Anti-ecologism & Capitalism In A Nutshell.

[Woodsprite]

...Continued.

Originally Posted by Spock

I don't care whether the environment is destroyed for financial gain, infact it would happen under communism and socialism as well. What worries me is that capitalism won't be able to respond to the implications environmental destruction could have, simply because it is not profitable. You can't say the same about socialist governments as the leading body, the government could make a concerted and persevering effort in order to overcome such issues.

So you're essentially making the claim that the environment is more important than mankind?

China announced at Copenhagen it would reduce its carbon emissions to 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020, which is basically saying, "We're going to do absolutely nothing," which American news outlets praise them for their wonderful goals (we should all be like China). At the current rate of cleaner and more efficient jobs, China is expected to reduce its carbon emissions to about 45% by 2020 even if they did absolutely nothing. India made a bolder claim, reducing 20-25% by 2020, when the current rate of activity actually indicates they'll be at about 18% below 2005 emission levels.

But what does the concept of capitalism have anything to do with the environment? This assumes, of course, that every business and capitalistic ideal is effectively in favor of harming the environment, when it's not. Personal gain does not equal environmental destruction. Gain can be used for good, and claiming something like,

Originally Posted by Spock

I take issue with that last statement, umm. Yes we should condemn corruption, otherwise it makes it acceptable.

is putting words in my mouth. I never said we shouldn't condemn corruption. I said we shouldn't condemn every corporation and company out there because they probably all have, to some extent, some form of corruption residing within. Like Annie Wilkes's line, "That would be like junking a Mercedes
just because it had a broken spring." We should try to fight corruption; I agree. But to fight the company, holding it responsible for one person's bad intentions, is outright stupid, doing no good for anyone.

People say, "What if the woman was raped? Shouldn't she have an abortion then?" Well then kill the rapist, not the baby. Common sense.

Originally Posted by Spock

Prosperity under capitalism is entirely false, as an economically based system it revolves entirely around financial gain whilst falling down in other areas. Another thing I take issue with is the fact of personal gain, why would someone want anything more when they have a stake in the entire country? Further, capitalism does exactly the opposite than standing for the individual. Under capitalism, everyone would be stepped on over profit, this has happened throughout history and is continuing to happen.

I think you mean, capitalism works better in the short term. It won't survive another 100 years on this planet, I garuantee it. Capitalism will fail to deal with issues that will arise in the next 50-100 years. For example, if technology allows everyone to have an excellent standard of living for little cost, then there is little the corporations could cash in on at each level. The focus of the entire economy would have to shift its focus, or capitalism will cease to exist.

Explain the triumphs the free world has experienced because of the free-market system. If not capitalism, government regulation. This takes away the very rights all humans possess, especially considering America's Constitution which states we are all created equal under God, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. If God is the principle source of human rights, the government has no business making statements like "We make the rights." If the government dictates what rights man has (socialism; fascism; communism), there's no boundry where it can go from there.

John Smith: "Those who do not work do not eat." He got that statement from the Bible. Communism dictates that we must depend on government alone to provide. Capitalism is the only civic system that has survived longer than any other to the extent of governing nations. Capitalism is what gave James Cameron his profit for "Titanic" and "Avatar". Capitalism is what gave you and I private property. Capitalism in America has survived for over 230 years, which is apparently "short-lived" so far...

But I disagree. I will concede the point, however, that America in its current state as of the past 15 years, will not last much longer if continued on the same road. But to claim that capitalism is the source for this decline is ludicrous. Capitalism brought the world a slew of inventions, religious freedom, individuality, and freedom to compete in the business world. Such freedoms we hold dear in the free nations of the world, thanks to the capitalist system, would be utterly destroyed if interfered with by the government, who is the only alternative. If you consider it purely run by a band of "fat cats" who step all over the little guys, consider the fact that American jobs are made up of a little over 99% of all employer firms, not big corporations like you presume. I guess we're all stepping on each other.

My father owns his own moving company, and runs it himself along with my mother. He makes (without bills) well over the average American. Should his wealth, that's already squeezed by the government as it is, be distributed evenly among the rest of the population, leaving himself with absolutely no profit? Who decides this, exactly? If the spirit of competition were snuffed and replaced with government-run policies, the world would be in complete ruin. You also aren't considering what else besides total government control leads from such Marxist systems like communism, socialism, and fascism.

Originally Posted by Spock

Whether or not its caused by us (which it is)...

...That's for another debate.

[Tudhalyas]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The official reports say the rainforests are increasing, and environmentalists are saying they're being destroyed more and more. Whether there's corruption involved is no question: corruption inhabits every asset of every business and organization. The question is: how much has the corruption spread? Like you've said, Zenit, how can we trust those reports? On the other hand, how can we trust the environmentalists?

I'm with Spock on this: don't trust anyone for granted, do your own research and make your personal opinion.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The argument on one side is the government, corporations, and companies have little to no regard for nature when using it to their gain, thus making them "Capitalist 'fat cats'" that only care about money. On the other side, the argument states that the environment "scare" is just a way for the elite to force more regulation on the public, thus gaining more power.

I believe capitalism is ultimately the better way to go, and most capitalists are not evil. Competition and small business thrive on the capitalist system, and has made America (as well as many other free nations) better places overall. You can't honestly say that Wal Mart, though it's had its seedy dealings just as much as any other company, is an evil company. It helps economies across the world with savings. Of course there are corrupt corporations and companies out there, but that certainly doesn't mean we should condemn them all.

The point here is that a capitalist society here will always work and strive for the most profitable option, it is an inherent feature of capitalism, and that's why I personally think that it is not always the best possible way to go. In some cases you should concern more about people rather than your personal gain: just think about the health care system, or the public water administration.

One of the (very) few things that makes me proud of Italy is our health system, which is available to everyone and almost for free. If you get some illness, you go to the doctor, he will prescribe you some medicines and gives you a ticket for those drugs and then you can go get them to any pharmacy for just one buck (the cost of the ticket itself), the rest is taken care of by the National Health Service. If you have to do some analysis, you go to the doctor again, he will give you another ticket and with that you can book your analysis at the local hospital; the cost of the analysis will be partially (or totally, it depends on some factors) covered by the National Health Service.

In a pure capitalistic view, what I said above is pretty unconceivable. We are not a socialist country, but still we think that this is the best way to manage a health care system.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

To be absolutely blunt, capitalism works. It's the only real system that's helped many nations become prosperous. Name one other type of government that has served a better purpose. Certainly not Communism, Socialism, or Fascism.

One of the things that Avatar taught me is that you have to look beyond any ideologies: you have to pursue what is best for you, but you have to look at all consequences for everyone else and the environment as well; if those consequences are bad, you really should think twice (or thrice) before doing what you want to do.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Even Communism with its good intentions (originally slated from Marx; though Marx still believed certain populations of peoples should be "disposed of" for mankind's "greater good") may work theoretically, but you can't get people to work if they're subject to government handouts, none making more than the other, and no personal gain. It's been a disaster every time.

This is completely true, and I agree with you at 100%. The point is that you can't force people to behave in a certain way without convincing them why should they do that. Applied communism has always been more like a dictatorship than anything else, and that's why it has miserably failed.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The difference between capitalism and other forms of government are capitalism stands for the individual man's rights, and others stand for men's collective rights, which completely abandons anyone's will to stand for something or become something more, if the government controls everything.

A pure capitalistic society cannot exists, just like a pure communist/socialist society can't exists. You have to take the best of these two worlds: individual liberties and freedom of enterprise, but regulated by clear, reasonable and commonly acknowledged laws that care for the individual, for the community as a whole and for the environment.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The Na'vi don't need to follow any government system because they aren't technically organized by a particular clan member or group of individuals. Since they have a direct connection with Eywa, making it literally impossible for any Na'vi to be atheistic, there is no need for such government. Everyone works for the good of each clan because they want to, because they believe it's Eywa's will.

More than this, the Na'vi know that they can survive and prosper only if they protect and preserve (rather than blindly spoil) Pandora's environment. Eywa is the personification of this consciousness of theirs. Many, many time ago, we humans had it as well.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Unfortunately, we are a bigger, more advanced, more cynical, more possessive conglomeration of people who would most likely all love to work with one another, but cannot per religious, political, and social reasons. We do not all speak the same language as the Na'vi do. The Bible indicates that before Babel, the entire world was united. They were in sin, but nevertheless united as one. Humans will never aquire such a peace like the Na'vi because we are too separated by both physical and spiritual boundries.

This is why people has to See that we are living in the wrong way! We can have very different religious and cultural backgrounds, but basically we live on the same boat, and this boat will sink if we don't start cooperating rather than fighting each other. I know, this sounds like an utopia for me as well, but really... it's the only true way to solve most of our problems.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

So I see many here say, "We can become more like the Na'vi! At least we can try!" It's a nice thought, but it'll never happen. And claiming all sorts of blames against who did what about the environment isn't helping anything. The Climategate papers were released, which showed concrete proof that many of the global warming scientist believers' claims were outright lying, as admitted by themselves in leaked emails. This isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact that's been well-known for a while, and has shocked our nation as well as others, which is why the belief that global warming is caused by us has dropped a staggering 9% in the U.S. since last year. This is a serious case that has gotten people questioning others like Al Gore, who was personally exposed to have made deliberate exaggerations of his "data findings" according the very sources he consulted (I have quotes).

I heard about the Climategate too, and I totally agree with you on this.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

It's time certain facts (as well as myths that are still constituted by some as "factual") to be realized so we can have a true debate on the subject. I believe, as a staunch Christian, that we were put on this earth for two primary reasons: to accept God into our hearts, and to be good stewards of the earth. I believe in cleaner energy and jobs. I believe we shouldn't litter. I believe we should try to find alternate sources of machines and vehicles that won't produce harmful gases... But I also believe we aren't the primary cause for certain factors as indicated by geological surveys and experts who've done their homework in the field.

Again, I'm 100% with you on this. As for studies done by scientists, geologists and other experts... we still don't know exactly how our planet works, so all researches must be "taken wih pincers" (using an expression very popular in my country ). This, however, should not let us think that we can fill Earth with litter. It is our responsiblity to protect our planet, with any means necessary.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I hope this post is understood as a call to action for REAL facts, and not just following the concensus of progressives and the elite who believe their word is "the best thing". Don't just watch a commercial or listen to a like-minded analyst (or even a scientist for that matter) who claims this and that. Look into the other side, and more importantly, look at the other side from the other side's perspective. Let's start getting an education on the matters, not indoctrination from the mainstream media.

Again, I approve every single word you wrote here.

[PunkMaister]

What is it it with Marxists and Islamists and their obsession with death anyway. Yes Speck you did say to someone here that he signed his death warrant. I know it was most likely jest but damn...

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

What is it it with Marxists and Islamists and their obsession with death anyway. Yes Speck you did say to someone here that he signed his death warrant. I know it was most likely jest but damn...

It's "Spock". I enjoy debating fairly with others, and he's quite a learned man. I think he's wrong, but I respect his position...

...And we can all be certain he isn't obsessed with death.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

It's "Spock". I enjoy debating fairly with others, and he's quite a learned man. I think he's wrong, but I respect his position...

...And we can all be certain he isn't obsessed with death.

I'm sorry that PunkMaister is painting me in a bad light. I've made my position clear on the matter, I respect your position also. I'll leave it there for now, I might post some more rebuttals when my mind is a little more rested.

P.S: I am not a fanatical Marxist, and the death thing was purely a joke.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Spock

I'm sorry that PunkMaister is painting me in a bad light. I've made my position clear on the matter, I respect your position also. I'll leave it there for now, I might post some more rebuttals when my mind is a little more rested.

P.S: I am not a fanatical Marxist, and the death thing was purely a joke.

I know. He's a good guy. So are you. Just... in different ways.

...And thank God, man... I need a break too (can't even respond to Tudhalyas at the moment).

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I know. He's a good guy. So are you. Just... in different ways.

...And thank God, man... I need a break too (can't even respond to Tudhalyas at the moment).

Just had a full on week, but I'm off for holidays just now, so give me a week or so to rest up.

[NYSEF816]

i am not exactly sure what the OP is suggesting, but I DO know that economics CAN be used to stimulate environmentalism in a capitalist economy. The two seem at odds, because current technology for fossil fuels is so advanced, but it not necessarily need be that way. back in the 1970's during the oil crisis in the US, the Carter administration drafted a 10 year plan that would slowly invest in alternative energy and have the US COMPLETELY off of any fossil fuels by 2005. but, when oil prices dropped, and the cost of living with fossil fuels less any detrimental cost to the environment became lower then investing in new fuels in the short term, people did not care. its simply human nature, a evolutionary mechanism if you will: why take the harder route if there is an easier route? industrial organization, econometrics and especially behavioral economics all confirm that capitalism is the system 'closest to' human nature, because it is based on potential profit and tradeoff, and a combination of multicollinearity, heteroskedacticity and autocorrelation between human wants and eventual gains

in economics I know there are multiple ways to heighten people's perception of environmental damage. one is property rights, which makes perfect sense. If someone dumps toxic waster into a public lake, who is to sue the perpetrator? sure the government might levy a fine, but where does the government get money to protect this lake? people will not want to pay taxes on anything they dont have an intrinsic benefit from, which property rights would give. its in effect now in alot of coastal areas along the eastern part of the US; in wetland areas the government sells acre lots of land which is deemed 'unbuildable' by current zoning standards. drive by a public beach (asbury park) and a private beach (cape may) and you will INSTANTLY see the difference. and a private beach is one which is owned by a party, but that party doesn't have any specific rights to it; everyone is still allowed onto it.

But i have seen it before on this prticular thread: under a capitalist system, corporations will certainly move towards the most profitable option. does this make them evil? no; they exist to turn a profit, that is the point of a corporation. therefore, if the most profitable option is in sync with the environment, we have won the battle for the future of earth. therefore, conditions have to be manipulated to make it to it is less costly for a corporation to be environmentally friendly as opposed to not.

this becomes tricky because it should be done by creating incentives, not handing out fines and certificates of trade. but as of right now, we are still in the 'dont know what to do so we will fine them' stage.

if the OP is suggesting capitalism should be seen as a potential key ally rather then an intrinsic enemy, i agree. but, again, i really don't know what he said....

[Spock]

Ah, I'm going to need a beer after this, took me while to get the quote templates in position let alone the argument.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The rainforests aren't being destroyed because they're considered "pests" in the area. They're being cut down in their own environments. The Amazon, for instance, which is usually the primary example given, has had only 17% deforested as of 2009, according to the study by Brazil's INPE. I mean, they can see everything. You've got one of their researchers Claudio Almeida looking at satelite images and 20% of the deforested areas were "overgrown with vegetation" over the course of a few years. These are satelite images from last year.

This wasn't what I was insinuating. What I meant was that the rainforests, well, we may as well say native forest have the potential to be destroyed in the future, infact they are slowly being outcompeted by exotic forests and pests. Human industry is something I don't want to deal with, but I don't really want to accept that it isn't having negative effects as well. In response to the "overgrown" areas, its likely exotic weed and shrubbary. Its called primary succession.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Then you've got Patrick Moore. He said, "All these save-the-forests arguments are based on bad science," in an interview from a documentary, Clear-Cutting the Myths. Here we've got one of the founders of Greenpeace, who co-invented the Amazon crisis idea back in the 80s. Then you've got the claims of "20 football fields per minute" worth of Amazonian forest being cut down according to National Geographic... Which, if I just calculated correctly, would mean over 50 times the size of the entire Amazon would've been cut down by now.

Ha, I never took any notice of those claims anyway. I stick to my own interpretations.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Thaumaturgo Sotero Vaz, Brazilian Brigadier General spent 39 years in the military, 18 of those in the Amazon, and laughed, "That's very funny. They don't know the Amazon, believe me. Because all these lands in the north, west, it's almost untouchable because of this great capacity of regeneration."

I'm not going to take his word for it. But I can understand that the rainforests will be able to cope with smaller logging operations through regeneration.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

This presents a real problem to me, because if anything's endangered, we should see less polar bears for all I know, yet according to the NCPA, polar bear numbers have increased from about 5,000... to over 25,000 today. But that's going into global warming.

Polar bears are quite high up in the food chain, I wouldn't worry about them yet. And thats great news if their population is increasing.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

In fact, we shouldn't even be talking about polar bears. The Rainforest Action Network. Al Gore. Tim Keating. The "Hall of Biodiversity" website. Many others. They all say to some extent that we're experiencing increasing amounts of different species of animals constantly going extinct, when most of the estimates (if not all) are based on research by Edward O. Wilson from a Time article back in 2000. The sources say "30,000 species a year" go extinct, others like Gore assert "100 extinctions each day", etc. Wilson argued at least 50,000 species per year were dying out... but these estimates were based on computer models, nothing more. Keating's excuse, when questioned about whether or not he could name a single species he asserted in his estimates, was, "No we cannot, because we don't know what those species are."

I don't know the exact number of species that go, but I know that it won't be sustainable for much longer based on the number of extinctions.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I could claim to you, for example, "I believe watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the skin. Prove me wrong." That's a loaded argument if there ever was one, and we both know anyone could keep anyone busy with statements like that for years.

The argument would be unevident and entirely subjective, based on your imagination of whats inside the melon only.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

There are scientists like ecologist and Science Mag. contributer Robin Chazdon, who said, "You can find species that will show increased growth and increased population as a result of logging." Examples abound from this statement, like in Western Brazil, 1982, when miners cleared a massive land tract area. They finished their work and hired scientists to reforest. Studies as of today show the area to be "virtually indistinguishable from its original form," and "Ninety-five percent of the original animal species have returned..."

I can imagine that the only species that would benefit are exotic and primarily successive species. These are hardy species that grow on newly cleared land. Sure, the natives can return, but only once the orignal eco-system is 'entirely' functional.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

We're thinking of loggers as Mayans: they'll destroy everything and replace it all with man-made things. With all due respect, we're smarter than the Mayans.

Slightly more logical I would say.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

So you're essentially making the claim that the environment is more important than mankind?

No, based on what? Humanity is infinitely smaller than the environment, but that doesn't make us less important.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

China announced at Copenhagen it would reduce its carbon emissions to 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020, which is basically saying, "We're going to do absolutely nothing," which American news outlets praise them for their wonderful goals (we should all be like China). At the current rate of cleaner and more efficient jobs, China is expected to reduce its carbon emissions to about 45% by 2020 even if they did absolutely nothing. India made a bolder claim, reducing 20-25% by 2020, when the current rate of activity actually indicates they'll be at about 18% below 2005 emission levels.

Nothing will come to fruition for any country. Only a small percentage of emmission goals will be completed in my view. China won't get that far either, as you rightly insinuate. But I will be looking forward to China's response to global warming compared with the U.S's response in 50 years time.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

But what does the concept of capitalism have anything to do with the environment? This assumes, of course, that every business and capitalistic ideal is effectively in favor of harming the environment, when it's not. Personal gain does not equal environmental destruction. Gain can be used for good, and claiming something like,

It depends on the setting and context of the gain, will it require the harvesting of natural resources? That is likely the question that will lead to environmental harm.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

is putting words in my mouth. I never said we shouldn't condemn corruption. I said we shouldn't condemn every corporation and company out there because they probably all have, to some extent, some form of corruption residing within. Like Annie Wilkes's line, "That would be like junking a Mercedes
just because it had a broken spring." We should try to fight corruption; I agree. But to fight the company, holding it responsible for one person's bad intentions, is outright stupid, doing no good for anyone.

I fear that if we stop persecuting corporations then they will jump at the chance and become even more corrupt. That is the nature of capitalism.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

People say, "What if the woman was raped? Shouldn't she have an abortion then?" Well then kill the rapist, not the baby. Common sense.

This is a chance for me to be a biologist. We should kill both, as to stop the rapist from committing the offence again, but to also prevent his gene from being passed on, so his child does not committ the offence as well.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Explain the triumphs the free world has experienced because of the free-market system. If not capitalism, government regulation. This takes away the very rights all humans possess, especially considering America's Constitution which states we are all created equal under God, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. If God is the principle source of human rights, the government has no business making statements like "We make the rights." If the government dictates what rights man has (socialism; fascism; communism), there's no boundry where it can go from there.

Capitalism will lead us down an all to familiar path, therefore committing sin under gods law. Human rights will be and have been violated under all political systems.

Continued......

[Spock]

.....Continued

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

John Smith: "Those who do not work do not eat." He got that statement from the Bible. Communism dictates that we must depend on government alone to provide. Capitalism is the only civic system that has survived longer than any other to the extent of governing nations. Capitalism is what gave James Cameron his profit for "Titanic" and "Avatar". Capitalism is what gave you and I private property. Capitalism in America has survived for over 230 years, which is apparently "short-lived" so far...

I am fine with capitalism, (I know!) but it can only exist efficently under certain circumstances, these are quite broad, but they have been crossed. The changes in humanity over the past 100 years dictate so, and we will see the effects in the years to come. That is why I oppose the system. I would trust in the bible, but 2000 years of Chinese whispers and countless contradictions don't do my logic any favours.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

But I disagree. I will concede the point, however, that America in its current state as of the past 15 years, will not last much longer if continued on the same road. But to claim that capitalism is the source for this decline is ludicrous. Capitalism brought the world a slew of inventions, religious freedom, individuality, and freedom to compete in the business world. Such freedoms we hold dear in the free nations of the world, thanks to the capitalist system, would be utterly destroyed if interfered with by the government, who is the only alternative. If you consider it purely run by a band of "fat cats" who step all over the little guys, consider the fact that American jobs are made up of a little over 99% of all employer firms, not big corporations like you presume. I guess we're all stepping on each other.

And that is where you are exactly 100% right. Capitalism brought the world a raft of new things, I do not deny its successful past. As of late though, the exceptional changes in technology, humanity, and the world threated the functionality of capitalism. I don't consider every corporation a fat cat, but It will get worse.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

My father owns his own moving company, and runs it himself along with my mother. He makes (without bills) well over the average American. Should his wealth, that's already squeezed by the government as it is, be distributed evenly among the rest of the population, leaving himself with absolutely no profit? Who decides this, exactly? If the spirit of competition were snuffed and replaced with government-run policies, the world would be in complete ruin. You also aren't considering what else besides total government control leads from such Marxist systems like communism, socialism, and fascism.

Well, if he is that wealthy, then he obviously doesn't need all of his income, this is where the socialist system of a broad middle class, created through taxing upper classes and corporations would work.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

...That's for another debate.

I don't want to extend this debate any further, its barely manageable as it is.

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

What is it it with Marxists and Islamists and their obsession with death anyway. Yes Speck you did say to someone here that he signed his death warrant. I know it was most likely jest but damn...

How can you compare Marxists to Islamists, one is a political system, and one is a religion, people follow both with varying dedication. Don't set the bar for everyone.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

i am not exactly sure what the OP is suggesting, but I DO know that economics CAN be used to stimulate environmentalism in a capitalist economy. The two seem at odds, because current technology for fossil fuels is so advanced, but it not necessarily need be that way. back in the 1970's during the oil crisis in the US, the Carter administration drafted a 10 year plan that would slowly invest in alternative energy and have the US COMPLETELY off of any fossil fuels by 2005. but, when oil prices dropped, and the cost of living with fossil fuels less any detrimental cost to the environment became lower then investing in new fuels in the short term, people did not care. its simply human nature, a evolutionary mechanism if you will: why take the harder route if there is an easier route? industrial organization, econometrics and especially behavioral economics all confirm that capitalism is the system 'closest to' human nature, because it is based on potential profit and tradeoff, and a combination of multicollinearity, heteroskedacticity and autocorrelation between human wants and eventual gains.

Yes, that is human behaviour, for the short term capitalism will be better suited to us, but in the long term we will need another system, even if it isn't a Marxist one, to cope with physical and social changes worldwide.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

in economics I know there are multiple ways to heighten people's perception of environmental damage. one is property rights, which makes perfect sense. If someone dumps toxic waster into a public lake, who is to sue the perpetrator? sure the government might levy a fine, but where does the government get money to protect this lake? people will not want to pay taxes on anything they dont have an intrinsic benefit from, which property rights would give. its in effect now in alot of coastal areas along the eastern part of the US; in wetland areas the government sells acre lots of land which is deemed 'unbuildable' by current zoning standards. drive by a public beach (asbury park) and a private beach (cape may) and you will INSTANTLY see the difference. and a private beach is one which is owned by a party, but that party doesn't have any specific rights to it; everyone is still allowed onto it.

People benefit, as the lake is cleaned up. Over in New Zealand, privatised developments and government developments are generally the same, although privatised developments sometimes go bust and fall into liquidation.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

But i have seen it before on this prticular thread: under a capitalist system, corporations will certainly move towards the most profitable option. does this make them evil? no; they exist to turn a profit, that is the point of a corporation. therefore, if the most profitable option is in sync with the environment, we have won the battle for the future of earth. therefore, conditions have to be manipulated to make it to it is less costly for a corporation to be environmentally friendly as opposed to not.

To manipulate those conditions costs money, therefore it will not happen.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

this becomes tricky because it should be done by creating incentives, not handing out fines and certificates of trade. but as of right now, we are still in the 'dont know what to do so we will fine them' stage.

What could possibly be an incentive?

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

if the OP is suggesting capitalism should be seen as a potential key ally rather then an intrinsic enemy, i agree. but, again, i really don't know what he said....

I believe capitalism won't respond to dangers until its too late, you know this as you've read my blog.

[Woodsprite]

Lol, when I read your responce I thought, "Damn. My rebuttal is gonna be mostly an 'I-agree-with-almost-everything-you've-said' post." If I don't quote certain parts of your statement, it means I agree with no extra comments, (don't wanna make this incredibly long).

Originally Posted by Spock

This wasn't what I was insinuating. What I meant was that the rainforests, well, we may as well say native forest have the potential to be destroyed in the future, infact they are slowly being outcompeted by exotic forests and pests. Human industry is something I don't want to deal with, but I don't really want to accept that it isn't having negative effects as well. In response to the "overgrown" areas, its likely exotic weed and shrubbary. Its called primary succession.

I honestly didn't know you meant that. Had I known, I would've said "I completely agree."

Originally Posted by Spock

Ha, I never took any notice of those claims anyway. I stick to my own interpretations.

And I'm not against that, I'm just saying he said that, and he was one of the founders of Greenpeace.

Originally Posted by Spock

I don't know the exact number of species that go, but I know that it won't be sustainable for much longer based on the number of extinctions.

But I'd ask the question: what would you define as "much longer"? If you mean in the next few centuries, I agree. If you mean in the next few decades, I disagree because our rate of tech-knowledge, as long as it's been accumulating, is still quite a slow process that's taken over 200 years to get as far as we are now. The next few decades aren't going to be a problem.

Originally Posted by Spock

The argument would be unevident and entirely subjective, based on your imagination of whats inside the melon only.

Just had to say I got a big smile when I read that.

Originally Posted by Spock

I can imagine that the only species that would benefit are exotic and primarily successive species. These are hardy species that grow on newly cleared land. Sure, the natives can return, but only once the orignal eco-system is 'entirely' functional.

But what does "entirely functional" mean, in the sense you're putting it? That same ecologist also said that forest fires are also a benefit for certain parts of rainforests, that plantlife that previously received little or no light and water could have a chance to flourish, thus transforming the area into a different environment. I doubt this will prevent the original native life to return, just because of a few changes.

When you say "entirely functional", do you mean "its previous state"? Because I don't think animals will need the exact environment to live in every time something happens to their homes. Sure, it's hard to adapt, but it's been happening for thousands of years and we still see rainforests and animals that live in them. Whether or not the inhabiting life has changed is just a part of nature.

Originally Posted by Spock

No, based on what? Humanity is infinitely smaller than the environment, but that doesn't make us less important.

The way it sounded in your statement before,

...capitalism won't be able to respond to the implications environmental destruction could have, simply because it is not profitable.

To me, that sounded like you were inferring that any system, capitalist or not, has a duty to preserve the environment at all costs. I personally agree that we should be good stewards, but I don't think it should be the government's primary objective, the people should be.

If you were to choose whether or not an entire community of people had to move off their land because a few spotted owls were sighted in the region, would you choose the owls over the people? That brings in the private property issue. If you were living in a non-capitalist society, where the government had the right to take away your home, would it necessarily be right for them to preserve a certain species of animal that was on your property by throwing you out, bulldozing your house, and then creating a perfect environment for the animal to live?

That's not right. In the case of choosing between the environment and mankind, mankind should always be the first choice. Unfortunately that's not the case in many parts of the U.S., and the radical environmentalists are keeping Americans from drilling in their own states like Alaska, just because some of the wildlife will be disrupted. In this case, I say we forget the animals and drill drill drill! Am I against the environment for wanting this? No. I'm just saying there are certain cases where the obvious choice would be mankind, not the environment.

Originally Posted by Spock

It depends on the setting and context of the gain, will it require the harvesting of natural resources? That is likely the question that will lead to environmental harm.

I contend that the world's businesses and farmers involved in harvesting crops and logging are doing what they deem necessary to do their job, nothing more. I don't think anyone's deliberately trying to cause any problems... what's more, I don't think anyone's causing any problems, but again, that's for another debate.

Originally Posted by Spock

I fear that if we stop persecuting corporations then they will jump at the chance and become even more corrupt. That is the nature of capitalism.

Persecuting anyone isn't going to change anything. Just look at the U.S. government! It's persecuted all the time, everyday, 24/7, and they don't change. Corporations do business with profit in mind, true, but corruption is usually a distant second, because the entire barrel rolls on share holders, and it's they who dictate which way the corporation turns. That's one of the reasons why the RDA was still on a tight leash for doing certain things. If the executives go bad, the share holders will know. If they know, many will back out. If enough share holders back out, the corporation dies.

Originally Posted by Spock

This is a chance for me to be a biologist. We should kill both, as to stop the rapist from committing the offence again, but to also prevent his gene from being passed on, so his child does not committ the offence as well.

So you're saying the child of a rapist has a "rapist" gene? That's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Spock

I am fine with capitalism, (I know!) but it can only exist efficently under certain circumstances, these are quite broad, but they have been crossed. The changes in humanity over the past 100 years dictate so, and we will see the effects in the years to come. That is why I oppose the system. I would trust in the bible, but 2000 years of Chinese whispers and countless contradictions don't do my logic any favours.

Agreed... although I disagree with the Bible statement.... yet again, that's for another debate.

Originally Posted by Spock

Well, if he is that wealthy, then he obviously doesn't need all of his income, this is where the socialist system of a broad middle class, created through taxing upper classes and corporations would work.

But capitalism is the nature of competition. If he worked hard and didn't make any profit that he supposedly "didn't need", what would be the point in working? There's absolutely no point if you aren't going to get anything out of it. This creates lazy citizens. There's no sense of attaining anything, becoming something more than you are, or getting a better job with better pay, because all the "extra" would be taken from you... because you "don't need it", according to the government.

[NYSEF816]

unfortunately, I have still not figured out how to use multi-quote. very very saddening, i understand. but spock raised a few points to my prior post which certainly deserve an answer:

People benefit, as the lake is cleaned up. Over in New Zealand, privatised developments and government developments are generally the same, although privatised developments sometimes go bust and fall into liquidation.

as a first point, the average perosn in the US will not assign a positive monetary benefit to the clean-up of a local park lake, even if it actually does benefit them. This is a very interesting observation. The only type of observation I could offer was literally east-coast United States wetlands. Although this seems like a specific field, it is actually not; much of the eastern seaboard of the US in wetlands. So it if a step in the right direction. And here it is literally like buying property. Alot of comapnies have bought these acres or wetlands, which can never be built upon, and put up signs like "this land brought to you by Goldman Sachs", etc. so it is literally like buying land, not investing, but never being able to build upon it.

To manipulate those conditions costs money, therefore it will not happen.

that is true, it will cost tremendous amounts of money. However, especially in the US, the government is quite different then the economic system. although there are theories of 'goldman sachs buying out politicians', etc, as i have a brother that works at goldman sachs, i can GUARENTEE you that if anyone hates government too much, it is goldman sachs and any firm similar to it (and i am not convicting you of being a conspiracy theorist, it will tie into my point). but since the ogvernment is different then the aims of the economy (aka government and politics is concerned with who obtains which goods, where economics is a study of scarcity; how humans deal with an amount of finite resources) the government is in a very unique situation to manipulate this criteria which brings us to my next point....

What could possibly be an incentive?


you managed to call my big contradiction. As you know, i rarely debate, but when I do i promise myself I have a viable alternative to whatever I am debating. in this situation, I really do not. I simply dont know about economics to answer this. However, and you would ahve to confirm this with someone who knows the field, but currently in the US the government offers a 50% instant rebate for solar panels on commercial enterprises. On a larger scale; there is a coal plant LITERALLY 800 meters from where i grew up in new jersey. they are currently in the process of changing froma coal fired plant to wind and solar farms, which will produce slightly less energy (a loss to the company) but they obtain HUGE rebates - up to 70%. so obviously in the long run they are losing money, but economists seems to be taking advantage of the corporate 'short-term' outlook. therefore, to corp. is saying "these people are so dumb we are getting a 70% rebate and only making a littler less energy" and economists at the government are saying "yes for the first 40 years you will make a profit on behalf of the government but after that you will be operating at a potential coal-fired plant-income loss and, therefore (without them knowing), they become environmentally friendly by (albeit unknowngly) choosing one alternative where NPV<0 over their core competency in which NPV>0. And by that time I think it is OK to say that fossil fuels will be a defunct way of producting energy on a large scale, so corporations will be forces to continue with their current production.

I believe capitalism won't respond to dangers until its too late, you know this as you've read my blog.

secretly I believe this too but... I dont know, I am like carl sagan, i believe humanity is just too wonderful to become extinct..... very naive i realize, but i am just hoping (as it seems you did in your blog) that TECHNOLOGY will coe to the rescue. i realize how futile this is but, its better then being hopeless

ultimately, I believe the government can make an effective green movement without seriously compromising economic prosperity. but they have to be very, VERY careful.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Lol, when I read your responce I thought, "Damn. My rebuttal is gonna be mostly an 'I-agree-with-almost-everything-you've-said' post." If I don't quote certain parts of your statement, it means I agree with no extra comments, (don't wanna make this incredibly long).

Fair, fair.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I honestly didn't know you meant that. Had I known, I would've said "I completely agree."

We're in agreement.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

And I'm not against that, I'm just saying he said that, and he was one of the founders of Greenpeace.

Noted.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

But I'd ask the question: what would you define as "much longer"? If you mean in the next few centuries, I agree. If you mean in the next few decades, I disagree because our rate of tech-knowledge, as long as it's been accumulating, is still quite a slow process that's taken over 200 years to get as far as we are now. The next few decades aren't going to be a problem.

Ok, ok. What I meant was that the eco-system won't cope for much longer, I don't want to give it a E.T.A, but I envisage within the next 50-100 yearsit will 'entirely' collapse. Of course, if technology can prevent this collapse from damaging human society then kudos to that.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Just had to say I got a big smile when I read that.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

But what does "entirely functional" mean, in the sense you're putting it? That same ecologist also said that forest fires are also a benefit for certain parts of rainforests, that plantlife that previously received little or no light and water could have a chance to flourish, thus transforming the area into a different environment. I doubt this will prevent the original native life to return, just because of a few changes.

Native species in their native environment are very vulnerable. If they're subject to even the most negligable change then the eco-system can become unstable. Once an area has been logged, or even a forest fire wipes out large tracts of native habitat, the original native species can flourish once again, here is how:

A process will commence after the devastation, provided the variables don't change too much. This process is called ecological succession, a primary species of plant life, such as a tough and hardy grass will grow, this will generally be resistant to dehydration, sunlight, lack of water. This species will then be overtaken to a 'successive' secondary species, they will be less tough, but they will fit into the eco-system alongside the first species for some time. The first species will eventually be eliminated. By this time larger shrubs and trees may start growing, giving shade to other smaller species, then the insect numbers will skyrocket. As more predation occurs, such as newly arrived birds will attack and eat the insects, this is the making of the eco-system. It is almost fully re-established to original condition prior to the devastation. Another few decade or two and the eco-system will be back to being 'entirely functional' and stable. All the species active in this area will be native.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

When you say "entirely functional", do you mean "its previous state"? Because I don't think animals will need the exact environment to live in every time something happens to their homes. Sure, it's hard to adapt, but it's been happening for thousands of years and we still see rainforests and animals that live in them. Whether or not the inhabiting life has changed is just a part of nature.

See above rebuttal.

(get ready for a whole lot more biology psychobable)

Species can survive without their exact habitat, but only within their tolerance range. They will only adapt to the changed in their environment over thousands of years, adaptations are of a genetic nature. What they do to adapt in the interim is called acclimation. Back to tolerance range, this means they will be able to survive when faced with changes to their abiotic (non-living) and biotic (living) factors in their habitat. For example, an abiotic factor could be temperature, global warming affects this quite alot, as a 1 degree temperature increase could spell disaster for thousands of species, as they can't operate in with that temperature increase. Luckily for some species, they can tolerate such changes.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The way it sounded in your statement before,

To me, that sounded like you were inferring that any system, capitalist or not, has a duty to preserve the environment at all costs. I personally agree that we should be good stewards, but I don't think it should be the government's primary objective, the people should be.

If you were to choose whether or not an entire community of people had to move off their land because a few spotted owls were sighted in the region, would you choose the owls over the people? That brings in the private property issue. If you were living in a non-capitalist society, where the government had the right to take away your home, would it necessarily be right for them to preserve a certain species of animal that was on your property by throwing you out, bulldozing your house, and then creating a perfect environment for the animal to live?

That's not right. In the case of choosing between the environment and mankind, mankind should always be the first choice. Unfortunately that's not the case in many parts of the U.S., and the radical environmentalists are keeping Americans from drilling in their own states like Alaska, just because some of the wildlife will be disrupted. In this case, I say we forget the animals and drill drill drill! Am I against the environment for wanting this? No. I'm just saying there are certain cases where the obvious choice would be mankind, not the environment.

I actually agree with you, to be honest I still don't fully understand how you drew that from my statement. Was it because environmental destruction sounded evil or something? I think we should be respectful to the environment and make an effort to preserve native eco-systems, but I also think the goals and needs of humanity come first. Under whatever politcal system. I simply think capitalism won't be able to respond to consequences, priot, concurrent, and future destruction of the environment could have.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I contend that the world's businesses and farmers involved in harvesting crops and logging are doing what they deem necessary to do their job, nothing more. I don't think anyone's deliberately trying to cause any problems... what's more, I don't think anyone's causing any problems, but again, that's for another debate.

They're just making money, thats what they know. A tree cutter doesn't walk into a forest the same way I would, he would be saying: "I get 50 bucks for cutting down this tree, lets get to it". However I would be thinking: "This tree supports a micro-climate of X number of species that is art of X eco-system, whatever".

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Persecuting anyone isn't going to change anything. Just look at the U.S. government! It's persecuted all the time, everyday, 24/7, and they don't change. Corporations do business with profit in mind, true, but corruption is usually a distant second, because the entire barrel rolls on share holders, and it's they who dictate which way the corporation turns. That's one of the reasons why the RDA was still on a tight leash for doing certain things. If the executives go bad, the share holders will know. If they know, many will back out. If enough share holders back out, the corporation dies.

My point was, without the persecution it would open the way for extreme and blatent forms of corruption.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

So you're saying the child of a rapist has a "rapist" gene? That's ridiculous.

Not a specific gene for rape, but other genes that contribute to his attitude and action. Natural selection eliminated this. But modern society combined with don't rock the apple cart attitude has circumvented these fail safes.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Agreed... although I disagree with the Bible statement.... yet again, that's for another debate.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

But capitalism is the nature of competition. If he worked hard and didn't make any profit that he supposedly "didn't need", what would be the point in working? There's absolutely no point if you aren't going to get anything out of it. This creates lazy citizens. There's no sense of attaining anything, becoming something more than you are, or getting a better job with better pay, because all the "extra" would be taken from you... because you "don't need it", according to the government.

Aside from hypothetical wealth, people could be compensated in other ways by the government.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

unfortunately, I have still not figured out how to use multi-quote. very very saddening, i understand. but spock raised a few points to my prior post which certainly deserve an answer:

Just click MultiQuote until the multi part turns blue like this: Multi Quote

If you want to break down peoples posts for quoting just copy and paste the quotation templates around the desired text, I hope this helps.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

as a first point, the average perosn in the US will not assign a positive monetary benefit to the clean-up of a local park lake, even if it actually does benefit them. This is a very interesting observation. The only type of observation I could offer was literally east-coast United States wetlands. Although this seems like a specific field, it is actually not; much of the eastern seaboard of the US in wetlands. So it if a step in the right direction. And here it is literally like buying property. Alot of comapnies have bought these acres or wetlands, which can never be built upon, and put up signs like "this land brought to you by Goldman Sachs", etc. so it is literally like buying land, not investing, but never being able to build upon it.

What is the benfit to the corporation, advertisment? I don't quite get it.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

that is true, it will cost tremendous amounts of money. However, especially in the US, the government is quite different then the economic system. although there are theories of 'goldman sachs buying out politicians', etc, as i have a brother that works at goldman sachs, i can GUARENTEE you that if anyone hates government too much, it is goldman sachs and any firm similar to it (and i am not convicting you of being a conspiracy theorist, it will tie into my point). but since the ogvernment is different then the aims of the economy (aka government and politics is concerned with who obtains which goods, where economics is a study of scarcity; how humans deal with an amount of finite resources) the government is in a very unique situation to manipulate this criteria which brings us to my next point....

Onwards we go.....

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

you managed to call my big contradiction. As you know, i rarely debate, but when I do i promise myself I have a viable alternative to whatever I am debating. in this situation, I really do not. I simply dont know about economics to answer this. However, and you would ahve to confirm this with someone who knows the field, but currently in the US the government offers a 50% instant rebate for solar panels on commercial enterprises. On a larger scale; there is a coal plant LITERALLY 800 meters from where i grew up in new jersey. they are currently in the process of changing froma coal fired plant to wind and solar farms, which will produce slightly less energy (a loss to the company) but they obtain HUGE rebates - up to 70%. so obviously in the long run they are losing money, but economists seems to be taking advantage of the corporate 'short-term' outlook. therefore, to corp. is saying "these people are so dumb we are getting a 70% rebate and only making a littler less energy" and economists at the government are saying "yes for the first 40 years you will make a profit on behalf of the government but after that you will be operating at a potential coal-fired plant-income loss and, therefore (without them knowing), they become environmentally friendly by (albeit unknowngly) choosing one alternative where NPV<0 over their core competency in which NPV>0. And by that time I think it is OK to say that fossil fuels will be a defunct way of producting energy on a large scale, so corporations will be forces to continue with their current production.

.....ah, I hope this happens worldwide and in quick fashion.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

secretly I believe this too but... I dont know, I am like carl sagan, i believe humanity is just too wonderful to become extinct..... very naive i realize, but i am just hoping (as it seems you did in your blog) that TECHNOLOGY will coe to the rescue. i realize how futile this is but, its better then being hopeless

Yes, I hope so too.

Originally Posted by NYSEF816

ultimately, I believe the government can make an effective green movement without seriously compromising economic prosperity. but they have to be very, VERY careful.

Oh do they what....

[NYSEF816]

yea the idea is that, for the corporation, its like an advertisement/PR stunt. they put a sign on the property and they put it in commercials, mailings and stuff that says like 'LOOK! we bought this property to be forever free in new jersey! we are good stewards, so give us your money'. So obviously the only companies willing to invest in advertisement that expensive are the large corporations, no local business is going to buy land for advertising, but its protected all the same.