i still fail to understand how everyone thinks the economy is a zero sum game.
if everything was zero sum then we would still be on basis with a society where everybody is throwing rocks.

and if it wasn't for consumerism and the resulting capitalism, there is no way that you would be in the condition to complain about what other people do.

its bad that people consume too much
its worse that people criticize others for it
its even worse that those same people consume too much as well

imabossdude

United States23 Posts

August 14 2009 03:50 GMT

#24

everyone knows america is greedy

Nice label. You must not be from here and must be an expert on the subject.
(puts BookTwo in "dunce" category in brain)

nA.Inky

United States794 Posts

August 14 2009 04:07 GMT

#25

It is good to consider the issues raised in this thread. I do think this all warrants some thought and some concern whether or not you become an environmentalist or anti-consumerist. It is good to be informed.

For those who do care about these issues (probably not many on this forum - not many that have replied anyway), the important question becomes: what do you do about it? You can change your own consumption patterns and attempt to live a fair and environmentally conscious lifestyle. You can work to become part of the establishment and try to bring changes (probably small changes, but perhaps ultimately much larger scale) to society, or you can embrace a life of activism (perhaps joining organizations that work for fairness and environmental issues). Or, as many people do, you can complain about things and be bitter about it all (I think there can be some satisfaction in this last approach as well!).

I've determined for myself what changes I'm willing to make, and what changes I'm not. This is always subject to change.

- I embrace vegetarianism (environmental reasons)
- I am sterilized and child-free (overpopulation concerns as well as personal preference)
- I bicycle for most transportation (I love it)
- I don't shower (I clean myself, but use little water)
- I embrace a light work lifestyle, which entails less income and less consumption (I just don't much care for work, and value time and freedom over money).

On the other hand, I love using computers. I do own a car and use it, just not much. I like movies. I like having access to many books. I play videogames. I have a TV - but I don't much care for most programming. I use climate control in my apartment. I eat out at restaurants. Etc...

I'm presently not working to gain power in the establishment. I'm presently not part of any activist organization.

I am definitely of the global elite. My lifestyle is not fair, and perhaps not sustainable. I'm open to making changes in the future, but I'm also content with where I am now.

Just some thoughts....

ghermination

United States2851 Posts

August 14 2009 04:08 GMT

#26

Enjoy your communism.
In all seriousness though while capitalism may be flawed at least it is better than everyone starving to death through an even more inefficient system.

nA.Inky

United States794 Posts

August 14 2009 04:14 GMT

#27

For people who make this an issue of capitalism versus communism: this is kind of a non-sequitor - it doesn't make sense. It is possible to be highly concerned about global equality and the environment and still embrace capitalism. As a capitalist, the emphasis becomes persuasion; convincing people to embrace a different value system (more sustainable choices, perhaps less consumption, etc), and consequently influencing people to make economic decisions that reflect that value system.

Automatically associating capitalism with gross inequality and bad environmental practices is a mistake.

Capitalism does try to cater, to varying degrees, to people who are concerned about the environment and equality. Thus we have fair-trade products, and all manner of products geared towards sustainability. Is capitalism good enough? Will it succeed in these kinds of endeavors? I don't know.

GoSu

Korea (South)1773 Posts

August 14 2009 04:22 GMT

#28

Yep. Evers wants something. Then they get it, they want more.

numLoCK

Canada1416 Posts

August 14 2009 04:30 GMT

#29

The corruption in the leadership of the Third World countries is much more a reason as to why they are starving than our over consumption of goods.

duckett

United States589 Posts

August 14 2009 04:53 GMT

#30

There's an important question of morality that few of these people who discuss the tragedy of poverty bring up: what is in old money?

People who are born into money are scoffed at by these global-equality-advocates because they did not have to work for it and they don't "produce" material goods. However, someone worked for it; the money came from somewhere, and that person died with the satisfaction of knowing that it would stay in the hands of those they loved.
The capitalist incentive makes the system fundamentally more productive and distribution will severely constrain human productivity. Moreover, it is unethical to "restart" the lives and histories of the world's population because you think things didnt shake out fairly.

Green concerns are bullshit, btw.
You quoted:
"But no amount of technology would be capable of bringing environmental damage under control if all of the world's citizens were to achieve a standard of living even remotely comparable to that of the consumer class," and then gave an example based on today's technology and resource distribution. I'm glad the article's author got in his time machine, skipped ahead 50 years, and checked things out on the techno side; I would have never guessed that the exponential progress of science in solving the world's problems just stopped in a couple years.

Now Inky, consider the following:
- I embrace vegetarianism (environmental reasons)
Do you think the marginal contribution your meat consumption to the incredibly huge waste caused by meat consumption outweighs a million other life choices you could make? Maybe if you worked a little bit more your marginal contribution to the advancement of society might accelerate the progress of science just enough to save a small animal. You're free to be a veggie if you like it, but environmental reasons are crap.
- I am sterilized and child-free (overpopulation concerns as well as personal preference)
Do you think that the negative marginal utility brought in by the existence of another human being in your US, TL using environment (or ANY environment at this stage in the development of humanity) could possibly come close to the positive marginal utility of another human life? I don't care about your personal preference; just don't pretend overpopulation is a concern.

With the utility analysis I'm not trying to say that it's possible to know everything and make the right decisions, just saying that the life decisions people make in the name of environmentalism are often shots in the dark as to how much they really help the environment/how much they matter and more influenced by socialization/culture than anything else.