|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 03 2014 06:21 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 03:05 Sub40APM wrote:On November 03 2014 01:59 bookwyrm wrote:
you really should go read The Long Twentieth Century. Your version of "historically" is not actually historical, it's limited to a very specific time period which you can't extrapolate from
edit: while we're talking about books, the one that sub40 recommended to me that I liked the most was _A Free Nation Deep in Debt_ by James MacDonald. Really a great book. Highly recommended to everybody interested in debt, state finance, and monetary issues in general. How could you read MacDonald and still cite Arrighi positively? Did you not catch how MacDonald's explanation of debt as a democratic-technocratic device fundamentally undermines Arrighi's claims about finance as the final stage of the economy? No, I didn't. Please explain. I don't see any contradiction between these two things, in fact they seem quite complimentary. Also, it's important to note that MacDonald is talking about republicanism, NOT democracy. Democracy is a threat to his notion of republicanism as "rule by the creditor classes"
The Dutch Republic was able to achieve its successes versus is royalist, lower debt-per-capita royal opponents because of its financial innovation. It wasnt the final stage of anything, it was the very device that allowed a Republic 1/10th the size of its enemies to more than hold its own. Arrighi fundamentally does not understand Dutch history -- or even the histories of the Italian Republics he cites. Venetian success as a merchant was grounded in both its location but also in its power -- the time period he carves out for Italian dominance also coincides with the greatest extent of Venetian military successes.
Nor will any honest historian of Europe submit that the arbitrary time period of 1610-1710 is a period of Dutch "hegemonic cycle." Dutch conquest of Indonesia -- a cause Arrighi cites as the reason for the Dutch initial success -- occurs after this date. Amsterdam became a financial center of Europe because (a) the Spanish Netherlands/Belgium were ruined by warfare (b) Dutch innovation in public finance. East Asian trade, by comparison, was a smaller section of the fiscal power of the Dutch state. He then traces the decline of the Dutch to overdebtedness without realizing this wasnt caused by arbitrary end of accumulation phase driven by lower real returns but by the reality that the Dutch were perpetually at war on both sea and land and despite being the smallest -- by a large margin of power -- state engaged in near total warfare managed to hang on for another 80 years before finally Napoleon literally overwhelmed the Republic.
The experience of England in the 17th and 18th centuries -- prior to the rise of England as THE dominant power, although not in Arrighi's imagination -- also strongly differs from his theory that debt accumulation is the last phase of a state. After absorbing Dutch financial technology, the debt to gdp of england jumps significant -- as England marshals its citizens savings to the state -- going from almost no debt prior to the "Glorious Revolution" to something like 250% of the GDP at the end of the Napoleonic wars - before declining for the remainder of the 19th century and skyrocketing again following the two World Wars.
inflationary economics encourages the polarization of society into the ultra-wealthy and debt serfs
Inflation decreases the cost of debt. Deflation increases the cost of debt.
an argument which is of course straight out of arrighi. falling rate of profits due to diminishing returns for productive investment drives the financialization of the economy, depressing yields and driving capital into increasingly speculative attempts to find return. you're literally describing exactly what he says will happen at the end of a cycle of accumulation
Except that (a) there has not been any decline in profits of most businesses (b) push towards deflation is caused by a massive recession brought about by the export of savings of Germans/Chinese/Japanese/Koreans onto the rest of the world.
|
On November 03 2014 07:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though. Well that's just patently false.... Maybe what you meant was it isn't harming the environment as much per unit of standard of living increase as it did in the 70's. But that's wildly different than the idea that standard of living increases don't harm the environment. For instance you can say that cars cause less damage than they did in the 70's (per unit) but not that they don't cause any environmental damage at all, or that nearly a billion new cars in China and India won't harm the environment, that's just silly. The increased environmental toll comes from population growth, not per capita economic growth (see source). It's different for developing countries, but the statement was for the US. Edit: it's also arguable that there is no net increase in environmental damage from population growth in the US either. In aggregate we're polluting less, and pollution doesn't remain in the environment forever, so the level of pollution that exists in the environment has been falling. I don't have every pollution metric at my fingertips, but pollution in the air has fallen by a very large amount over the last few decades. Yeah... + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/United_States_per_capita_energy_use_1650-2010.png) ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Energy_Use_per_Capita.png) Well, it turns out that this is not an easy number to come by. In fact, the “national trash bible” – the publication that the EPA puts out to examine our municipal – is really badly outdated. Research done by Columbia University and a trade journal called BioCycle shows that we produce, per day, 7.1 pounds of trash for every man, woman, and child in the country. And that compares not-favorably with the rest of the world – the average Japanese person produces about 2.5 pounds of trash. But it doesn’t even compare favorably to where we were a few decades ago. It’s about twice as much per capita trash as we produced in 1960. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/06/04/how-americas-trash-became-a-worldwide-problem-an-interview-with-garbology-author-edward-humes/Everything is okay.
I don't get it. Nothing here contradicts what I wrote.
|
I think energy consumption per capita is a really poor indicator when it comes to how much damage we do to the environment. We're probably producing and consuming way more energy per capita than the people in 19th century London did, but I'd rather not live there.
|
On November 03 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 07:15 WhiteDog wrote:On November 03 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though. Well that's just patently false.... Maybe what you meant was it isn't harming the environment as much per unit of standard of living increase as it did in the 70's. But that's wildly different than the idea that standard of living increases don't harm the environment. For instance you can say that cars cause less damage than they did in the 70's (per unit) but not that they don't cause any environmental damage at all, or that nearly a billion new cars in China and India won't harm the environment, that's just silly. The increased environmental toll comes from population growth, not per capita economic growth (see source). It's different for developing countries, but the statement was for the US. Edit: it's also arguable that there is no net increase in environmental damage from population growth in the US either. In aggregate we're polluting less, and pollution doesn't remain in the environment forever, so the level of pollution that exists in the environment has been falling. I don't have every pollution metric at my fingertips, but pollution in the air has fallen by a very large amount over the last few decades. Yeah... + Show Spoiler +Well, it turns out that this is not an easy number to come by. In fact, the “national trash bible” – the publication that the EPA puts out to examine our municipal – is really badly outdated. Research done by Columbia University and a trade journal called BioCycle shows that we produce, per day, 7.1 pounds of trash for every man, woman, and child in the country. And that compares not-favorably with the rest of the world – the average Japanese person produces about 2.5 pounds of trash. But it doesn’t even compare favorably to where we were a few decades ago. It’s about twice as much per capita trash as we produced in 1960. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/06/04/how-americas-trash-became-a-worldwide-problem-an-interview-with-garbology-author-edward-humes/Everything is okay. I don't get it. Nothing here contradicts what I wrote.
The increased environmental toll comes from population growth
How has population growth resulted in people making more garbage on a per person basis?
|
On November 03 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 07:15 WhiteDog wrote:On November 03 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though. Well that's just patently false.... Maybe what you meant was it isn't harming the environment as much per unit of standard of living increase as it did in the 70's. But that's wildly different than the idea that standard of living increases don't harm the environment. For instance you can say that cars cause less damage than they did in the 70's (per unit) but not that they don't cause any environmental damage at all, or that nearly a billion new cars in China and India won't harm the environment, that's just silly. The increased environmental toll comes from population growth, not per capita economic growth (see source). It's different for developing countries, but the statement was for the US. Edit: it's also arguable that there is no net increase in environmental damage from population growth in the US either. In aggregate we're polluting less, and pollution doesn't remain in the environment forever, so the level of pollution that exists in the environment has been falling. I don't have every pollution metric at my fingertips, but pollution in the air has fallen by a very large amount over the last few decades. Yeah... + Show Spoiler +Well, it turns out that this is not an easy number to come by. In fact, the “national trash bible” – the publication that the EPA puts out to examine our municipal – is really badly outdated. Research done by Columbia University and a trade journal called BioCycle shows that we produce, per day, 7.1 pounds of trash for every man, woman, and child in the country. And that compares not-favorably with the rest of the world – the average Japanese person produces about 2.5 pounds of trash. But it doesn’t even compare favorably to where we were a few decades ago. It’s about twice as much per capita trash as we produced in 1960. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/06/04/how-americas-trash-became-a-worldwide-problem-an-interview-with-garbology-author-edward-humes/Everything is okay. I don't get it. Nothing here contradicts what I wrote.
You make it seem like there's no problem. That the US energy per capita consumption has not risen for the last ten years, and has even slowly declined, doesn't change the fact that it's almost twice most other OCDE countries. Also, when you want to see the impact of consumption on environment, energy is not enough : you need to take trash into account (and they didn't decrease) and many other things (such as the biocapacity, which has been declining). While the energy usage is more efficient, saying that producing more will not lead to an increase in environmental damage is a gross simplification and it does not change the fact that the situation was not sustainable to begin with.
|
On November 03 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 07:15 WhiteDog wrote:On November 03 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though. Well that's just patently false.... Maybe what you meant was it isn't harming the environment as much per unit of standard of living increase as it did in the 70's. But that's wildly different than the idea that standard of living increases don't harm the environment. For instance you can say that cars cause less damage than they did in the 70's (per unit) but not that they don't cause any environmental damage at all, or that nearly a billion new cars in China and India won't harm the environment, that's just silly. The increased environmental toll comes from population growth, not per capita economic growth (see source). It's different for developing countries, but the statement was for the US. Edit: it's also arguable that there is no net increase in environmental damage from population growth in the US either. In aggregate we're polluting less, and pollution doesn't remain in the environment forever, so the level of pollution that exists in the environment has been falling. I don't have every pollution metric at my fingertips, but pollution in the air has fallen by a very large amount over the last few decades. Yeah... + Show Spoiler +Well, it turns out that this is not an easy number to come by. In fact, the “national trash bible” – the publication that the EPA puts out to examine our municipal – is really badly outdated. Research done by Columbia University and a trade journal called BioCycle shows that we produce, per day, 7.1 pounds of trash for every man, woman, and child in the country. And that compares not-favorably with the rest of the world – the average Japanese person produces about 2.5 pounds of trash. But it doesn’t even compare favorably to where we were a few decades ago. It’s about twice as much per capita trash as we produced in 1960. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/06/04/how-americas-trash-became-a-worldwide-problem-an-interview-with-garbology-author-edward-humes/Everything is okay. I don't get it. Nothing here contradicts what I wrote. You make it seem like there's no problem. That the US energy per capita consumption has not risen for the last ten years, and has even slowly declined, doesn't change the fact that it's almost twice most other OCDE countries. Also, when you want to see the impact of consumption on environment, energy is not enough : you need to take trash into account (and they didn't decrease) and many other things (such as the biocapacity, which has been declining). While the energy usage is more efficient, saying that producing more will not lead to an increase in environmental damage is a gross simplification and it does not change the fact that the situation was not sustainable to begin with.
I guess it should also be mentioned how exporting the dirtier economic producers to 'developing countries' helps explain why the US's story isn't the same as the countries we send our dirtier practices to when it comes to how pollution tracks with economic development.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 03 2014 05:47 Nyxisto wrote:
You shouldn't expect otherwise, but it's still a big problem that people who rely on their cash in the bank the most are going to be screwed over the most by inflation. The inflation a lot of people are asking for is going eat up a lot of pension funds while some random rich guy will just buy a house or whatever.
people with low savings are not screwed by inflation. you are instead talking about people who also have sticky wage while inflation happens. need to be more specific.
inflation can be driven by wage increase while at full capacity or a financial glut of money parked into land and commodities. they have differing impact on wage slave class
add '' where appropriate phone typing a bitch
|
On November 03 2014 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 07:15 WhiteDog wrote:On November 03 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though. Well that's just patently false.... Maybe what you meant was it isn't harming the environment as much per unit of standard of living increase as it did in the 70's. But that's wildly different than the idea that standard of living increases don't harm the environment. For instance you can say that cars cause less damage than they did in the 70's (per unit) but not that they don't cause any environmental damage at all, or that nearly a billion new cars in China and India won't harm the environment, that's just silly. The increased environmental toll comes from population growth, not per capita economic growth (see source). It's different for developing countries, but the statement was for the US. Edit: it's also arguable that there is no net increase in environmental damage from population growth in the US either. In aggregate we're polluting less, and pollution doesn't remain in the environment forever, so the level of pollution that exists in the environment has been falling. I don't have every pollution metric at my fingertips, but pollution in the air has fallen by a very large amount over the last few decades. Yeah... + Show Spoiler +Well, it turns out that this is not an easy number to come by. In fact, the “national trash bible” – the publication that the EPA puts out to examine our municipal – is really badly outdated. Research done by Columbia University and a trade journal called BioCycle shows that we produce, per day, 7.1 pounds of trash for every man, woman, and child in the country. And that compares not-favorably with the rest of the world – the average Japanese person produces about 2.5 pounds of trash. But it doesn’t even compare favorably to where we were a few decades ago. It’s about twice as much per capita trash as we produced in 1960. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/06/04/how-americas-trash-became-a-worldwide-problem-an-interview-with-garbology-author-edward-humes/Everything is okay. I don't get it. Nothing here contradicts what I wrote. How has population growth resulted in people making more garbage on a per person basis?
Thanks, I missed the trash part.
However, while we produce more trash we also recycle more. In aggregate we produce the same amount of landfill waste as we did back in the 80's. + Show Spoiler +
Edit:
On November 03 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 07:15 WhiteDog wrote:On November 03 2014 07:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 03 2014 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though. Well that's just patently false.... Maybe what you meant was it isn't harming the environment as much per unit of standard of living increase as it did in the 70's. But that's wildly different than the idea that standard of living increases don't harm the environment. For instance you can say that cars cause less damage than they did in the 70's (per unit) but not that they don't cause any environmental damage at all, or that nearly a billion new cars in China and India won't harm the environment, that's just silly. The increased environmental toll comes from population growth, not per capita economic growth (see source). It's different for developing countries, but the statement was for the US. Edit: it's also arguable that there is no net increase in environmental damage from population growth in the US either. In aggregate we're polluting less, and pollution doesn't remain in the environment forever, so the level of pollution that exists in the environment has been falling. I don't have every pollution metric at my fingertips, but pollution in the air has fallen by a very large amount over the last few decades. Yeah... + Show Spoiler +Well, it turns out that this is not an easy number to come by. In fact, the “national trash bible” – the publication that the EPA puts out to examine our municipal – is really badly outdated. Research done by Columbia University and a trade journal called BioCycle shows that we produce, per day, 7.1 pounds of trash for every man, woman, and child in the country. And that compares not-favorably with the rest of the world – the average Japanese person produces about 2.5 pounds of trash. But it doesn’t even compare favorably to where we were a few decades ago. It’s about twice as much per capita trash as we produced in 1960. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/06/04/how-americas-trash-became-a-worldwide-problem-an-interview-with-garbology-author-edward-humes/Everything is okay. I don't get it. Nothing here contradicts what I wrote. You make it seem like there's no problem. That the US energy per capita consumption has not risen for the last ten years, and has even slowly declined, doesn't change the fact that it's almost twice most other OCDE countries. Also, when you want to see the impact of consumption on environment, energy is not enough : you need to take trash into account (and they didn't decrease) and many other things (such as the biocapacity, which has been declining). While the energy usage is more efficient, saying that producing more will not lead to an increase in environmental damage is a gross simplification and it does not change the fact that the situation was not sustainable to begin with.
It hasn't increased since the 70's. Also, water usage per capita is also down, as are emissions.
Edit: also, pointing out that other countries produce less waste and are more efficient with energy use supports my original point.
|
However, while we produce more trash we also recycle more. In aggregate we produce the same amount of landfill waste as we did back in the 80's. + Show Spoiler +
Yes recycling has gone up, but it as with the massive increase of burning the increased garbage, has it's own costs.
Even if recycling had 0 environmental consequences (it doesn't, it only mitigates part of the damage done by production/waste) The increase in the garbage produced (~constant level in landfills) combined with the increase in the amount of garbage burned is more than enough to render your original claim false.
|
On November 03 2014 08:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 05:47 Nyxisto wrote:
You shouldn't expect otherwise, but it's still a big problem that people who rely on their cash in the bank the most are going to be screwed over the most by inflation. The inflation a lot of people are asking for is going eat up a lot of pension funds while some random rich guy will just buy a house or whatever. people with low savings are not screwed by inflation. you are instead talking about people who also have sticky wage while inflation happens. need to be more specific. inflation can be driven by wage increase while at full capacity or a financial glut of money parked into land and commodities. they have differing impact on wage slave class add '' where appropriate phone typing a bitch
A pensioner who has some 20-50k of cash in the bank is most definitely going to suffer from inflation. And this actually happens to be a fairly large group of people. Why wouldn't he? The cash in his account is not going to be adjusted for purchasing power. The only group of people that are going to suffer from inflation are the people with limited savings. Too little to put it into stock or the housing market, and too much to just live off their paychecks. In other words the famous middle class that is already the most milked and vanishing.
|
On November 03 2014 09:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +However, while we produce more trash we also recycle more. In aggregate we produce the same amount of landfill waste as we did back in the 80's. + Show Spoiler + Yes recycling has gone up, but it as with the massive increase of burning the increased garbage, has it's own costs. Even if recycling had 0 environmental consequences (it doesn't, it only mitigates part of the damage done by production/waste) The increase in the garbage produced (~constant level in landfills) combined with the increase in the amount of garbage burned is more than enough to render your original claim false.
No, not really. I'd imagine that burning waste would mainly affect air quality, but air quality has improved dramatically.
My original point was about per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was. I'm not sure how you are figuring that to be proven false.
|
On November 03 2014 08:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2014 05:47 Nyxisto wrote:
You shouldn't expect otherwise, but it's still a big problem that people who rely on their cash in the bank the most are going to be screwed over the most by inflation. The inflation a lot of people are asking for is going eat up a lot of pension funds while some random rich guy will just buy a house or whatever. people with low savings are not screwed by inflation. you are instead talking about people who also have sticky wage while inflation happens. need to be more specific. inflation can be driven by wage increase while at full capacity or a financial glut of money parked into land and commodities. they have differing impact on wage slave class add '' where appropriate phone typing a bitch
People with low savings are screwed by inflation. Inflation renders there savings worth less than it was before the inflation. Is this really that difficult to understand?
People that gain from inflation are debtors, and politically connected people who have access to the newly printed money before prices adjust to reflect the inflated money supply.
People with the least amount of money and the lowest paying jobs are hurt the most from inflation because wages always lag behind increases in the money supply. This causes prices to increase faster than wages, resulting in lower purchasing power for poor people.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
people with low savings have larger portion of their wealth in the income/wage stream. this is supposed to rise with inflation.
the original claim was people with low savings are disproportionately hurt by inflation. response was depends on whether it is wage led inflation or something else.
|
My original point was about per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was. I'm not sure how you are figuring that to be proven false.
Except that's not what you said. You said: Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though.
I'd imagine that burning waste would mainly affect air quality, but air quality has improved dramatically.
Lucky for us we aren't limited by your imagination. The environmental damage caused by recycling (less than starting from scratch but not without damage) and non air-related damage from burning waste renders your original claim false.
Your new revised claim that "per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was."
is a different claim. and one I am not as conflicted with. Obviously we disagree, but we can agree that
Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though.The increased environmental toll comes from population growth
Is just not a complete/accurate claim.
|
On November 03 2014 10:17 oneofthem wrote:
people with low savings have larger portion of their wealth in the income/wage stream. this is supposed to rise with inflation.
the original claim was people with low savings are disproportionately hurt by inflation. response was depends on whether it is wage led inflation or something else.
Practically speaking this doesn't actually matter. Sure relatively speaking the poorer the person the more important their income is over their savings, but for someone who's part of the (lower) middle-class and has spent their whole life accumulating a small amount of money to support their pension this is actually pretty crucial for their living standard. And exactly these people are getting their savings eaten up pretty quickly by inflation, even if it is as low as 2%.
|
On November 03 2014 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +My original point was about per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was. I'm not sure how you are figuring that to be proven false. Except that's not what you said. You said: Show nested quote + I'd imagine that burning waste would mainly affect air quality, but air quality has improved dramatically. Lucky for us we aren't limited by your imagination. The environmental damage caused by recycling (less than starting from scratch but not without damage) and non air-related damage from burning waste renders your original claim false. Your new revised claim that Show nested quote +"per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was." is a different claim. and one I am not as conflicted with. Obviously we disagree, but we can agree that Show nested quote +Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though.The increased environmental toll comes from population growth Is just not a complete/accurate claim.
Sorry, but you are just wrong. This: Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though.The increased environmental toll comes from population growth
is equivalent to this: per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was.
They aren't different arguments. Both are making a claim that increasing income per person does not, by itself, increase harm done to the environment. Nothing that's been posted has disputed that.
The environmental damage caused by recycling (less than starting from scratch but not without damage) and non air-related damage from burning waste renders your original claim false.
How so?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
so what? pensions are inflation adjusted and that person should have invested in some form of secure asset that also grows.
by the by the government should also hand out inflation stipends to those elderly in your example. but in the larger context of the economy deflation is way way worse than moderate inflation, partly due to increasing inequality.
|
Brittany Maynard, the Oregon woman who had become an outspoken advocate for patient's rights following her terminal cancer diagnosis, died on Saturday, the Oregonian reported. She was 29.
"Goodbye to all my dear friends and family that I love," she wrote in a Facebook post, according to People. "Today is the day I have chosen to pass away with dignity in the face of my terminal illness... the world is a beautiful place, travel has been my greatest teacher, my close friends and folks are the greatest givers... goodbye world. Spread good energy. Pay it forward!"
Earlier this year, Maynard learned that she was suffering from an aggressive form of brain cancer called glioblastoma and had only six months to live. After hearing what the disease would to her body in its final stages, she decided that she wanted to die on her own terms.
Maynard and her family, including her husband Dan Diaz and her mother Debbie Ziegler, moved to Oregon, whose Death With Dignity Act has allowed hundreds of terminally ill people to end their lives by taking a medication prescribed by doctors. She picked November 1st as the day she wanted to die because it was after her husband's late October birthday.
Since then, Maynard had become a champion for the law and for patients in her situation, working with the group Compassion and Choices.
Source
|
If you think:
Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though.The increased environmental toll comes from population growth
and:
per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was.
don't mean different things, then we are done.
|
On November 03 2014 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:If you think: Show nested quote +Growing standards of living isn't harming the environment though.The increased environmental toll comes from population growth and: Show nested quote +per capita growth and how pollution generation isn't tied to it as it once was. don't mean different things, then we are done.
They don't.
Sorry, but... what about them do you think is different? Per capita economic growth and pollution were tied in that increasing one meant increasing the other. That is not true anymore, so if you grow standards of living you do not add to pollution. So growth isn't harming the environment. What don't you understand (other than English)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/waste.PNG)
