|
This is so depressing. I wish I was born this day to see this shit some day than been 25 years old already LOL. What a disgrace.
|
On April 20 2012 03:55 Sbrubbles wrote:
Asteriod mining. Lol.
Still, I wonder what the firm is really there for ...
It is entirely doable with current technology and I believe it is something that NASA is really pushing for funds to do right now.
|
On April 20 2012 08:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 08:02 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 07:50 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:27 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism? Its cute that you think your systems different. First of all communism never occured anywhere in the world, but I doubt you even know what it is. And that isn't "my system" although if done the right way it would still be better than anything preceding it. When in the world was there ever a moneyless, classless, stateless social system where technology provided for people without a price and life's necessities were common property? You can start a commune bro, what part of free market don't you understand? You live in the only system in which your dream can be fulfilled and you can't stop bashing it. Maybe because you don't have the courage to do it. I keep saying do it and you won't listen.
I'm not bashing it, besides the profit system is global not just here.. I'm saying with our current knowledge and technology we can make up for its shortcomings if we can overlook profit for once.
|
this is pretty badass, this is the sort of shit we need to get our asses into gear and become more than a 1 planet species (kinda helps stop us from dieing off to a stray comet or somesuch)
|
On April 20 2012 08:17 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 08:07 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:51 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices. The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being. Funny how most of the labor is done by the so called slaves while the supposed owner takes the big chunk of the pie just because he "owns" it and then proceeds to buy a house that could shelter a small city and costs more than they will make in their lifetime :p
Owners get paid in profits and usually that's a small slice of the pie - not a large one. And owners DO contribute.
The workers are better off than they were beforehand. Owners can't afford to pay 3rd world workers more than a 3rd world wage since 3rd world workers are far, far less productive than 1st world workers.
|
The problem with asteroid mining is that it is hugely expensive to bring mass back and forth from space to the Earth. This means any gathered resources aren't going to be worth the effort.
That is, unless the gathered resources are used in space, instead of for terrestrial works. But that will take quite a bit of time, and more importantly, capitol.
|
Hey, I just went to that museum today! This is pretty epic...
|
It seems like asteroid mining is skipping several steps that we haven't undergone yet with regards to space exploration, and not to mention the exploration of our own planet. Who knows what kind of resources could potentially lie at the bottom/under our sea floors.
|
On April 20 2012 04:00 sirachman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote:
I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems. Cheap in-space materials from asteroid mining could fix our energy problems by way of large solar power satellites which can collect sunlight 24/7/365 at far greater efficiencies than those bound to Earth.
Smart sir, how do you get that energy back to earth to be used since we don't know how to store energy ?  Large power cables of thousands of kilometers going right to space ?
Ah.
Science looks so simple sometimes :D
|
|
|
Absolutely amazing. I hope this succeeds beyond my wildest dreams.
|
On April 20 2012 08:48 Flamingo777 wrote:
It seems like asteroid mining is skipping several steps that we haven't undergone yet with regards to space exploration, and not to mention the exploration of our own planet. Who knows what kind of resources could potentially lie at the bottom/under our sea floors.
Yes, the bottom of the sea is definitely the best place to industrialize/pollute the hell out of.
But it's definitely skipping steps, an important one being the ability to get crap into space under $100/kg, compared to $10,000 it is now.
|
On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position.
All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor.
The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate.
/directionless rant
|
On April 20 2012 04:59 jmack wrote:
Does no one else feel like we should be fixing this planet before exploring others?
Hear me out, we have how many people dying from starvation by the minute? How many suicides per minute? How many people who's entire life potential is completely wasted because our social structures place favor on a select few?
How about we feed and regulate our own population, by actually harnessing and distributing our knowledge and technology in EFFICIENT ways before we chase pipe dreams....
Just feels backwards...
( I'm all for space exploration, I just don't think it's our ticket out of the shit world we've created )
Most of those problems you point out are unsolvable. When europe conquered america they had a lot of problems, some of those same problems you pointed out, should they have fixed europe first? It was the right choise obviously.
|
On April 20 2012 08:57 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 04:00 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:57 farvacola wrote:
I really hope that one of the foci of this organization is to continue heavy research into fusion/alternative energy, as it would seem that space only really begins to open once we fix our energy problems. Cheap in-space materials from asteroid mining could fix our energy problems by way of large solar power satellites which can collect sunlight 24/7/365 at far greater efficiencies than those bound to Earth. Smart sir, how do you get that energy back to earth to be used since we don't know how to store energy ? Large power cables of thousands of kilometers going right to space ? Ah. Science looks so simple sometimes :D
You beam it down. Try using Google. I happen to be studying engineering, it is entirely feasible.
I wish people like you would spend less time trying to shoot ideas down and more time educating yourself.
This topic is filled with depressingly uninformed people spewing the same 4 or 5 complaints I see on every news topic related to science/space on the internet. It is simply frustrating and sad.
|
On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:
[quote]
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant
And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative.
|
On April 20 2012 09:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:
[quote]
My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative.
By all means educate me on why I am wrong about my conception of the system. You present an air of knowledge and confidence in your position. I will gladly listen.
I am participating, but I make a concerted effort to minimise my negative impact as best I can. Everyday there are new things ways to negate the impact of my consumption. I am, without doubt, a constantly failing case and will probably never live up to my ideals, but I am trying.
|
On April 20 2012 10:08 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 09:58 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant And yet you are participating. Although you're completely wrong I don't understand how someone who believes the same severely misguided things you do can continue on basking in your wealth while you believe slaves are working and starving for you. Its twisted to be frank. You're either evil or you don't honestly believe these things. There's no other alternative. By all means educate me on why I am wrong about my conception of the system. You present an air of knowledge and confidence in your position. I will gladly listen. I am participating, but I make a concerted effort to minimise my negative impact as best I can. Everyday there are new things ways to negate the impact of my consumption. I am, without doubt, a constantly failing case and will probably never live up to my ideals, but I am trying.
The good thing about the market system is that you can choose who to support though. For instance you can buy "fair trade" coffee and other edibles, which operates under a system where the farmers are given a liveable wage by cooperatives that they work for.
You can also buy from environmentally friendly companies, or ones that don't have their electonics manufactured by companies in china with very low safety/human rights standards (i.e. Foxconn, which incidentally Apple tacitly supports as was shown by an article in the new york times if I remember correctly).
The market itself isn't inherently evil. It will bend to the consumer; if consumers are informed and choose to buy from environmentally/socially responsible companies, then their business models would change. In practise this is really difficult because people are kind of lazy; but if you want to make the world a better place you've got to be an activist and try to get a movement started. That's how fair trade became as large as it is today
edit: Its even better today because access to information is ubiquitous, and penetrates nearly every company. Its a lot harder to get away with things today than it used to be; social awareness is a really powerful force that is dramatically changing the market IMO.
|
On April 20 2012 09:12 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 08:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:
[quote]
Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much. Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years. Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia). So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that. It is much more complicated. Let me speak personally so as to explain my position. All my material wants and needs have been more accounted for and probably will be for the rest of my life. I am not rich, I am middle class. The success of a market economy in New Zealand is undoubtedly responsible for my good fortune. Why is it that so many people do not live a life remotely resembling my own? Starvation, disease and violence are a daily reality for so many but to me, they do not even enter my frame of reference. Countries with material wealth very seldom encounter these 'evils'. It is well established that GDP per capita has extremely diminishing returns beyond certain points thresholds (sometimes charted as low as $15,000 per capita). This being the case, why are so many first world economies relentlessly trying to expand its own wealth where it would be better served in poorer countries? I feel that the economy in wealthy countries has become its a self-serving beast rather than a friendly giant that serves the people. Our major resources are being chewed through quickly, our emissions piling upon one another and the excesses of wealth prove unfulfilling. Even with all this intensive and excessive use, we still can't provide a decent life for ourselves (humanity). There are so many issues facing us which we have barely accounted for: overpopulation, climate change, resources depletion, pollution, soil degradation etc. The brunt of which will be taken by the poor. The market may provide me with its benefits but if it does so at the expense of others then I am uncomfortable and unwilling to participate. /directionless rant
oh you're such a philanthropist!! please liquidate all of your holdings and wire the result to ugandanmilitary@gmail.com... oops i mean ugandanhumanitarianorganization@gmail.com
|
Hell, it's about time!
I've always thought that this is the road that we would take since watching the Matrix with Agent Smith saying that humanity is like a virus etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
