Post by: The Rabbi on October 24, 2006, 12:41:28 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/sc_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc
Quote
BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.
"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.
People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.
Australia was also living well beyond its means.
The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.
"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.
Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.
"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.
"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.
The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.
In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.
"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.
"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."
RISING POPULATION
"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.
It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.
Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.
"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.
The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.
Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.
ADVERTISEMENT
Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.
"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.
"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.
People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.
Australia was also living well beyond its means.
The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.
"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.
Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.
"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.
"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.
The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.
In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.
"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.
"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."
RISING POPULATION
"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.
It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.
Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.
"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.
The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.
Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.
Post by: Ezekiel on October 24, 2006, 12:45:52 PM
More silliness from enviro-whackos. I saw this same kind of argument in the 1970s. Wasnt true then, isnt' true now.
We'll know in 2050.
Personally, I think it makes sense to not be an inherently wasteful human, whenever possible.
Post by: 280plus on October 24, 2006, 12:47:45 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2006, 12:50:20 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
More silliness from enviro-whackos. I saw this same kind of argument in the 1970s. Wasnt true then, isnt' true now.
Reading will do you good. Start from "Collapse" by J. Diamond.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 24, 2006, 01:15:36 PM
Both "Collapse" and "Guns Germs and Steel" are a complete waste of paper. If Diamond is concerned about resource depletion he should do the planet a favor and take his books out of print.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 24, 2006, 01:19:42 PM
Post by: SomeKid on October 24, 2006, 01:40:21 PM
The fact of the matter is this, environmentalists are quite literally, chicken little. The sky is not falling, they are not right.
There is no doubt in my mind that the planet Earth could support 13 billion people all living an Americans lifestyle. Easily. (13 billion is roughly twice the current world population.) The only reason starvation is happening in most of the world is because of government corruption. Zimbabwe USED to be a country that had a surplus of food. Now it has to import it, and that is just one example.
It is infinitely more likely that Christ will return in 2012 than it is the world will come apart because of overconsumption and all the other BS from the lefty kooks.
Post by: El Tejon on October 24, 2006, 02:01:02 PM
We must do it--for the children.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 02:09:08 PM
Quote
Jared Diamond is full of *expletive deleted*it.
Very High class.
Daimond is actually a pretty smart guy. Why dont you try reading it? The world is not ending but there a definitely some things wrong. And that "they are all full of it, I know better than those stupid scientists" kind of attitude is probably the scariest thing to me.
Post by: Sindawe on October 24, 2006, 02:44:39 PM
Quote
As your accepted fearless leader, I will now announce a plan to save us all: throw all Leftists into the ocean. We will feed the dolphins...
That is SOOOO CRUEL El Tejon! What did dolphins ever do to you to warrant such inhumane treatment? 
Quote
Personally, I think it makes sense to not be an inherently wasteful human, whenever possible.
Concur. We don't yet know what the actual carrying capacity of the planet is, but since its the only one we got at this point in time, its foolishness to push it until it breaks.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 03:01:04 PM
Quote
The fact of the matter is this, environmentalists are quite literally, chicken little. The sky is not falling, they are not right.
The fact of the matter is, unless you come out of the closet and reveal your nobel prize in science, you are ridiculous.
Post by: Sindawe on October 24, 2006, 03:04:41 PM
Quote
The fact of the matter is, unless you come out of the closet and reveal your nobel prize in science, you are ridiculous.
So unless one has won a Nobel Prize in one of the sciences, one cannot comment on scientific issue?OK, lets see YOURS.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 03:08:03 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 24, 2006, 03:18:31 PM
Want an example? Jimmy Carter has ben awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and Ronald Reagan hasn't. Yet which one of these men have done more to create tangible worldwide peace?
Post by: SomeKid on October 24, 2006, 03:23:26 PM
So I am ridiculous am I? I guess you won't have any hard time at all refuting my ridiculous post.
After all, I have no Nobel prize, so obviously I know nothing. Would you be so kind as to show me yours while you refute my ridiculous post?
If you can't, it may be ridiculous...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 24, 2006, 03:25:18 PM
Quote
Jared Diamond is full of *expletive deleted*it.
Very High class.
Daimond is actually a pretty smart guy. Why dont you try reading it? The world is not ending but there a definitely some things wrong. And that "they are all full of it, I know better than those stupid scientists" kind of attitude is probably the scariest thing to me.
I read Guns Germs and Steel and found Diamond's theories in it to be highly lacking. I haven't yet read his newer book, because I frankly doubt it will be any better than his first. But someday, when I have the time, I'll give it a go.
As for the scientists, well... Do you really want to get into that? (Hint, run a search for "global warming" - we've been down this road before.)
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 03:31:33 PM
Quote
So I am ridiculous am I? I guess you won't have any hard time at all refuting my ridiculous post.
I am ridiculous, you are ridiculous, we are all circus freaks. Our pathetic little brains see a tiny sliver of the universe for less than the blink of an eye. Yet we think of ourselves as gods with all our stupid pride. And scientists are among the most prideful of all in their intellectually arrogant guesses at the nature of existence. They seem to guess better at certain things than I can though. Things like pollution and extinction and....dare I say it? Global warming. OOOOoooh. So when the entire world body of scientists with the exception of a few being paid by the energy industry say there is a problem- I guess I will go with there less ridiculous guess.
Post by: SomeKid on October 24, 2006, 03:32:42 PM
Sindawe, isn't it interesting that this guy who demands I have one, doesn't have one, and now the idea of having one is a 'So what?' point.
Quote
I am ridiculous, you are ridiculous
Well, the first part is at least right.
Also, this isn't just about scientists. It is about history. For a hundred years they have been screaming like chicken little the sky was falling. They have always been wrong. In the 70's it was global cooling that would kill us all, now it is global warming. For the past hundred years the world was over-populated, we were all going to starve, the world could not sustain us all, yet, here we are. Yah think maybe, just maybe, the cause of the more than likely mythical global warming is the hot air spewed forth by these guys?
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 03:35:24 PM
Post by: Iain on October 24, 2006, 03:37:15 PM
As for the scientists, well... Do you really want to get into that? (Hint, run a search for "global warming" - we've been down this road before.)
We have, and it all proved was that one man's scientist is another man's _____________ (insert pejorative here). Works both ways, and turns out very silly.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 24, 2006, 03:44:51 PM
In other words, we've shown that agnosticism is the most rational viewpoint regarding these issues.
Bottom line: If mak wants to "prove" his view by pointing to science, then I am ready and able to provide ample scientific reason to disbelieve his particular scientists.
Post by: Sindawe on October 24, 2006, 03:48:45 PM
Quote
I did not demand. Such intolerance. I am going to have to report all of you to the ACLU. They will take care of you. And I will be there watching and laughing as you are taken to the gallows. Oh yes!
*SNIFF SNIFF* Could that be Troll I smell?Quote
Sindawe, isn't it interesting that this guy who demands I have one, doesn't have one, and now the idea of having one is a 'So what?' point.
Indeed it is Somekid. 'Prolly some college kid with a Liberal Arts major, minoring in Ethnic Studies.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 03:51:50 PM
Quote
I am ready and able to provide ample scientific reason to disbelieve his particular scientists.
Well, belief is not what science is about. Go on You Tube and watch Stephen Colbert at the last White House press corps dinner and he explains this quite well. I believe H-bombs work but you dont believe the planet is heating up. Both have to do with science. You figure it out.
Post by: Iain on October 24, 2006, 03:52:26 PM
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 03:54:57 PM
Quote
Could that be Troll I smell?
That would be my cue to say goodbye. Funny how all these little groups scream TROLL!! when someone actually disagrees with their stupidity. Real open minded, real americans.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 24, 2006, 04:00:13 PM
Quote
Could that be Troll I smell?
That would be my cue to say goodbye. Funny how all these little groups scream TROLL!! when someone actually disagrees with their stupidity. Real open minded, real americans.
Post by: Iain on October 24, 2006, 04:02:29 PM
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 04:17:27 PM
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 04:26:24 PM
Quote
Avoid the personal attacks and everyone will go home happy.
I have alot of problems with not defending myself. It is why I carry a concealed weapon in one of the hardest states to get a permit. I might lean left on SOME issues, but I dont take it up the rear end.
Post by: SomeKid on October 24, 2006, 04:29:50 PM
At best he is a liberal arts major college student. As a Nursing student myself, I don't know if troll-boy could even hack ethnic studies.
mak,
Last time I checked, Stephen Colbert was a comedian. The WHPCD involves journalists (or in the case of Colbert, a comedian mocking journalists).
Here is the definition of science:
Quote
sci‧ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Do tell me where it mentions comedians, press dinners, or even the POTUS.
Secondly, YouTube is not a scientific journal. I know that is probably hard for you to understand, but YouTube is not I repeat NOT a scientific journal.
Now, can you disprove ANYTHING I have said, or do you want to throw another fit?
THG, Sindawe, Iain, should I feel bad for enjoying the creation of this post?
Oh, one last thing mak, you started this whole thing by calling me ridiculous. If you take a swing at someone, you can't claim self-defense.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 04:33:39 PM
Quote
Now, can you disprove ANYTHING I have said, or do you want to throw another fit?
You are the one throwing the fit kid. Did you have to clean one too many bedpans today?
Hey Headless, was that a personal attack or just self-defense?
Post by: SomeKid on October 24, 2006, 04:35:42 PM
I am sitting here with a grin on my face, watching South Park and laughing at you. No fits going on here, well fits of laughter excluded.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 04:37:30 PM
Post by: SomeKid on October 24, 2006, 04:39:14 PM
Quote
I have nothing to prove or disprove to you.
No? So what was ridiculous about my post earlier then? Still waiting on you to show where I was wrong, or in your words, what has made me ridiculous.
Post by: drewtam on October 24, 2006, 04:40:14 PM
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Here is a "scientist". Anyone here ever take a look at this guys explanations and work? If the data he provides is accurate, it seems pretty convincing about a bright future for humanity. Furthermore, consider the claim of the original post, it assumes continuing population rises with equivelant resource consumption.
But, as wealth increases, history shows that birthrates drop.
Consider that the nations that are wealthy export food and energy, it is the poor nations that are energy inefficient and unsustainable (for various reasons NOT to do with population or resources). The wealthy nation peoples are more productive and able to more efficiently produce food per person and other goods per person.
Pollution is more of a problem with poor undeveloped nations because of the primitive methods for disposing waste and producing energy.
Clearing forests occurs only in poor undeveloped nations because they are trying to convert to agriculture, not for the wood product. In the US and Europe, the acres and volume wood has been increasing over the past 100yrs. In south america, most of the forest cleared and burned to grow crops on it for a few years of fertility before moving on to another patch of forest.
Drew
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 04:51:31 PM
Quote
Still waiting on you to show where I was wrong, or in your words, what has made me ridiculous.
The whole global warming thing is so obvious, so transparent. The earth is a finely tuned system and for the last 100 years we have been detuning it. The world runs on oil. The oil companies want it to stay that way. They spend a hundred times more money on propaganda saying that we are not warming the planet than anyone is spending saying we are. These corporations have the motive and are far more suspect than any hypothetical left wing conspiracy. I will not go on and on about this except to say, if you are a true believer then you will always disbelieve what the scientific community is telling you and go with the propaganda. Nothing is going to change your mind. You will just keep saying no till you get tired of the argument and watch south park. You have been programmed. I have not. That is why when you make a statement that sounds like a Rush Limbaugh quote and runs counter to nobel prize winners and thousands of PHD's who have nothing to gain except trouble, I consider you ridiculous.
Post by: Ron on October 24, 2006, 05:06:33 PM
Quote
The whole global warming thing is so obvious, so transparent.
That is because you are a true believer. Quote
The earth is a finely tuned system and for the last 100 years we have been detuning it.
I think you have an inflated view of our significance on this planet. The earth will take what we dish out, assimulate it and outlast us all.You must to be too young to remember when they used to scare us kids with the coming Ice Age.
Post by: SomeKid on October 24, 2006, 05:14:38 PM
Quote
The whole global warming thing is so obvious, so transparent.
And that of course, is why there is absolutely no proof at all it really exists.
Quote
The earth is a finely tuned system and for the last 100 years we have been detuning it.
Right. Hence the reason why the environmentalists were wrong about mass starvation for decades (and still wrong today on that topic), and also why they were wrong about 'global cooling', and why they are wrong today about global warming.
Quote
These corporations have the motive and are far more suspect
It wouldn't have been a complete screed if you did not include a comment on those evil corporations that are trying to rape poor old Mother Earth. Poor old Gaia. Tell me mak, have you worshipped your tree today?
Quote
I will not go on and on about this
Way too late.
Quote
Nothing is going to change your mind.
Except facts. Which you have yet to provide a single one of.
Quote
You will just keep saying no till you get tired of the argument and watch south park.
No, I will get tired of laughing at you and go to sleep. I am watching Mind of Mencia now.
Quote
You have been programmed. I have not.
Right. I just need to shut up and allow you, oh greatness with your free thinking factless thoughts run my world. I cannot have a divergent point of view based on facts. And you, good sir, the one who has not been programmed by the machine, what are your credentials again? Right, earlier you claimed to have a carry permit in a state where it was hard to get one. Wow. That right there is one heckuva cred.
Ron, you beat me to it on his being the real true believer. However, I warn you not to give his youthful ignorance a pass. I am 22, and have been willing to educate myself as to their history. He could have done the same, but he liked the Kool-Aid just a bit too much.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 05:21:51 PM
Quote
Still waiting on you to show where I was wrong, or in your words, what has made me ridiculous.
I just gave you the reply you asked for. Why do you have to throw a fit like that?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 24, 2006, 05:23:17 PM
Post by: Sindawe on October 24, 2006, 05:34:51 PM
mak: OK, you're not a Troll, but it strikes me that you ARE filled with the untempered passion of a new convert and it would seem did not read the forum posting rules.
Quote
I think you have an inflated view of our significance on this planet. The earth will take what we dish out, assimulate it and outlast us all.
Hmm.... maybe a bit over generous to the planet, but IMHO pretty close to current understanding. While our species can make a gawd-awfull mess of the planet, and 'prolly render it uninhabitable to large mammels for a very long time, we are as yet incapable of sterilizing the planet. Even if we turned the entire land surface to radioactive glass, life would continue around the deep oceanic thermal vents and the recently discovered chemical seeps that support live.As it sits now, the earth would bounce back pretty quickly if we all just up and left, and the biosphere is making advances in adapting to our presence and activities. Coyotes have expanded their range in North America since the introduction of industrial civilization. Wild boar are now commonplace in Berlin, and from what I understand, white tail deer have become a pest in the east.
Are OUR actions alone warming the planet? I doubt it. This planet has been warmer AND cooler in past epochs when there were no humans here. Are we contributing? Perhaps, since it looks like the change in climate is occuring faster than in previous warming/cooling events. Should we collectively freak out and abandon our civilization, returning to an agrarian or even hunter/gatherer way of life? Well, we could but lots and lots of people would die as a result and I doubt that EVERYBODY on the planet would go for such a change in lifestyle.
IMAO what we as a species should do is look at how we use the resources available and work to reduce our material and energy demands in our own lives. Little changes applied across the board can have a large impact. Replace incandescent lights with compact fluorescents or even LEDs. Start putting photovoltaic shingles on our houses and commercial structures so we are burning less carbon based and fissionables to generate electricity. Replace Ky Bluegrass with grasses native to the region we live in to cut water consumption (where I live, 2/3s of last years water cost was to keep the freaking Bluegrass alive, in COLORADO : banghead : ).
Or we could just carry on our merry way until things start to fall apart on their own.
Quote
You must to be too young to remember when they used to scare us kids with the coming Ice Age.
I'm not. That scared the be-jebus out of me when I heard about that. Now, I find it amusing that if our action do heat the climate up enough, it could bring an another cold spell.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 05:37:01 PM
Some substance. This will discredit 90% of all the propaganda you have been brainwashed with. But of course, you can just say, "It's not true, it didnt come from fox."
Post by: Ron on October 24, 2006, 05:45:11 PM
Quote
I'm not. That scared the be-jebus out of me when I heard about that. Now, I find it amusing that if our action do heat the climate up enough, it could bring an another cold spell.
Ironic, global warming causing another ice age. On a positive note it will be hard for a Daley to run Chicago if it is under a half mile of ice
If we are going to go with the scientists take on the subject, don't even they say that we are responsible for something like 5% of greenhouse gas emmisions?
This is happening regardless of our actions. Just like it did many times before man was around.
We should focus our energies on adapting to the climate change and not waste resources trying to stop what appears to be a natural warming cycle.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 06:00:09 PM
Quote
We should focus our energies on adapting to the climate change and not waste resources trying to stop what appears to be a natural warming cycle.
Those one hundred or so nobel science prize winners and 1700 climate scientists disagree with you. If I recall there are about a half dozen qualified people on your side. They work for the energy industry. The same industry that pours millions into lobbying against anybody saying or doing anything about global warming. But you go ahead and stick with it Ron. Good luck.
Post by: Ron on October 24, 2006, 06:13:37 PM
Quote
But you go ahead and stick with it Ron. Good luck.
Thanks!!
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 24, 2006, 06:33:52 PM
The effect is the same. Ignore him.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 06:36:27 PM
Post by: roo_ster on October 24, 2006, 06:46:40 PM
Quote
The fact of the matter is this, environmentalists are quite literally, chicken little. The sky is not falling, they are not right.
The fact of the matter is, unless you come out of the closet and reveal your nobel prize in science, you are ridiculous.
I detect a pattern requiring debating opponents to present qualifications that you yourself lack. In the other thread, no one (in your opinion) could opine unless they had functioning breasts. Here, you insist that in order for your opponent to not be ridiculous they must have a Nobel Prize.
Yet, you do not have the ability to lacate over your own Nobel Prize.
But,I will give credit where credit is due, you may have just invented your very own logical fallacy: nonreciprocal qualification.
Quote from: mak
The whole global warming thing is so obvious, so transparent.
Preach it, Brother mak! There is some data that supports GW. Unfortunately, you seem unfamiliar* with it and remain fixated on credentialism and faith-based global warming arguments.
* Or at least unwilling to share.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 07:00:37 PM
Post by: Ron on October 24, 2006, 07:02:21 PM
Quote
faith-based global warming arguments
Thats a good one, I'll have to file it away for the next GW thread.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2006, 07:02:42 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 24, 2006, 07:08:08 PM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
I read Guns Germs and Steel and found Diamond's theories in it to be highly lacking. I haven't yet read his newer book, because I frankly doubt it will be any better than his first.
So, which part of Guns exactly did you find highly lacking?
Also, maybe you should first read "Collapse" before dismissing it so cavalierly.
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 07:10:18 PM
Quote
I wonder if the vikings at Gardar had the same bickerings right before the end.
I doubt it, just like this group, incest has a tendency to make people stupid and depressed. Would that be an example of mediocre wit?
Post by: mak on October 24, 2006, 07:16:04 PM
Quote
So, which part of Guns exactly did you find highly lacking?
Sorry to post two in a row but I would like to say to Cannon man that my favorite part of Guns was about the lack of domesticated animal candidates in Africa compared to Eurasia. That really made world history alot clearer for me. Especially his view of how important oxen were. The Africans were pretty much screwed by this circumstance and never had a chance to compete with the rest of the world.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 25, 2006, 02:24:55 AM
Global warming has nothing to do with this thread. Sorry.
The article stated that humans are "using up" the Earth. I dont know what the solution is, other than what I suggested. The evidence against that view is so overwhelming it ought to be obvious. Of course it isnt because the idea of evil humans raping the earth and causing their own downfall is just too appealing. Especially in the pocketbook.
Humans are resources as well as consumers. As someone mentioned before all the unpleasantness, developed countries are more efficient in energy and other usages than less developed countries. 3rd world countries are far more polluted than western countries. So the notion that development causes depletion is simply dead wrong.
Post by: Iain on October 25, 2006, 03:10:24 AM
There is obviously something Malthusian about the argument about potential resources. Malthus couldn't envisage agriculture producing more than a certain amount and yet his trap was beaten within fairly short order (in fact seem to remember reading in some history journal that his trap was flawed and never existed). Anyway allowing development, with reasonable expectations of cleanliness and an expectation of honesty regarding the science that has and may arise on human environmental impact, will more than likely help side step any resource depletion issue.
Post by: roo_ster on October 25, 2006, 06:38:05 AM
Check out the GDPs of the underdeveloped countries and I think the first argument becomes untenable. For more detail, look at their exports. They produce very little and what they do produce is at a stupendous cost in resources relative to first-tier countries. Some greenies whine & squeal about how many resources America uses (inputs), but fail to look at the output. (Heck, we pay our farmers to not produce so they don't bust the bottom out of the agricultural markets.) Relative to almost all other countries, our output/input is much greater. Relative to 3rd/4th world countries, the output/input delta is measured in orders of magnitude. Put simply, the USA & other 1st world countries are more efficient users of resources.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 25, 2006, 07:32:12 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 25, 2006, 08:16:54 AM
In 1900 there was a move to ban horses and buggies in NY because if you projected the city's growth into the future there would be not be enough space for all the horse manure. Obviously the automobile changed all that. Same thing here.
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 09:42:49 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 25, 2006, 09:52:18 AM
Remember all those piles of used tires and the complaints about how they would bury us? Don't see that anymore, right? Ever wonder why?
Again, we saw all this garbage in the 1970s and those of us who remember it remember it was bunk then, and it hasnt gotten any more believable with age.
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 10:05:43 AM
Quote
Remember all those piles of used tires and the complaints about how they would bury us? Don't see that anymore, right? Ever wonder why?
It is an insult to everyone's intelligence to keep throwing those red herrings. Can you stop doing that?
Post by: The Rabbi on October 25, 2006, 10:12:10 AM
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 10:17:27 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 25, 2006, 10:31:54 AM
If I am on a ship and I notice something wrong with it and start talking about it and certain people start yelling at me to stop being a gloom and doomer, who is being stupid?
It depends.
If you see a giant iceberg dead ahead then you're a hero.
If you see water in the bottom and yell about it, only to find out most ships take on and pump out water, then you're stupid.
It is a matter of detailed knowledge. And you haven't demonstrated any thus far.
But is your question an answer to my query?
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 10:43:54 AM
Quote
It is a matter of detailed knowledge. And you haven't demonstrated any thus far.
But is your question an answer to my query?
But is your question an answer to my query?
I notice that people here like to constantly accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being stupid, not giving facts, data, etc. I can give you examples like, "oh, they said we would be buried in tires and we are not" all day long if you consider that a demonstration of detailed knowledge. I dont. Lewis and Clark crossed north america a while back and saw buffaloe from horizon to horizon, when the puritans landed at plymouth rock they saw schools of cod ten miles across. Passenger pigeons would actually blot out the sun like an eclipse. Now if you think living in a steaming garbage dump eating chemically tainted food is a great future for your grandchildren, then you have nothing to worry about. I am worried.
Post by: richyoung on October 25, 2006, 10:52:06 AM
Quote
It is a matter of detailed knowledge. And you haven't demonstrated any thus far.
But is your question an answer to my query?
But is your question an answer to my query?
I notice that people here like to constantly accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being stupid, not giving facts, data, etc. I can give you examples like, "oh, they said we would be buried in tires and we are not" all day long if you consider that a demonstration of detailed knowledge. I dont. Lewis and Clark crossed north america a while back and saw buffaloe from horizon to horizon, when the puritans landed at plymouth rock they saw schools of cod ten miles across. Passenger pigeons would actually blot out the sun like an eclipse. Now if you think living in a steaming garbage dump eating chemically tainted food is a great future for your grandchildren, then you have nothing to worry about. I am worried.
You are worried for NOTHING. The food, water and air is cleaner NOW than it has ever been in history. Don't beleive it? Stand down wind from a camel or buffaloe dung fire - now immagine using it to cook your food, heat your house, wash your clothes.
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 10:56:22 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 25, 2006, 11:10:14 AM
There is more forrest in New England now than there was 200 years ago. The Hudson River is cleaner now than it was 50 years ago. Boston Harbor is cleaner now than probably 100 years ago. We could go on and on. But you keep throwing our grandchildren into this ("do it for the children!") and positing garbage dumps and polluted food. And there is no evidence for these assertions at all. It is only "absolutely clear." Yeah, to someone committed to that idea. To the rest of us who have heard these things and seen predictions of 30 years ago go way unfulfilled it is not obvious at all.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 25, 2006, 11:41:40 AM
Just because there are a few radical quacks out there does not nullify real problems. Yes, they may be wrong about many things, but use your own judgment and the availability of neutral information. The reality is that oil production is slowing down because "easy crude" is running out, while consumption is rising ominously. China and India are modernizing and require the same living standards as us. Exactly how is this not a crisis in the making? Beating up quacks will not produce the oil we will need.
Post by: richyoung on October 25, 2006, 11:47:56 AM
Rabbi,
Just because there are a few radical quacks out there does not nullify real problems. Yes, they may be wrong about many things, but use your own judgment and the availability of neutral information. The reality is that oil production is slowing down because "easy crude" is running out, while consumption is rising ominously. China and India are modernizing and require the same living standards as us. Exactly how is this not a crisis in the making? Beating up quacks will not produce the oil we will need.
Just because there are a few radical quacks out there does not nullify real problems. Yes, they may be wrong about many things, but use your own judgment and the availability of neutral information. The reality is that oil production is slowing down because "easy crude" is running out, while consumption is rising ominously. China and India are modernizing and require the same living standards as us. Exactly how is this not a crisis in the making? Beating up quacks will not produce the oil we will need.
As price rises, it makes more sense to drill deeper, further off shore, or to convert coal into oil - as the Nazis and South Africans did. It also makes more sense to use alternatives, to use alternate processes that use less, to recycle, etc. Its not a crisis in the making IF you understand market forces: the same "invisible hand" that got us through the Great Whale Oil Shortage, and that keeps us from having to pass mounds of unused buggy whips on the way to work will handle the oil "shortage".
Post by: Iain on October 25, 2006, 11:53:18 AM
Start producing masses of nuclear power and you've got a whole different set of problems, but you've also got the possibility that many many urban dwellers will use electric cars (assuming not particularly huge advances in battery technology). Certainly there are a lot of people in the UK who do under 50 miles a day, cheaper non fossil fuel dependent electricity and cheaper battery technology and it isn't a million miles off. Of course there are bound to be problems with my scenario (expense of nuclear power and objections to waste) but it's just an example.
As you say though, there is a sensible middle ground between denying there is a problem and screaming about the end of the world.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 25, 2006, 11:59:22 AM
If you melted down the asteroid belts and made 40 mile long spinning cylinders out of them for people to live in, the solar system could support about 300 billion people in luxury. I guess we would come back to earth for camping trips. I read that in some article. The article also said there would be a cure for old age in the next 30 years so even if every two people had one child we would need those several hundred thousand habitats for humanity in space within a few centuries. I think this is what you are betting on when you talk about there not being a problem with sustainability. I am skeptical.
What we're betting on is free market capitalism.Perhaps we should start with the fundamentals before trying to explain why the doom and gloomers weren't right back in the 1970's, and why they aren't right today. You hafta learn to walk before you learn to run, right?
There are two fundamental truths that govern the availability and the cost of every type of goods or resources.
The first is that supply is inversely proportional to demand (when supply goes up, demand goes down; when supply goes down, demand goes up). The second is that the price of any given good or resource is proportional to the demand (when demand goes up, price goes up). The cost of any particular good is proportional it's demand.
The second is that in a free market system, both entrepreneurs and consumers will constantly adjust to changing market conditions. Entrepreneurs will constantly be adapting to the current business climate, be they taxes, cost of materials, consumer demand, competition, or any of another million and one factors. Consumers will vary their buying habits to accomodate any changes in avaiability or porice of their preferred products (if Coke were to suddenly tripple in price, most consumers would switch to Pepsi and go on about their lives. The die-hard Coke fans, for whom there is no substitute, will pay the trippled price because to them it's still worth it)
Now, switchin tacks to the earth and resource depletion...
Most lay people assume that drawing resources out of the earth is like drawing money out of your checking account. They think that humanity can effortlessly draw resources up out of the earth at any rate we wish, just like they can effortlessly withdraw funds from their account at any rate they wish. They further think that one day the earth will run cold out of resources if we keep pulling those resources out, just like one day their bank account will run dry if they keep making withdrawals.
This model of the earth and her resources as a bank account is erroneous.
The earth and her resources behave more like a soggy wet blanket (I'm struggling to come up with a good analogy here, please bear with me). The blanket is the earth, and the water it's soaked with are the resources. When you want to pull some water/resources out of that soggy blanket/earth, you grab a corner and squeeze, out comes a stream of water. When you want some more water, you grab another part of that blanket and squeeze some more. You continue around the blanket until most surfaces have been given a good squeeze. Eventually there comes a point where squeezing more doesn't yield as much water as it once did. You have to squeeze harder to get the same amount of water, or if you don't want to squeeze as hard you must content yourself to having less water. Things start to look bleak for our hypothetical planet earth and her valuable resources. But suddenly you have a brainstorm and realize that if you twist the blanket instead of squeeze it, you get that nice heavy flow of water again. Your own innate cleverness and ingenuity has overcome the problem of running out of blanket surfae to squeeze for water. So you go over the entire blanket twisting water out instead of squeezing it out, once more enjoying a steady and reliable stream of water. Once again you reach a point where you aren't yuielding as much water as you'd like. So you sit down and brainstorm some more. Once again you come up with a new idea: fold part of the blanket over on itself and then wring it out. Once again your ingenuity has yielded a steady stream of water from the blanket. Eventually you give up, eithe becuase you're bored, or becuae you realized that there's a lot more water to be had from the faucet, or becuase you don't need any more water. The blanket is still plenty wet, it never came anywhere close to drying out regardless of how much you squeezed and twisted and wringed (wrang? wrung? eh, whatever).
Likewise, when humanity wants some particular resource from the earth, we locate the right corner of the globe and "squeeze" it by mining, farming, drilling, or whatever. When we want some more, we locate another spot and mine/drill/etc some more. When we run out of areas to "squeeze", we come up with smarter, more techologocally advanced methods of resoucre extraction. We start to twist instead of squeeze, and suddenly we're able to revisit areas that were formerly devoid of extracable resources.
The bottom line is that we don't ever run out of resources. We find that some resources become more scarce and/or more difficult to retrieve. If we still want more resources, we come up with better ways to extract them. If we can't come up with any better methods of extraction, we figure out how to make use of some other resource that we can extract. But any given resource will never, ever be completely gone. The worst that will happen is that it will cease to make economic sense to go after a particular resource.
Now we combine the economic principles discussed earlier with the proper understanding of resource depletion we just covered.
When resources become more scarce (supply decreases) then demand for that will go up. Price will go up alongside demand. When prices for that resource go up, it becomes economical to spend more money retreiving that resource (i.e. it becomes worht your while to squeeze the blanket harder, because you're getting paid more for the smaller amount water you get out). Also, when prices go up consumers willand entrepreneus fill other ways to satisfy their needs using different resources (maybe some water from those mud puddles over there will work just as well for your purpose as the water you squeeze from the blanket - you no longer bother with squeezing the blanket).
Both entrepreneurs and consumers will adapt, either by finding a better way to recover the resource, or by switching to another resoucrce or by finding a better way to recover. Life goes on without a hitch.
Take as an example the availability of Walnut trees for use in making rifle stocks. It used to be that walnut was the de facto standard material for building a proper rifle stock. But over the years, due primarily to two world wars and the need to build bazillions of walnut stocks for 1903s, 1917s, and M1s, we now find ourselves with a dearth of walnut for new gunstocks. Walnut isn't gone, there are still walnut trees out there, there just aren't very many any more, and it's harder/costlier for timber prospecter to find good walnut trees. If you really want a walnut stock for your new rifle you can have it, but it's gonna cost a lot more.
Now, the free market steps in. Someone clever came up with the idea of making stocks out of laminated wood. Someone else clever came up with the idea of making stocks out of synthetic materials. We now have riflestocks that are just as cheap as the old walnut stocks were before we ran low. The newer stocks even have some advantages of the older ones. Rifle shooters continue on without a hitch.
The bottom line is that, even though we've used up most of the walnut out there and won't be able to replace it for a generation or three, the shooting public never missed a beat. Quality, effective rifles are just as available today as they were before the resource depletion, thanks to supply/demand, the ingenuity of the entrepren, and the adaptability of the consumer. And for those purists out there, there are still walnut stocks available if you really want one.
ALL resources behave this way. Crude oil (what happened last year when gas prices topped $3/gal? The public started buying smaller, more efficient cars, they started carpooling, they started driving less. Life when on) iron, copper, timber, tillable farmland, energy, yopu name it. Once supply starts to run low, demand goes up. It becomes more valuable for entrempreneurs find smarter and more effective ways to recover those resources, thus working to drive supply up and demand back down. It becomes more advantageous for consumers to purchase less of that resource, opting to either do without or to use something else in it's place, which tends to drive demand down and supply back up.
The system works in equillibrium, always. The resource never, ever runs out completely, and the end consumer is never, ever left hanging. Life, as always, goes on. The doom and gloomers are proven wrong, just as they have been since the beginning of time.
Now, a key facet of this system is that it only works inthe presence of free market capitalism. The equiullibrium fails if entrepreneurs aren't free to pursue smarter ways to recover resources. The equillibrium fails if entrepreneurs aren't free to adapt their business to changing conditions. The equillibrium fails if consumers aren't afforded free choice over what products to buy and what products to pass on.
THIS is why I oppose environmentalists so fervently. They seek to scare us with predictions of apocalyptic resource shortage, whiche we've shown never happens in a free market system. They're solution to the "problem" of these "shortages" is to tamper with the free market, which we've shown CAN and WILL created shortages. Thus the very environmentalists who scare us with phony fears of shortages will be the ones to cause real resource shortages for everyone.
Ironic, innit? And perhaps a little bit scary, too.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 25, 2006, 11:59:50 AM
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 12:19:12 PM
Post by: richyoung on October 25, 2006, 12:29:26 PM
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 12:43:40 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 25, 2006, 02:53:15 PM
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 04:25:52 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on October 25, 2006, 04:33:45 PM
Free market worshippers should move to Brazil. That is as close to a perfect free market system on the planet. And it is a wonderful place; 1 percent own 99 percent of everything. The rest live in their little tenement blocks and serve the elite who have always had everything and always will. There is no safety net. Street urchins are regularly rounded up by off duty police, taken out into the country and shot. Cant pay the doctor...then die. That is what inevitably happens in a free market without controls or redistribution of wealth. The free market mantra is why everybody here drives japanese cars and buys chinese products and the national debt continues to climb. (oh, but that's not what they are telling us). The conservative world view is rapidly becoming a joke the rest of the world is laughing at. The brainwashed far right is what is going cause the fall of the american empire, not the far left. The far left is, contrary to what you have been told, relatively harmless. It is corporate america that is going to make slaves of us all and wants America to become "Brazil North." Thats the opposing opinion in a nutshell Gunner. Try not flip out too bad replying. I want what is best for everyone just like you. The difference between us is I have an open mind and yours is made up forever. If you want to read something completely at odds with your survival of the fittest worldview, try the sermon on the mount and gospels.
If Brazil is your idea of capitalism then you know as much about capitalism as you do about economics and just about anything else you have touched--not much. Vasst disparities of wealth are the result of lack of free markets. I know in Mexico the richest man, Carlos Slim, is so because he owns the monopoly on the telephone service. I assume Brazil is not much different. Look at a place like Singapore or Estonia today and see what real capitalism is.
Lets see if you actually respond or just parry by name calling or bringing up irrelevant points. I know where my bet is.
Post by: Sindawe on October 25, 2006, 04:35:56 PM
Quote
It is a matter of detailed knowledge. And you haven't demonstrated any thus far.
Oh crud. Now I KNOW that the End Times are soon to be apon us all. This the second time in three months I've agreed with The Rabbi.
We're doomed! DOOOOMMED!
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 06:18:45 PM
Quote
I assume Brazil is not much different.
Seems like you are the one name calling. It seems the standard response to disagreement here is to just say the disagreeer doesnt know anything. And when you assume.........
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 08:00:44 PM
Post by: Ron on October 25, 2006, 08:21:21 PM
Quote
Seems like you are the one name calling. It seems the standard response to disagreement here is to just say the disagreeer doesnt know anything. And when you assume.........
Sorry mak, the more you talk the more it becomes apparent you don't know what you are talking about. Your cliches about capitalism and Brazil being the object lesson of how it works...
You have the same problem Al Gore did when running for office. You are so convinced that you are right that you show disdain and condescension toward those who disagree with you.
I am not a socialist. I am a capitalist, we provide the goods and services that make us money. Then crooks like you and your ilk (socialists) use the threat of violence by government agents to steal our wealth. You then make a dependent class who look to the elites (who think they know better than everyone else) to provide for them. The dependent class keep voting for more and benefits and the socialists accrue more and more power.
You should be ashamed of yourself for calling yourself a socialist.
You should be ashamed of yourself, you are nothing more than a crook and wannabee elitist.
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 08:28:45 PM
Post by: Ron on October 25, 2006, 08:38:02 PM
You are in favor of redistrubition of wealth and smart guys like you need to be the ones calling the shots. We are just dumb rubes, you and your elite friends know what is best for us.
Am I missing something?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 25, 2006, 08:45:20 PM
Your case study is not worth the time and you are not open to a single original thought. Try this idea out: the only reason you own anything is because everyone else lets you. We are all socialists gunner.
Huh??? The only reason I own anything is because everyone else lets me? How on earth do you figure that?!I own the things I own because I work hard to produce them (rather, I work hard to produce the money I use to purchase them, which is essentially the same thing). My possessions are mine by right of having produced them.
If my possessions don't belong to me, then who do they belong to? To you? To "everyone" (whatever that vague conception means)? If it ain't me, then name the man or men who own my property, and justify why.
Who do your possessions belong to?
And why is it that my case study isn't worth the time of day? Saying it's worthless doesn't make it so, you hafta back it up evidence,reasoning, and logic. It seems to me to be a pretty apt example. Half a century ago the entire Korean Penninsula was at the same level of economic and industrial development. Then BLAMMO! The north went socialist, and the south went capitalist. A mere generation or two later we can already see some startling differences. Socialism hasn't proven nearly as benificial as capitalism. The results speak for themselves.
Post by: mak on October 25, 2006, 09:38:20 PM
Quote
You are in favor of redistrubition of wealth and smart guys like you need to be the ones calling the shots. We are just dumb rubes, you and your elite friends know what is best for us.
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
Give it a rest. I never said any of that. Redistribution is a fact of life (unless you live in Brazil). What do you think taxes are? The smart guys calling the shots are people like the Walton family who paid millions in lobbying fees to get the death tax repealed. They are your elite friends, not mine. You are missing the point. I am not the enemy- a divided and manipulated population is it's own worst enemy.
Post by: Iain on October 25, 2006, 11:46:20 PM
Just like there is a middle ground on the main issue of this thread, there are many middle grounds between 'extreme' capitalism (whatever that is) and communism. Socialism of the European model falls in there somewhere.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 26, 2006, 12:01:55 AM
Quote
Lets see if you actually respond or just parry by name calling or bringing up irrelevant points. I know where my bet is.
Seems like you are the one name calling. It seems the standard response to disagreement here is to just say the disagreeer doesnt know anything. And when you assume.........
Yup, as if on cue. Never mind any discussion about Brazil and your wrong-headed ideas about it. No, don't let facts confuse the argument. Brazil is the epitome of capitalism. Capitalism does lead to huge inequalities of wealth. Global warming is the reality. Sing it one more time.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 26, 2006, 02:34:07 AM
And besides, that photo is just plain cool.
Post by: Ron on October 26, 2006, 03:07:35 AM
Quote
The smart guys calling the shots are people like the Walton family who paid millions in lobbying fees to get the death tax repealed.
The Waltons,Gates etc.. are not forcing me to use their products or services. I don't see where I have a moral claim to any of their wealth. Just because they are rich we are allowed to steal some of their wealth for the common good? The Waltons and Gates of the world have done more for the common good than any bureaucracy could hope for. Walmart has made affordable products available to the poor that have never been within their reach before. Microsoft, whether you like their products or not, has changed the world through being on the leading edge of societal change ushering in the information revolution.
While I know this chafes many, they have not only had a positive effect here but they have raised the standard of living all around the planet.
Instead of trying to leach off of the wealth they so richely deserve you collectivists ought to try emulating their example. Why don't you provide a service or some goods that benifits the whole planet? You would rather penalize the visionaries and productive members of society by voting yourself some of their wealth instead of making it yourself.
The Gates and Waltons of the world are the type of people who will come up with solutions to population vs resources problems. The answers aren't going to come from our non productive bureaucracies ie socialism. The problems will be solved by the market, so keep out of the way.
Post by: doczinn on October 26, 2006, 01:25:35 PM
Quote from: mak
Free market worshippers should move to Brazil. That is as close to a perfect free market system on the planet.
Even more than on environmental issues, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.I lived there for a year. I hired and fired Brazilian workers. I dealt with their tax system first hand.
- A worker cannot be fired without 30 days severance pay.
- A worker cannot quit without 30 days notice.
I could go on and on. Perfect free-market system?
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 27, 2006, 06:53:25 AM
You believe that society must be organized to benefit everybody equally and are willing to use the power of the state to make it so. What you seem to refuse to admit that such a system is highly oppressive because people are born with equal rights but unequal abilities. Moreover, they naturally develop to be even more different. So, you want to hamstring the fast runners because of the stragglers. History has shown that such a system invariably produces huge wastage and inefficiencies because you do not allow people to be all they can be. In the end, such societies are reduced to miserable economic existence and horribly repressive governments, where only the nomenclature has access to some basic luxuries.
As far as taxes go, there are certain fundamental technical obligations that a government must provide, such as law enforcement, NATIONAL security, communications. For such, most reasonable people would not mind paying reasonable taxes. But if you examine more closely the budget, there is an enormous and growing list of entitlements, with a gov creep in every aspect of our lives. To that, freedom-loving people object, and quite sensibly so.
Finally, just because some people have more does not mean it is justifiable to tax them more. That is the point of private property. You and other socialists absolutely have no more entitlement to take that money from the rich than they have the right to go in your house and make away with your guns, AV system, your wife's jewelry box, or your car. One of the most pathetic and shameful things leftists do is increase the tax for the rich and tell their voter underclass that "the rich must chip in their fair share". "You are not affected, so support a tax increase for those damn rich bastards that are exploiting you." Then they can vote themselves some more giveaway bribes.
Ultimately, you need to ask yourself if you believe freedom is more important than welfare, or not. If you believe "redistribution" is more important, then you are an "enemy domestic" with the rest of the sozis. Just admit it to yourself.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2006, 07:17:16 AM
One of the most pathetic and shameful things leftists do is increase the tax for the rich and tell their voter underclass that "the rich must chip in their fair share". "You are not affected, so support a tax increase for those damn rich bastards that are exploiting you." Then they can vote themselves some more giveaway bribes.
Ultimately, you need to ask yourself if you believe freedom is more important than welfare, or not. If you believe "redistribution" is more important, then you are an "enemy domestic" with the rest of the sozis. Just admit it to yourself.
Ultimately, you need to ask yourself if you believe freedom is more important than welfare, or not. If you believe "redistribution" is more important, then you are an "enemy domestic" with the rest of the sozis. Just admit it to yourself.
You ought to add that taxing the rich slows the economy and hurts those in lower tax brackets by reducing investment in businesses that provide jobs. Also I agree that freedom is more important that welfare, but the sentence implies a false dichomoty that you don't believe in. Freedom contributes to welfare.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 27, 2006, 08:14:46 AM
Quote from: fistful of dollars
You ought to add that taxing the rich slows the economy and hurts those in lower tax brackets by reducing investment in businesses that provide jobs. Also I agree that freedom is more important that welfare, but the sentence implies a false dichomoty that you don't believe in. Freedom contributes to welfare.
Correct. I see no conflict. On the contrary, freedom leads to prosperity, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs. However, since we are talking about priorities in an abstract way, that distinction had to be made as an instructive tool.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 28, 2006, 10:38:15 AM
Gee whiz guys, I am not the anti-christ. I am not even that far left on most issues. Smoke a doobie; relax. Enjoy the koolaide.
Does anybody know what he was talking about here? And why does he think we care?
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 28, 2006, 01:36:00 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 28, 2006, 08:59:43 PM
Post by: Guest on October 29, 2006, 09:49:39 PM
It's estimated only 5,000 to 7,500 tigers remain in the wild throughout Asia.
Numbers in the wild have been reduced by 95% over the last 100 years, almost entirely due to their destruction by humans. This is just one of the examples of what we as a species are doing to the world. These animals going extinct in the wild largely do to us saddens me beyond explanation.
I certainly think something is wrong. I don't know if I buy the 2,050 prediction, but I think we are facing serious problems in our planet's future.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 30, 2006, 04:04:37 AM
Post by: richyoung on October 30, 2006, 04:34:05 AM
3 species of my favorite animal, the tiger, have gone extinct in the last 70 years, mostly due to humans killing them off and destroying their habitat.
Were YOU living in the village where they are eating your children, and attacking you as you try to clear enough land to grow enough food to not starve, your sympathies might be more wih the human beings, and less with the self-propelled killing machines...
Post by: Guest on October 30, 2006, 03:28:34 PM
[/quote]
Too bad the white people didn't have sympathies for human beings when they killed off entire Native American tribes and stole their land.
Post by: The Rabbi on October 30, 2006, 03:40:55 PM
[
Were YOU living in the village where they are eating your children, and attacking you as you try to clear enough land to grow enough food to not starve, your sympathies might be more wih the human beings, and less with the self-propelled killing machines...[/quote]
Too bad the white people didn't have sympathies for human beings when they killed off entire Native American tribes and stole their land.
[/quote]
Huh??
Post by: Ron on October 30, 2006, 03:45:25 PM
Quote
stole their land
I wasn't aware of any tribes that had developed property rights (ownership of land) as part of their culture.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 30, 2006, 09:03:40 PM
Quote
stole their land
That's the PC nonsense.
It is known that tribal warfare was wide-spread as tribes fought over fishing and hunting grounds in the north and cultivated land in the far south. From that perspective, the "white devils" were just another set of tribes to come by and enter the race, fair and square. And they won, because they were more advanced in terms of technology, economy, organization, and pathogen resistance. Cry me a river.
Post by: Sindawe on October 30, 2006, 11:19:01 PM
Quote
Were YOU living in the village where they are eating your children, and attacking you as you try to clear enough land to grow enough food to not starve, your sympathies might be more wih the human beings, and less with the self-propelled killing machines...
Saddened though I would be if any of my relatives became tiger food, with better than six billion of us talking monkeys on the planet I cannot see such as more than a familial tragedy. And like most of us I've been though those before. 'Though you do discredit to the Tiger there... Quote
Too bad the white people didn't have sympathies for human beings when they killed off entire Native American tribes and stole their land.
Take another look at the literature and art of that era. They did, they just did not let that stop them from conquering the continent and remaking it in their own image. As CAnnoneer has observed, one set of tribes stomped on another. Its been such for as long as we have been human. To their credit, the original inhabitants of this land chose to resist the invasion. Something which it currently appears we are as yet unwilling to do. But thats a whole'nother knot to consider...
Post by: MechAg94 on November 01, 2006, 03:09:56 PM
This kind of thing has been going on throughout human history.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 01, 2006, 03:13:03 PM
Drive around Texas and look at all the unused farm land. The only reason most land owners even raise cows is for the tax exemption. If food were truly scare, the price would be high and every single land owner would have an incentive to raise a crop or food animal.