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
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. — Banno
It's disruption of the market - not the existence of it. — counterpunch
Your ideology prevents you from seeing this. — Banno
Capitalism is a disruption of the market. — Pfhorrest
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
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
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
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 can eat chocolate, have sex, have a drink... and get lots and lots of pleasure with little or no effort. — Rafaelsanchez53
How is it that, given a simple answer - they cannot, or will not see it? — counterpunch
If it were that they think the answer is wrong, surely, they would explain in what way it's wrong — counterpunch
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
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
Who else here supports every idea with academic sources? — counterpunch
what makes you think I'm unqualified? — counterpunch
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
it constrains their fellow man. — counterpunch
You think I'm wrong because you're simply incapable of following the argument. — counterpunch
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.