Malthus' argument was that population grows geometrically, while productive land grows arithmetically, so we'd starve. Instead, we invented tractors! Now, 8 billion people are fed. — counterpunch

...and the data shows Malthus to be wrong, productivity grows exponentially.

Further, most of those who are fed by the economic miracle live in such bastions of capitalism as China, India and Indonesia.

Here's the problem: you attribute the improvements to agriculture to the invisible hand. But they are the result of research and engineering, not economics. Your ideology prevents you from seeing this.

Yes, Malthus was wrong. Hurrah! I'm glad you admit that.

Malthus is the spiritual father of the left wing, limits to growth, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, eco commie approach to sustainability. And he's wrong!

At last we are in agreement - but only because you thought you were being disagreeable.

Malthus is the spiritual father of the left wing, limits to growth, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, eco commie approach to sustainability. And he's wrong! — counterpunch

Again, you show that you view the world through ideological glasses.

Again, you show that you view the world through ideological glasses. — Banno

Oh dear me banno - this began with Pantagruel saying something like:

"The challenge is for people to use their gifts for the collective good."

The collective good isn't good, it doesn't work, and it won't secure a sustainable future. It is political economy - but don't imagine I'm blinded by devotion to an ideology. You're kidding yourself. I AM a philosopher. Everything is, and has been open to question - in the formation of these opinions.

but don't imagine I'm blinded by devotion to an ideology. — counterpunch

...no...

...never...

Well, I'm not blinded by ideology. Advocating recognition of a scientific understanding of reality is a significant imposition on capitalism, because capitalism puts profit first - not scientific truth. It's capitalism that has used science as a tool, and ignored science as an understanding of reality, and so misapplied technology.

I would place responsibility for sustainability with producers - not as you would, with consumers. First I'd support capitalism with limitless clean energy from magma, but then I'd require increasing responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality across sectors of the economy, by creating a science based, level regulatory playing field - to end the race to the bottom.

Don't imagine for a moment, that just because I'm explaining to Pantygruel that communism is a nightmare, I think capitalism is perfect - because it isn't. It works. It allows for some measure of freedom and dignity. But failure to recognise science as truth is still a catastrophic failure, bound to result in the extinction of humankind.

It's disruption of the market - not the existence of it. — counterpunch

Capitalism is a disruption of the market.

Your ideology prevents you from seeing this. — Banno

I don't know. I suspect whatever his ideology he'd be equally blind. His precise ideology just means he's blind and vile.

Capitalism is a disruption of the market. — Pfhorrest

In its current guise, certainly. Divorcing the fate of the company from the date of the trader has corrupted it immensely. When it can be in the trader's interest to destroy his own company, market forces are rather irrelevant.

I don't know. I suspect whatever his ideology he'd be equally blind. His precise ideology just means he's blind and vile. — Kenosha Kid

I just wanted to mention Žižek.

Capitalism is a disruption of the market. — Pfhorrest

In its current guise, certainly. Divorcing the fate of the company from the date of the trader has corrupted it immensely. When it can be in the trader's interest to destroy his own company, market forces are rather irrelevant. — Kenosha Kid

I was thinking more of how it being possible for rich people to extract money from poor people by owning the things they need to use and charging them for that use creates incentives for the rich to buy even more of the things that the poor need, which distorts the market, making those things even more expensive and so more profitable for an ever-shrinking set of rich and unattainable for an ever-growing set of poor.

I hate autocorrect. Especially after wine.

I think there's a massive overlap between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about wherein a company becomes a resource for a small number of people to extract money and move on. There are other factors, for instance creating demand for useless products which is less like trade and more like welfare. But a trader who owns the means of production and who successfully aggregates wealth by those means doesn't strike me as a corruption of the market, just an undesirable possibility of the market. Owning one's means of production, having workers... these are as old as markets themselves, surely.

But a trader who owns the means of production and who successfully aggregates wealth by those means doesn't strike me as a corruption of the market, just an undesirable possibility of the market. Owning one's means of production, having workers... these are as old as markets themselves, surely. — Kenosha Kid

True, which is why I’m not against markets, nor against privately owned means of products per se, but against concentration of the means of production into few hands, such that some people own more than they themselves use, and others own none and instead use the unused excess that others own; and against things that lead toward rather than away from that kind of situation, such as legitimating contracts that charge for the mere temporary use of something, rather than a trade of goods or services (where a service involves actually doing something, not just allowing someone else to do something).

That separation of people into non-owning workers and non-working owners, laborers and capitalists, is the defining feature of capitalism. All the stuff about markets and private ownership and workplaces is only relevant because it’s thought bu someone or other to be either a cause of or an effect of capital ownership being thus concentrated.

The purpose of life is to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide, which humans do through breathing. The resultant energy given from the burning of oxygen on a cellular level, powers the body. The carbon dioxide that you have produced so far, is still out there in the universe, so if you were to die tomorrow, you still would have completed your purpose.

you guys were so mellow back in the day... What's wrong with some tempo?

Part of the universe being important to you is for its ability to help you enjoy it in other ways.

But another part of it being important to you is for its informing of your understanding of it, and yourself.

One way you can be important to the rest of the universe is to do good things for it, to help others to enjoy living.

And another way is to be a source of information, to help others understand it, and themselves.

So you might flesh all of this out, a bit poetically, as that the meaning of life is to learn, to teach, to love, and to be loved: for both truths and goods to flow through you from as far and wide as possible to as far and wide as possible. — Pfhorrest

I’m thinking that I’d like to rephrase that “love and be loved” part in a way that’s a little more parallel to “learn and teach”: I’m looking for some verb that means to receive good things, something in the vein of “to earn” or “to win” (Spanish “ganar” seems in the ballpark, but I’m looking for English), and then another verb meaning to give good things, maybe to help or to aid? Any suggestions?

I set out meaning and purpose, insofar as it's possible to discern:

I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated.

An answer that does not construe the very existence of human beings as problematic.

Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation.

An approach that identifies the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis, and in those same terms - describes the possibility of a prosperous, sustainable future.

The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows?

An approach with ontological implications - a way of being, that implies the existence of an ultimate meaning or purpose to be discovered.

It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it.

And it falls upon stoney ground. I cannot explain it. Is it ego? Is it impossible for them to admit they are wrong? Or jealousy - the impossibility of admitting I am right? Is it cowardice - that they hide from reality? Or self hatred - do they think themselves unworthy of existence? How is it that, given a simple answer - they cannot, or will not see it?

"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law". -Alistair Crowley.

Don't get me wrong, Crowley was a nutter, but he has a point. Gain the experiences you want, without wondering what "the point" is of all of it. If/when you figure that out it will only be applicable to you anyway, so no one other than you can answer it. The point of my life is far different from yours, which makes sense. Remember, there are no points awarded at the end of your days for arriving there in pristine condition. Live, play, enjoy, and seek out whatever you like. It gets shorter as you go eh.

I can eat chocolate, have sex, have a drink... and get lots and lots of pleasure with little or no effort. — Rafaelsanchez53

True, but the pleasure is passing until the next round. There is minimal sense of accomplishment. When things are too easy we do not value them as they become mundane, rather than an accomplishment. These are dependent on one's abilities. Making a bed is not an accomplishment for most, for a stroke survivor it may be a massive accomplishment. Getting a degree for some is as difficult, or as easy, as making a bed. Same result, very different feeling of accomplishment.

No he doesn't have a point. Crowely was a Satanist, and member of the Hellfire Club; a high society amoral debaucher. "Do what thou wilt" was intended to be destructive of all social and moral values. It is an incantation of evil - reminiscent of the Nietzschean 'will to power' underlying Nazism.

It was certainly not supportive of societal morals, unless "what thou wilt" was to support society's moral values. I find it interesting that people immediately assume that if one is left to do what one wants the fall of societal morals will be on the top of the list. Says a lot about the one making the assumption.
The first three descriptors are correct, although he never did admit to being a Satanist. Again, the assumption that, because of the first three, he can not have a valid point is interesting: Why not?

LaVeyan Satanism and Nietzsche are both overreactions to overbearing Christian moralism. They are great in their criticisms of the faults of the latter, but then develop faults just as egregious in the other direction themselves.

The true path is to reject the bad faith of dogma and the bad objectivity of transcendentalism, without sacrificing the good faith of freedom and the good objectivity of universalism; equivalently, to avoid falling into bad, cynical skepticism, and bad, relativistic, subjectivism, but rightly adopting good, critical skepticism, and good, phenomenal subjectivism.

It doesn't work that way. People support law and order, not because they need telling what to do - but because it constrains their fellow man. If "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" - it's not what I would do, but what I fear you may do - and what I must do to resist the imposition of your will upon me, that destroys societal values.

How is it that, given a simple answer - they cannot, or will not see it? — counterpunch

They think the answer is wrong. It's not rocket science.

Did you somehow miss that class in your 'Other people have different opinions to you' lessons?

If it were that they think the answer is wrong, surely, they would explain in what way it's wrong - something they haven't done, and you haven't done, because, it's not wrong. It's grade A obvious that science has been used but not observed; it's undeniable that technology has been applied to achieve the ends of ideology - like, 70,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War - obviously wrong. And it's equally obvious that applying the right technology - in accord a scientific understanding of reality, is how to secure a sustainable future. So, what did I get wrong? Did I look past the overlapping religious, political and economic ideological matrix of the false reality you inhabit; and it's something you are unable to do?

If it were that they think the answer is wrong, surely, they would explain in what way it's wrong — counterpunch

Why would they offer you that courtesy when you've not offered them the courtesy of explaining why you are right? You're totally unqualified to comment yourself and you've not provided any supporting citation from those who are. Why would we put in effort you are not prepared to put in.

I do not understand your reply. I've done nothing but explain why I'm right.

Do you need a citation to prove that in 1634, Galileo was arrested and tried for heresy upon proving earth orbits the sun? Do you need a citation to explain that religion supressed science as truth?

Do you need a citation to explain that the industrial revolution began around 1730 - using science for industrial power and profit, even while science as truth was supressed by a church that burnt people alive for heresy right through to 1792?

Do you not know that Darwin wandered around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick about the religious, political and social implications of evolution, before finally putting pen to paper in 1859? Did you not know that even then, over 200 years since Galileo - his theory was met with howls of protest from the Church that continue even unto this day?

Did you not know that Creationists are trying to infiltrate education, and that Answers In Genesis (AiG) has built a life-size Noah’s ark, costing $100 million - in Kentucky, USA? What - in any of this, needs independent verification you can't get from Bing? Who else here supports every idea with academic sources? And what makes you think I'm unqualified?

Do you need a citation to prove that in 1634, Galileo was arrested and tried for heresy upon proving earth orbits the sun? Do you need a citation to explain that religion supressed science as truth? — counterpunch

No, that's common knowledge.

Do you need a citation to explain that the industrial revolution began around 1730 - using science for industrial power and profit, even while science as truth was supressed by a church that burnt people alive for heresy right through to 1792? — counterpunch

No. That too is common knowledge.

None of these fact support your conclusion. What have either got to do with the conclusion that capitalism is inseparably linked to agricultural technology, or that geothermal energy is a viable source?

Who else here supports every idea with academic sources? — counterpunch

Alarmingly few. Most do not make so many heterodox claims though.

what makes you think I'm unqualified? — counterpunch

You've already told us your educational level.

None of these fact support your conclusion. What have either got to do with the conclusion that capitalism is inseparably linked to agricultural technology, or that geothermal energy is a viable source? — Isaac

Ah, I have my answer. You think I'm wrong because you're simply incapable of following the argument. Phew. It's not me! That's such a relief, thanks!

it constrains their fellow man. — counterpunch

So people need laws to tell them what to do because otherwise they will do what they want, and that works out badly for everyone else, hence the requirement for constraining....

Tell me again why we are concerned about saving people? Seriously, if I need laws to make sure my fellow man does no evil against me then, logically, having less fellow men around me makes me, and everyone else, safer. And we are back at letting the virus run free for the betterment of humanity.

That which does not kill us eh!

You think I'm wrong because you're simply incapable of following the argument. — counterpunch

The argument you were referring to in full...

I set out meaning and purpose, insofar as it's possible to discern:

I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated.

An answer that does not construe the very existence of human beings as problematic.

Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation.

An approach that identifies the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis, and in those same terms - describes the possibility of a prosperous, sustainable future.

The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows?

An approach with ontological implications - a way of being, that implies the existence of an ultimate meaning or purpose to be discovered.

It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it.

And it falls upon stoney ground. I cannot explain it. Is it ego? Is it impossible for them to admit they are wrong? Or jealousy - the impossibility of admitting I am right? Is it cowardice - that they hide from reality? Or self hatred - do they think themselves unworthy of existence? How is it that, given a simple answer - they cannot, or will not see it? — counterpunch

It does not once mention Galileo, nor the oppression of the church.

It does mention a lot about geothermal energy, and how capitalist approaches can save humanity.

So no. It's got nothing to do with my not following an argument and everything to do with you talking about stuff you're unqualified to talk about without citing your sources.