Define co-habitation? Why should we change our environment for the animals and insects when they've shown themselves perfectly capable of adapting to ours? Do you expect us to live in mud huts wearing loincloths and drinking out of hollowed gourds? If not, then what is your plan? How will we live in your green utopia? What do you propose we sacrifice? Cars? Trucks? Trains? Airplanes? All of them? Some of them? None of them? My point is that sacrifice is unnecessary. Why sacrifice? Nothing is at stake. Fear-mongering! Haha! Unrealistic scenarios don't mean a thing. Show me the evidence of nature dying off. I don't see nature dying, I see plenty of insects, plants, and animals every day without being within at least 20 miles of undeveloped land. Why would this not count? Is this not clear evidence that nature adapts? We will adapt where necessary. However, why should we adapt when there is no evidence of necessity?
| |
| Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 07:26 am If you see a forest, how do you know what it used to be like... twice as large..three times.. You don't know what has been lost from it so you think it's fine. You see a picture of a reef, but have no idea that it used to 20 times larger than what you see, so you have no idea about what was lost from it so you thnk it's fine. But what was lost? You have no idea. And neither do I. And a problem with the oil spill is that nobody who wants cheap oil has the guts to say that "Yes, I am partly at fault for this mess." Did you take a bus to work lately? Did you drive less than you usually do? Did you turn off your computer earlier than normal anytime at all? These are only a few if the things we could do to reduce the demand for petroleum. But do we?
| |
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 08:28 am
You've effectively said nothing by immediately assuming with no support that larger forests and reefs are desirable. Why are larger forests and/or reefs desirable? Why aren't smaller forests and smaller reefs desirable? If larger forests are more desirable, why not allow the forest to reclaim our cropland and our roads? Oh, right. We need those for human society to function prosperously... and even just function, period. Without crops, we starve. Without roads, we lose just about every product we depend upon (look where your stuff was manufactured). You fail to realize that it IS possible to go back. Cities, crops, roads, etc. all need to be maintained and lack of maintenance leads to decay. The sheer stupidity involved in actually going back to "nature" is too enormous to comprehend, but it IS possible. Are you familiar with the poem "Ozymandius" by Shelley?
Once again, you've said nothing assuming that decreasing petroleum demand is desirable. Why is this desirable? Why isn't increased petroleum demand desirable? Using less petroleum is counter-intuitive: * An increase in demand requires a proportional increase in supply (for equal pricing). If the supply cannot keep up with demand, then costs rise. If costs rise, then alternative energy becomes more viable. * A decrease in demand requires a proportional decrease in supply (for equal pricing). If supply can keep up with demand and then some, then costs fall. If costs fall, then alternative energy becomes less viable. Oil is like milk. * It's good for the economy like milk is good for your body. * When spilled, there's no use crying over it. If the milk spills, you'll need to get more and clean up the mess. * Nobody wants the oil to be spilled, just like nobody wants the milk to be spilled. It happens. * It makes much more sense to avoid spilling the milk than to stop drinking milk because you might spill. Who in their right mind would tell someone to stop drinking milk because they spilled it? You're effectively saying that we should stop using oil because we spilled it!
| |
| Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 07:11 pm That last part is quite silly Scarlet. Spilling milk costs at worst some paper towels, this oil disaster has already cost the lives of both humans and MANY MANY animals. Then the job losses, environments destroyed and the cost of cleaning it up. Comparing the worst man made disaster in U.S. history to spilling milk is actually pretty disturbing. Oil is like milk in that humans do not need either, it is unlike milk in that it is a finite resource which will eventually run out. The oil we drill here is traded on the world market just like all of the oil in the world and if we were to stop drilling completely it may cause a rise in gas prices of 5 cents, assuming that OPEC doesn't just go ahead and up their production to keep prices exactly where they are, I wouldn't exactly call that a catastrophic economic loss such as what we will see from this oil disaster. If you're going to make economics arguments be honest about it, recognize the true supply of world oil is controlled by a cartel (OPEC) which is essentially capable of setting the prices by varying the supply they allow to market. Our oil production is fairly insignificant and hardly worth the risk unless you want to say that we should not trade our oil on the world market and it should stay in the United States which I don't think any right minded economist would agree with. WE DO NOT HAVE A COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN THE PRODUCTION OF OIL, and we use 20% of the oil with only 2% of the reserves, so we need to decide to follow the laws of economics, continue to use oil as we do and stop producing because we do not have a comparative advantage (although pretty much any economist will tell you that we ignore the spillover costs of such use) or we decide to develop a comparative advantage in another form of energy production and in order to do so we stop subsidizing oil and instead tax it to equal out the spillover costs (even if you don't believe in climate change, pollution in general is a pretty large spillover cost of oil/coal consumption in addition to environmental destruction and potential environmental disaster). One of the failings of economics is an inability to put a price on the environment. What is the cost to society to have mountain tops blown off to mine coal or to have beaches unusable due to being flooded with oil? It is hard to quantify these things, I'm not talking about actual costs such as x number of beach tickets, vending etc, but instead the benefit that we as a society receive from having clean beaches or the beauty of an undamaged mountain range. There is value in those things and until economics can find a way to value them it will always be an imperfect science which we have to take into account. This is why you get NIMBY, you're perfectly fine with oil drilling because overall you think it makes economic sense, drop a rig in your backyard or a nuclear plant and all the sudden you might have an issue.
| |
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 09:13 pm
Ultimately, there is little difference other than scale. If I spill a glass of milk on someone's rug, I'm spilling 8 oz and it might be cleaned with a paper towel or it might need steam cleaning. Multiply that by millions, possibly billions, and you get a very similar situation. Imagine millions of gallons of spilled milk spoiling in the streets of a major city... imagine the lost revenue and the cost of cleaning it up. Most of the job losses were artificial and created by poor decision making anyway. The current administration's moratorium on offshore drilling probably cost more than any direct effect of the spill. Further, containment efforts were/are being hampered by federal interference and generally blame-game politics. My point is this: all that needs to be done is to clean the spill. There isn't some grand societal lesson about oil use to be learned other than to simply be careful and avoid spilling. Everyone can agree that oil spills are undesirable without exception, even oil companies. Granted, BP is liable to pay for the clean-up since they made the spill, just as I would need to steam clean someone's very nice rug if I spilled milk on it. Once they've payed to clean everything up and compensated everyone for their measurable, monetary losses, then the case should be closed. What more is left?
You've made some assumptions that are erroneous. * First, that I believe we should subsidize oil. I'm against government subsidization. * Second, that comparative advantage is important. If someone can profit off drilling oil here and is interested in drilling oil here, why should the fact that someone else is doing it elsewhere at greater efficiency matter? If there was nothing to be gained, nobody would be drilling the oil! It's their money, their business, and their risk... market forces will prove whether or not their decision was worthwhile. * Third, that the small influence on the overall price of oil matters. Seriously, please explain why this matters. Back to milk, I'm sure any given independent dairy farmer has a small influence on the overall price of oil, is that any reason this farmer should stop producing milk?
The environment is only worth the value that can be attached to it, just as oil is only worth the value that can be attached to it. What benefit do we as a society receive from clean beaches and undamaged mountain ranges? Tourism is monetary and measurable so this is not included. What benefit do we receive that is more valuable than money or property rights? If someone (or some group) loves the beauty of undamaged mountain ranges, let them buy the land to keep those mountain ranges undamaged. This is the direct test of value assessment. If nobody is willing to put their own money on the line, then it is simply not worth it.
While it's not literally in my back yard, I supported the oil drilling in the hills less than 5 minutes away from me by car. I'm not sure what your point is. If there were oil in my backyard, I'd be perfectly fine with selling the rights for someone to drop a rig. If someone put up a nuclear plant nearby, I'd probably apply for a job (if I were qualified)... once again, I'm really not understanding you. You've falsely assumed that I get NIMBY.
| |
| Thursday, June 24, 2010 - 01:59 am Capitalism by definition tells you nothing about how natural resources (environment) are (is) treated. It means that in production of goods (or services) a lot of capital is used and less of labour. Labor or capital oriented economies both need natural resources as one of conditions for production to take place. One could argue that capital oriented economies are more dangerous simply due to their ability to make a larger impact on environment and reach into areas labor oriented can not or have huge difficulties doing so, like for instance deep sea oil drilling.
| |
| Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 12:49 am To NoProblem & WhiteBoy. Good on ya and well said. Hi Ravbar. I think your right about the greater impact. Plus with a Labour oriented economy the companies only have to make enough money for labour, resources and development. Where in a Capital oriented economy the companies need to make enough money for labour, share holders, development, resources and profit to keep the speculators at bay. Meaning a Capital oriented economy/company needs to make more money, which inturn, means using more resources to pay for its existence. Where as a labour oriented economy/company needs to make less money, so it ultimately ends up using less resources, which inturn makes it more Environmentally friendly. If the Yanks paid the same tax on petrol as we do in the UK they would be able to pay their debt to China back. Scarlet........Helloa.........As I was reading your last couple of posts I was thinking, where was your angle on the environment. But then there it was: 'The environment is only worth the value that can be attached to it, just as oil is only worth the value that can be attached to it. What benefit do we as a society receive from clean beaches and undamaged mountain ranges?' Ok. Im gonna go for a cuppa tea and a ciggy and ponder on why you wrote that. I'll be back ;)
| |
| Sunday, June 27, 2010 - 04:15 am What is an example of a "labor oriented economy" that anyone playing this game would be interested in living in?
| |
| Monday, June 28, 2010 - 03:24 am I guess there are none. Hey, here's an interesting article. Old but still quite relevant. Can selfishness save the enivronment?
| |
| Monday, June 28, 2010 - 08:03 am @Ravbar Your description indicates that you're referring to capital intensive and labor intensive industries. These have no relation to the economic system in place, be it capitalism or otherwise. It is conceivable to have labor intensive industries within a capitalistic economy. The only reason this would occur, just as the only reason there are capital intensive industries, is that it is less expensive to produce the goods in this manner. Efficiency measured by monetary investment versus monetary profit is the sole factor in determining whether an industry is capital or labor intensive. Capital intensive industries happen to make more money in most cases. Further, you've also assumed that labor intensive industries automatically are better for the environment. This assumption is demonstrably false. Consider the case of water usage and carwashes. I watching a "please conserve water" commercial (Southern California) pointing out that getting your car washed by an automated carwash used less water (costing more capital and less labor) than washing it yourself (costing more labor and less capital). @nix001 As far as your comments relate to capital versus labor, I don't see where capital intensive industry needs to make more money than labor intensive. Both can be publicly traded, both must maximize profit, both must use the same raw materials to create the same finished product, one simply focuses on machinery and the other on workers... in a capitalistic society the choice is determined by efficiency. Doesn't it stand to reason that the most efficient system would also entail the one that requires the least raw materials to produce the same product (reducing cost), making capitalism the most environmentally friendly system? Honestly, it seems that you are talking first without thinking: Why does labor intensive industry NEED to make less money? If some labor intensive industry exists, it is because it makes MORE money. Where these are superseded by capital intensive industry, it is because labor intensive CAN'T make more money? Thus labor intensive industry NEEDS to make more money to supersede capital intensive industry. If it used less resources, why wouldn't it be cheaper? Even if it was cheaper and at first appeared to use less resources, does labor not require a wage and use their wage to purchase products and services, which take resources? In one sense, that was not a rhetorical question. In another sense, it was. Allow me to explain: The sense where it wasn't a rhetorical question is in the literal question. "What benefit do we as a society receive from clean beaches and undamaged mountain ranges?" Well, what benefit? If there is no benefit, then we aren't losing anything. If there is benefit, then we are losing something. Personally, I believe there is a clear benefit... that could be measured through income from tourism. You can't expect nature to be valueless AND valuable. If you valued a clean beach, why wouldn't you pay to visit this beach? In earning money off a clean beach, the owner must keep it clean... or someone else with a cleaner beach will outsell them. If someone else was polluting the beach, then it would be the owner's right to sue for damages as it is their beach and nobody has a right to damage another person's property. If the owner himself was polluting the beach, well, then it can be assumed that it was profitable to do so... the question would be why was it profitable? At what point does a polluted beach become so valuable that it's worth more than an unpolluted beach? If nobody owns the beach and admission is free, then the answer is any value. The rhetorical part is "society". Who is society if the individual is excluded? If every individual sacrifices, who benefits? I don't benefit, do you benefit? Why should I sacrifice for your sake? Why should the guy next to me be required to sacrifice for my sake? Why should he sacrifice for yours? Why should you sacrifice for mine? In short, why should anyone sacrifice? If I'm going to give up something, I expect compensation. If I'm going to get something, I expect to be required to compensate them. The currency of value is money. What is more valuable than money that somebody wouldn't pay top dollar for? Everything valuable is purchasable. If it wasn't valuable, nobody would buy it. If nobody wants to buy it, what value does it have? The saying "you can't buy your way into heaven" simply does not apply. Why not? This is about something that can be purchased, land can be bought and sold. It is a tradeable commodity. It has monetary value. Multiple people decide which is more valuable for mountains, mining or tourism or disuse. They determine this by buying the land and using it in the manner they saw as worth the monetary investment. Why can't you put a price on clean beaches and undamaged mountain ranges? If you refuse to put a price on them and market them, how can you expect anyone to value them? Moreover, if I sacrifice the material benefits that might result from undamaged mountain ranges and clean beaches... how on earth will these matter? I can't realistically walk to a beach or mountains. The most we have is hills around here. They're nice, but considering that there's oil in them... are they nice enough to prevent extracting oil? Will they not be as nice with oil rigs? When all the oil has been extracted, will they not still be nice? Why should these hills be protected? About 5 or 6 people hike them per day (occasionally me), assuming that 5 or 6 different people are hiking them daily, that makes around 2000 people benefiting from free tourism. The main argument seems to be that it is an eyesore, but this is merely opinion (see bottom, I'm saving this for the end). I'll assume nobody really loses out on the hills being there since they are pretty inert. Now, how many people benefit from oil revenue? How much do they benefit? What about the secondary impact of the increased revenue? Who loses out from the oil revenue? How much do they lose? What about the secondary impact? The question is cost versus loss and nothing else. (continued here) Personally, I'm fond of seeing the machinery rhythmically pumping the lifeblood of our current industry, economy, and transportation out of the hills. The creation of value out of something that had no value without the hand of humanity is a very beautiful thing. The machinery is beautiful. The event itself is beautiful. There is the reminder that there lies the source of my present existence, fueling my personal comforts and my personal needs by transporting any and every raw material imaginable. Why are YOUR aesthetic principles more valuable than MINE? @Jojo the Hun Thank you, Jojo the Hun. Great article... this better expresses much of the premises, along with presenting some stuff that I hadn't thought about.
| |
| Monday, July 5, 2010 - 11:16 pm Ok Jojo. I'm reading your link, so as I go along I'll gonna make some notes. 1)'We believe they are wrong. Our evidence comes from a surprising convergence of ideas in two disciplines that are normally on very different tracks: economics and biology.' Surly economics and biology are one and the same? The need to survive in the best possible conditions. 2)'Evolutionary biology has been transformed by the "selfish gene" notion, popularized by Richard Dawkins, of Oxford University, which essentially asserts that animals, including man, act altruistically only when it brings some benefit to copies of their own genes. This happens under two circumstances: when the altruist and the beneficiary are close relatives, such as bees in a hive, and when the altruist is in a position to have the favor returned at a later date.' So why do I see Mosquitoes pulling flies out of the water? And how does an Emperor penguin know that it will get its turn in the middle? What benefit is it to a dolphin to help a human being attacked by sharks? And why did Jesus die on the cross? Ok. I need a cuppa tea.
| |
| Tuesday, July 6, 2010 - 02:02 am 'BESIDES, environmentalists cannot really believe that mere consciousness-raising is enough or they would not lobby so hard in favor of enforceable laws. About the only cases in which they can claim to have achieved very much through moral suasion are the campaigns against furs and ivory.' Terrible one. What about recycling? Organic food? Energy saving by switching off your TV, computer or lights when your not using them? Green transportation? Protection of conservation and green belt areas? Plus the overall awareness of our responsibilities, as guardians, to the natural world? Keep in mind that Environmentalists wouldn't have to do anything if there wasn't people out there that are quite prepared to consume and destroy everything regardless of the concequences. Quote from your thread: 'What he meant was that because interest rates could allow money to grow faster than whales reproduce, even somebody who had a certain monopoly over the world's whales and could therefore forget about free riders should not, for reasons of economic self-interest, take a sustainable yield of the animals. It would be more profitable to kill them all, bank the proceeds, sell the equipment, and live off the interest.' Jojo. I don't get it. Definition of an Environmentalist: 'An environmentalist is a person who may speak out about our natural environment and the sustainable management of its resources through changes in public policy or individual behavior by supporting practices such as not being wasteful.' Which is what the person who wrote your link talks about. Yet they go on asif they are not one? Plus the selfish gene is what humans fight against. Its called humanity. Be Careful Jojo. Remember that its the selfish gene that the devil wants you to accept ;)
| |
| Tuesday, July 6, 2010 - 03:50 am Scarlet. You said: 'If every individual sacrifices, who benefits? I don't benefit, do you benefit? Why should I sacrifice for your sake? Why should the guy next to me be required to sacrifice for my sake? Why should he sacrifice for yours? Why should you sacrifice for mine? In short, why should anyone sacrifice? If I'm going to give up something, I expect compensation.' I'm saying: "The sacrifice is for the future generations benefit. Plus you cant expect to benefit from a sacrifice. Surly would'nt that be defeating the point? Anyways, all that we need to do is leave the Environment in a better condition than we were given it in. Sure man has made a few mistakes in his past (Easter Island) But most of us have learned from those mistakes. Its not fair on the future if we consume everything and leave them with nothing but a pile of waste. Plus you talk about you wanting compensation. Who's gonna compensate the generations of the future for the sacrifices they will be forced to make due to the damage caused by the consumers and polluters of our generation?" Hey Scarlet. I recon you might be experiencing an over active selfish gene
| |
| Wednesday, July 7, 2010 - 03:16 pm Scarlet. You talk about putting a price on Nature. How can you put a price on something that nobody owns? Let alone sell something that nobody has the right to own?
| |
| Friday, July 9, 2010 - 05:40 am How would everyone feel if our governments restricted our consumption of energy and material goods for 50 years to give Mother Nature a chance to adapt to man? All it would take is for us to only use/buy what we need and not what we want for 50 years and Natural selection will ensure the survival of the web of life, Mother Nature and Gaia. I was about to write something about the impacts of nature on holidays and sunny summer days and I suddenly thought that Scarlet probably wouldn't even notice if Nature disappeared tomorrow. But if the Eco system did collapse and Mother Nature did disappear. I bet you Scarlet, that the next time you go back to that place where you have been before on holiday, you will miss her. You will also be sad that you let her go. But at-least you wont be angry as hell like the next generations are gonna be with us for leaving them with Jack Shit. 50 years isn't long. Its not like being asked to die to save the world.
| |
| Wednesday, December 15, 2010 - 08:05 am I wonder why you didn't bump this one up, nix?
| |
| Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 05:47 pm Bump I forgot I already had a desireless mk2. This one has most of the points in it for anyone who wishes to contest the reality that humans are destroying the environmental conditions needed for 99.9% of life to exist. Change needed to have already happen but as long as the people of God believe God wont let it happen or as long as the people of capitalism continue to believe that if it wasn't them it would be someone else doing it, nothing will change and our future generations will suffer unimaginable hardships. Our future generations would not expect us to die for them....but they would expect us to consider and change our bads for them.
|
