Effort adds value to everyting, we both agree, but what is mundane, what is accomplishment... for you and me, could be defined in a very different way by other people (and guess what, they would be right)

my actual belief is circles and cycles so I agree with you totally

yes! Thank you for u see standing! I’ve always been “ok” because I focus on others so much it’s a great distraction. Since being single for first time in 12 years, I’ve been working on myself before I try another relationship where I sk the same cycle and end up in the same torment I create. Thank you for noticing my reaching out! Som people obv missed the point of my post as I don’t think I have any answers or think I know anything esp “it all”. This is literally a thought post so to speak, thinking out loud and asking for others opinions on the matter to further myself and my thinking so once I get back out there I’m personally better and in turn can worry and rake care of others as I’ve always done but even better! :)

thank you! And to answer (3) that’s what I’m here asking/doing So again thank you for your very insightful input!

thank you! Very insightful comment indeed! Although I will pass on the voting example hahah as I don’t partake in that broken rigged system ppl seem to think is democracy ‍♂️. Haha capitalism is what we are and money is what controls it all, but don’t get me started on politics hahaha

lmao how you guys get so off topic? Lmaoooo but seeing we r here, capitalism is absolutely a reason of not the main one for starvation. As I said in my OP, we are guaranteed survival basically from birth with how society currently is. The only thing making people starve is not having he $ to buy food. I would EASILY argue that capitalism is as bad if not worse than a monarchy or dictatorship or communism or socialism in that aspect. And yes I understand we get free will and democracy.....but oh wait, do we really? We are NOT a democracy and anyine at this point that doesn’t see that I’m not waisting my breath on as they are happy in there ignorance bubble and more power to them cause I’ve heard it’s bliss (if only my brain worked that way). But to counterpunch specifically, you said people starve cause of blah blah it’s not capitalism? Your just flat wrong and the fact you think that just made me sad honestly, it was a good intelligent convo, input and even side of the argument from you until that. You are completely blinded by your ideals it’s not even funny, more sad :/

dude everyone’s input is awesome except yours... you have your response now got he hell away. Your too opinionated for this kind of conversation. Unless you have some valid input and that doesn’t mean waiting for someone to say anything just to shit on them or argue. Fuck off bro!

thank you! And I like that Crowley quote a lot! :) thank you for your input!

thank you!! This dude Is ridiculous I’m telling you! One of those pull crap out of the air hoping something sticks, semantics extraordinare!

Like I said - you're not capable of following an argument. You want to sit there, wide eyed, and be spoon fed. Had it occurred to you that I'm defining a philosophical approach, and have made other comments - applying the same approach to a range of issues? Every issue either feeds back to some fundamentals - or is projected onto a sustainable future to discern its truth value, moral value, and or utility. There are no sources per se - because it's my philosophical approach. But then, I only told you I AM A PHILOSOPHER about a dozen times.

There are no sources per se - because it's my philosophical approach. — counterpunch

Your philosophical approach is to make up empirical facts without having either the qualifications or the sources to establish whether they're the actually likely to be the case or not?

I thought you'd said earlier that your approach was to take science seriously.

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

Again, that strikes me as a perfectly possible consequence of markets themselves, for instance a more successful trader edging out a competitor who becomes more peripheral. You could add regulation to avoid it, but that's not market forces at work, quite the opposite. Markets are about surplus: you have to start with more than you can use of *something*. There's no guarantee of also having less of the same value of something else you need.

Your philosophical approach is to make up empirical facts without having either the qualifications or the sources — Isaac

Such as? Provide sources!

I'm not here to make friends. — counterpunch

Or good arguments, apparently. But congrats on the not making friends thing. You've overachieved if anything.

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

Your philosophy. No sources.

There you go.

If you like to provide your preferred form for the citation I'd be happy to make a proper reference for it.

Or good arguments, apparently. — Kenosha Kid

You've demonstrated repeatedly that you cannot recognise a good argument. 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.

My social skills are bad - I know this.

Your arguments are bad - I've shown you, and you still don't know.

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

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.

What here requires a source?

It requires formatting - because I'm commenting on my own post. If you're going to copy and paste it - either post the original, or format the copy as intended. I don't see anything that requires a source. If you do, you could always ask: "Do you have any further information on that?"

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

Yes, that would be a no! The same no - you gave my open invitation to engage with philosophy on a philosophy forum. On second thoughts, perhaps I will attend; only, I'll arrive on an ATV, do donuts on the lawn, blare loud music so no one else can here themselves talk, and piss in the punchbowl!

Lawns are a bourgeoisie decadence, fill your boots.

If you're going to copy and paste it - either post the original, or format the copy as intended. — counterpunch

Yep, my bad.

What here requires a source? — counterpunch

Just in that section, there's...

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

Then in the rest of your contribution, there's

people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease — counterpunch

So, "Do you have any further information on that?"

Lawns are a bourgeoisie decadence, fill your boots. — Kenosha Kid

Indeed. Well your commie club meeting in the pissy corner of an underground carpark, still a no, thanks!

That which does not kill us eh! — Book273

Makes us dumber ...

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

What about these comments requires a source? They are a logical argument. The premise; 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. No source is necessary or possible. I cannot cite an understanding of basic physics. Or logical implication.

An example of something that could use a source is this:

people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease — counterpunch

So, as you ask so nicely - watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

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

The second part is not a fact. You've not shown that energy supply is the only factor involved in assessing our ability to do these things, and on the face of it, it seems extraordinary unlikely that it would be.

So, as you ask so nicely - watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w — 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...

...if you're remotely interested in taking this seriously, of course, which I've seen absolutely no evidence of thus far.

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

Watched it. No mention at all of the circumscription you put here on the factors affecting access to food. Not one.

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?

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

Youtube is merely a platform. It's a tedtalk by a master statistician, and it does prove my point. You lefties are addicted to your pain. Given statistical proof it doesn't exist - you don't change your views. You attack the source.

"Hey, BLM - there's no genocide being committed by the police."
"Racist!"

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? Why don't you want a prosperous sustainable future? Is it that you eco commie ideologues want to stuff your mistaken "limits to growth" hypothesis - down the throat of capitalism and hope it chokes?

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

Yes. That's why I leave that sort of thing to experts in those various fields. And you've still provided nothing to back up your assertion that no other factors are involved.

It's a tedtalk by a master statistician, and it does prove my point. — counterpunch

Where? I've watched the whole thing. Nowhere does he even mention the causes of mortality. Not even in passing or implication. Nothing. The whole lecture is about how third world countries are becoming more developed, more mid-level and that within-region variation is high. Have you perhaps accidentally posted the wrong link?

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

Because you've not provided a shred of evidence. Not one single tiny hint that anything you claim is actually the case.

"Hey, BLM - there's no genocide being committed by the police." — counterpunch

No one is accusing police of genocide. A fine example of the straw men that must be resorted to when reality is too much to handle.

I've watched the whole thing. — Isaac

Maybe you should watch it again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w — counterpunch