There are no sources per se - because it's my philosophical approach. — counterpunch
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 — Pfhorrest
Your philosophical approach is to make up empirical facts without having either the qualifications or the sources — Isaac
I'm not here to make friends. — counterpunch
Your philosophical approach is to make up empirical facts without having either the qualifications or the sources — Isaac
Such as? Provide sources! — 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
Or good arguments, apparently. — Kenosha Kid
You're a left wing, political correctness ideologue. It's a dogma you cling to despite the fact communism has failed, and repeatedly run to genocide - despite me showing you that the anti-capitalist, eco commie approach to sustainability can't work, and despite me showing you the many obvious hypocrisies of political correctness. — 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 — Isaac
So that's a no to my invite to the Annual Kenosha Death of Communism Lament then? There's free vodka and schnapps? Top prize in the raffle this year is a plough?
Ah well. — Kenosha Kid
If you're going to copy and paste it - either post the original, or format the copy as intended. — counterpunch
What here requires a source? — counterpunch
In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. — counterpunch
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 — counterpunch
The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies — counterpunch
people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease — counterpunch
Lawns are a bourgeoisie decadence, fill your boots. — Kenosha Kid
In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. — counterpunch
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 — counterpunch
people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease — counterpunch
that resources are a function of the energy available to create them, is proven by the fact that given sufficient clean energy - we could capture carbon, produce fresh water, irrigate land etc. — counterpunch
So, as you ask so nicely - watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w — counterpunch
people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease — counterpunch
So, as you ask so nicely - watch this: — counterpunch
YouTube is not a source, but it's a start. Find a paper by this Hans Rosling and quote from it the parts that support your assertion... — Isaac
Is it too much for your little brain to work out that carbon capture, desalination, recycling etc, require a lot of energy that wind and solar cannot provide? — counterpunch
It's a tedtalk by a master statistician, and it does prove my point. — counterpunch
If you care about a sustainable future - why are you not delighted to learn that there's no need to stop this, carbon tax that, eat grass and cycle to work? — counterpunch
"Hey, BLM - there's no genocide being committed by the police." — 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.