|
oh, that. I thought you were on to something! They were good questions! I wanted you to think about them for homework!
since liberalism grounds private property and profit motive on being the best way to manage society's resources, and you brought up the excellent point that globalization blurs the definition of 'society', I wanted to know what you thought about this! When you go in and impose liberal economics on, say, iraq, which society's resources are you claiming will be best managed by this strategy?
you are the one defending liberalism so I want to know what you mean by society, since this is an integral term in grounding that economic theory! Why do you want ME to answer the question?? You are the liberal!!
|
On September 26 2013 14:42 sam!zdat wrote:
oh, that. I thought you were on to something! They were good questions! I wanted you to think about them for homework!
since liberalism grounds private property and profit motive on being the best way to manage society's resources, and you brought up the excellent point that globalization blurs the definition of 'society', I wanted to know what you thought about this! When you go in and impose liberal economics on, say, iraq, which society's resources are you claiming will be best managed by this strategy?
you are the one defending liberalism so I want to know what you mean by society, since this is an integral term in grounding that economic theory! Why do you want ME to answer the question?? You are the liberal!!
Liberal economics can only be imposed only where it is accepted. To be specific, a country such as iraq does not have a culture nor government that liberal economics will flourish.
I would consider "society" as all 7 continents of earth, all of the known world and civilizations and all of the resources that are found on this planet. A society of humans beings. Under this society, an american and their oil would be considered the same as a russian and their oil. The same, but that doesn't mean the resources are divided up evenly
|
we imposed liberal economics in iraq. Bremer wrote their constitution. That was the whole point
|
On September 26 2013 15:07 sam!zdat wrote:
we imposed liberal economics in iraq. Bremer wrote their constitution. That was the whole point
but look how well that ended up. Liberal economics did not flourish. Therefore it can be safe to say that it was not the right measure of action to take
|
ok so you've just undermined, like, all of US foreign policy. What are we arguing about again?
|
On September 26 2013 15:18 sam!zdat wrote:
ok so you've just undermined, like, all of US foreign policy. What are we arguing about again?
I never supported it in the first place. Well not ALL of it, there are shades of grey here. What we are arguing about simply prooves the complexity of politics
|
you presupposed 'globalization' as a natural inevitable process in yr previous post. Iraq war a part of globalization. We invaded them mostly because saddam hussein was going to denominate oil in euros.
there's really not that much shades of grey
|
On September 26 2013 15:33 sam!zdat wrote:
you presupposed 'globalization' as a natural inevitable process in yr previous post. Iraq war a part of globalization. We invaded them mostly because saddam hussein was going to denominate oil in euros.
there's really not that much shades of grey
At least 50 of them.
|
On September 26 2013 06:13 sam!zdat wrote:
google earthship. Awesome science in the service of energy efficiency. Anyway, you're wrong, using less energy is a cultural challenge not scientific.. I know because I use much less energy than I used to, and I do it with culture, not science.
or you could, you know, use less aluminum. That would save energy.
when I speak of richest humans, I am talking about historical standards. Roof, food, medicine, leisure: you're rich. We've been corrupted by unrealistic american dream stuff in our conception of what being rich is - go back and read your plato and epicurus and find out what the good life is. We already have it, and it doesn't cost anything at all.
I am one of the richest humans who ever lived, and I am very poor by american standards. But I've been rich by american standards, and I was less happy then than I am now.
'the logical way is that namibia gets rich first'
LOL you ever see that cartoon with 'then a miracle happens'. What buffoonery.
continuing where I left: I'm not wrong. As I already pointed out, saving energy is a scientific/economic challenge. I believe that saving energy is an inherent goal for all companies in a "healthy" competition (which is to say: no cartel/monopoly etc.) because using less energy makes your product cheaper and thus gives you an edge.
This ofc is also in effect at private househoulds, but the mechanism there is somewhat corrupted because energy is so cheap. most people don't have to choose between watching TV every day or buying a pack of cigarettes but can do both. Which leads to the next point: I don't think people who have to choose between telly and cigs are actually happy about it. They want both, and not because they are corrupted, but because they enjoy both. (It's just an example, one could also go with buying a 2 seated sports car vs a family car for your 3 kids or w/e floats your mind).
But you are right that technology can't solve interpersonal struggle or make people happy. It can give us joy though (rollercoasters are awesome!) or avoid pain (curing athlete's foot).
You can make it a moral and political issue though. But this leads to a very dangerous path I'm not willing to follow. Because it leads to the question of "what do we really need?" and cut off all the unnecessary "stuff". We don't need to fly to vacation on Ibiza. We don't need travelling to Paris to see the Eiffel tower. We don't need soccer matches in the evening. let's turn off the flood light and let them play at broad daylight. We don't need street lightning after 12, not enough people pass by. We don't need Shakira's show, she should just sing. We don't need electric gituars, acoustic ones are fine.
where do we start and where do we stop? do you want to install commitees who rule what we people need and what is a waste of energy. Or do you want to make it a moral agenda so people who don't (want to) fit into the scheme are mobbed and socially stigmatized?
I know I'm making a bit of a leap here, but I consider myself a humanist and I think the ultimate goal should be to bring the most possible wealth to the maximum amount of people. And I don't see how this is possible if we actually decrease the wealth of people by forcing them into decisions they wouldn't have to make otherwise. If I become a vegetarian, the meat I don't eat doesn't feed the hungry in Namibia. (And I'm well aware that the path to a wealthy Namibia is not easy. doesn't change the original argument though)
@Igne: There is no "status quo" in the strict sense. Every minute there is a scientific experiment that furthers our knowledge and enables our progress.
And my reason "to melt more aluminium and consume more stuff" is that through that we also support reasearchers and engineers. So far "capitalism" is the most successful. There may be better ways but I don't know any realistic ones to replace the current system. I do know that currently things are not as bright as they could be and there are many things that need reforms or fixing but these are tweaks inside the system not radical new ideas.
Just to come back to one of my examples earlier: Flying on vacation with a plane may be waste of energy but through buying a plane ticket a tiny fraction goes to the development sector and maintains a stable set of engineers who improve and design new jet engines.
Edit: Upon rereading, I somehow feel that I have to state that there are ofc useful measures to protect the environment, like in the case of chemical waste. I'm just doubtful about recent green energy agendas like reducing energy usage or the "renewable" energy sources.
|
all possible actions in capitalism are good, because then you buy things and the money gets used for innovation and that's the only possible way that anything can be accomplished by human beings
edit: arguing with fundamentalists in two separate threads is making me angry and exhausted. I need a break from TL. Anyway, the semester is starting. Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking
|
On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
all possible actions in capitalism are good, because then you buy things and the money gets used for innovation and that's the only possible way that anything can be accomplished by human beings
edit: arguing with fundamentalists in two separate threads is making me angry and exhausted. I need a break from TL. Anyway, the semester is starting. Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking
poor samisdat. Can't be bothered to write more than two lines or even read carefully. Luckily the semester is starting were you get payed to think without anyone disturbing your circles.What a bright example of philosophical academia you are!
|
On September 27 2013 20:15 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
all possible actions in capitalism are good, because then you buy things and the money gets used for innovation and that's the only possible way that anything can be accomplished by human beings
edit: arguing with fundamentalists in two separate threads is making me angry and exhausted. I need a break from TL. Anyway, the semester is starting. Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking poor samisdat. Can't be bothered to write more than two lines or even read carefully. Luckily the semester is starting were you get payed to think without anyone disturbing your circles.What a bright example of philosophical academia you are!
You just don't get it. You are so far so far inside the box you can't even see the boundaries.
|
I typed all this shit on my little phone, just for you. Be grateful.
but if you just repeat free market mantras it's not worth it. Fundamentalists are infuriating. You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, because obviously 'capitalism!!' solves all problems and never creates any of its own. I'm not going to learn anything by talking to you, I can't change your mind because you don't listen to anything, so what's the point? The only possible purpose in talking to you is to make me angry so I can get some mod action.
|
On September 27 2013 23:43 IgnE wrote:
You just don't get it. You are so far so far inside the box you can't even see the boundaries.
How about some arguments from "your side"?
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
I typed all this shit on my little phone, just for you. [...]
Fundamentalists are infuriating.
oh the irony
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, because obviously 'capitalism!!' solves all problems and never creates any of its own. I'm not going to learn anything by talking to you, I can't change your mind because you don't listen to anything, so what's the point?
same things over again: I'm here to discuss things. not answer questions and not teaching you anything. And I can't refute any of your points because you don't say anything most of the time. And your assessment that saving energy is not a technological matter was refuted.
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
The only possible purpose in talking to you is to make me angry so I can get some mod action.
On September 25 2013 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:
simplistic thinking
On September 25 2013 09:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not convinced that you ever knew what you were talking about
On September 25 2013 09:14 sam!zdat wrote:
Do you need a box into which to put someone, so that you can shoehorn them into your misconceptions, before you will listen to them?
On September 26 2013 01:56 sam!zdat wrote:
you are such a brusque and unthoughtful fellow!
On September 26 2013 06:13 sam!zdat wrote:
What buffoonery.
On September 26 2013 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:
kid
On September 26 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:
You just spout that stuff about china and expect me to think you are anything but a koolaid drinker? [...]
You just have no perspective
On September 26 2013 13:52 sam!zdat wrote:
Fool
On September 26 2013 14:09 sam!zdat wrote:
BAH, why do I spend my time arguing with fools.
On September 26 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
How do you get absurd ideas like this.
On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, [...]
Yes, Yes, Yes. I'm part of the secret society of DOOM. Our main agenda is to provoke mod actions against you. Next on the list are fur coats made out of seal cubs.
|
yes yes, I'm rubber you're glue
you don't say anything other than 'we must keep growing, nobody is allowed to make moral claims other than 'it is immoral to make moral claims', and all problems can be solved by the profit motive.' you give some example about aluminum, ignore the question of what is the aluminum for in the first place, and then say that you've categorically proven that efficiency is a technological problem and not a cultural one. Everything you say is just obviously question begging.
you can't say things like 'the obvious logical solution is for [3rd world country] to get rich first...' and then complain that I call you an idiot and don't engage you, because that's an ignorant, idiotic thing to say.
|
Actually I wanted to go into a different direction. I wanted to point out that energy efficiency is at least a technological problem. That is not mutual exclusive to a moral problem. The whole fuzz I made was to show that there is already a natural process engraved in our system to save energy.
My question then is if we need to make it a moral issue. Because all the proposed "green" solutions have been corrupted, don't work on a large scale or only under certain conditions (your earthship house doesn't work in northern Europe). My very first post in this thread was questioning if windmills are a technology for a developed country, because without a storing technology it's just random energy.
So my real question is: do we really need to divert time, energy and resources to develop an agenda of energy saving? and what are the measures of energy saving we want to impose by what means on the people? Again: I'm not convinced the currently proposed measures are the way to go. (but i don't know all of them)
And my point about 3rd world countries was that it doesn't help them if we use less energy. And also throwing food at them doesn't help all too much. it is simply tampering with their problems instead of solving the core issue: they are poor. I never said it was an easy solution but I'm simply questioning your proposed solution.
|
I'm totally opposed to food aid but this is a completely different issue
I didn't claim that our energy efficiency would help poor countries (although it would, because they are going to see the brunt of fallout from global climatic disruption).
you've backed off on your claim if you say that it is not purely a technological problem. Obviously you can do tech things, but it's true that the primary problem is our disposable culture and huge externalities which distort markets in favor of waste. We can use technology to become more efficient, but your assumption that our patterns of consumption are god given and inviolate is dangerous and inane. We need to learn to be more efficient, but we also need to learn to need less. That is a cultural issue. Consumption is driven by an economic system which cannot sustain itself without endlessly producing new needs and desires, and that is an extremely dangerous dynamic which must be resisted. You want to avoid this problem and place all your faith in a techno-messianic solution where we can all magically live wasteful suburban lives and not choke to death on our own excrement. It's just not realistic, but you can't confront this problem because you cannot contemplate any fundamental change in the social order. So you avoid it with messianism.
you would have to design a different earthship for a different climate. Certainly in any climate you would have to do things differently. I have no doubt that it would be possible to design homes in northern europe far more efficient than those currently in use, but this is a question for someone else as I am not an engineer.
yes it matters, and yes it is a moral issue. Whatever mechanism in our system that promotes efficiency is far outweighed by mechanisms that promote waste.
|
On September 28 2013 03:33 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:43 IgnE wrote:
You just don't get it. You are so far so far inside the box you can't even see the boundaries. How about some arguments from "your side"? Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
I typed all this shit on my little phone, just for you. [...]
Fundamentalists are infuriating. oh the irony Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, because obviously 'capitalism!!' solves all problems and never creates any of its own. I'm not going to learn anything by talking to you, I can't change your mind because you don't listen to anything, so what's the point? same things over again: I'm here to discuss things. not answer questions and not teaching you anything. And I can't refute any of your points because you don't say anything most of the time. And your assessment that saving energy is not a technological matter was refuted. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
The only possible purpose in talking to you is to make me angry so I can get some mod action. Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 09:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not convinced that you ever knew what you were talking about
Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 09:14 sam!zdat wrote:
Do you need a box into which to put someone, so that you can shoehorn them into your misconceptions, before you will listen to them?
Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 01:56 sam!zdat wrote:
you are such a brusque and unthoughtful fellow! Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:
You just spout that stuff about china and expect me to think you are anything but a koolaid drinker? [...]
You just have no perspective Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 14:09 sam!zdat wrote:
BAH, why do I spend my time arguing with fools. Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
How do you get absurd ideas like this. Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, [...] Yes, Yes, Yes. I'm part of the secret society of DOOM. Our main agenda is to provoke mod actions against you. Next on the list are fur coats made out of seal cubs.
lol. koolaid drinker was my favorite quote
|
Wait, wait....
You are telling me I need to view the world as a series of trade offs instead of absolute goods and evils?
Ur.... ur crazy OP. Ur crazy. 5/5 for economics 101, we desperately need it.
On September 25 2013 08:51 sam!zdat wrote:
never claimed to be democratic. I'm deeply suspicious of what we call 'democracy' although I believe that our 'democracy' is a perversion of the term and does not deserve the name. It's nothing but the rule of special interests coupled with a vulgar populism
liberal democracy is collapsing. It's an obsolete social order. The only question is whether it takes us with it.
There are countless moments when I agree with you, but for different reasons.
|
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
