No that's right, and we have no obligation to take your word on it. — ChatteringMonkey
However, the magma is a lot freaking closer. — James Riley
What is tedious in the extreme is your supposition that one solution will solve the issue. — Banno
When faced with a complex problem, should one just decide that because a solution works in one place it will work everywhere, or should one try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation? We have abundant sunshine in Australia, but the magma is unusually deep because of the age of the continent. Assuming that your solution is the right one for everyone is imperialism. Basically, it's not rational. — Banno
Assuming that your solution is the right one for everyone is imperialism. Basically, it's not rational. — Banno
However, the magma is a lot freaking closer.
— James Riley
The sunlight is on my roof.
So, no, it isn't. — Banno
Australia exports about 350 million tonnes of coal per year to Asia - so yeah, you've got lot's of sunshine you! You've got so much sunshine you're bursting into flames! — counterpunch
True but irrelevant. — Banno
Again, my point is that there are other solutions, that may work as well or better, and yet you obsess with one.
And when this is pointed out, you have doubled down.
You don't see this as a problem. I'm worried for you. — Banno
See if you can list them for yourself. Consider it a first step towards your redemption. Be your own devil's advocate. — Banno
if you think I haven't considered it, you're probably wrong, and after all due consideration I think magma - hydrogen is the best bet. — counterpunch
Think I'll repeat my contribution, just to get it out from under the magma obsession.
When faced with a complex problem the rational thing to do is to try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation.
Let a thousand flowers bloom. — Banno
I'm wondering if you are happy with Counterpunch obsessing on your thread - it keeps it on the top of the discussions list, after all - or if you would prefer a different discussion. — Banno
And the civilizations you are referring to? Seems to me the civilizations in history were far more fragile to collapse.Once systems get overwhelmed, they collapse. Has happened to previous civilizations, can happen to ours. — boethius
I disagree.I don't think population matters much. — boethius
Technology has always been the real factor that the doomsayers have gotten wrong. The typical disaster-in-the-near-future predictions have simply ignored how technology can change the situation and also how markets adapt. And affluence? This isn't a simple thing. The naive idea would be to think that a more affluent economy would have a bigger impact. This actually doesn't go that way: the more affluent society can take into consideration environmental issues and ecological issues far better than a poorer one. Just compare West European policies and practices to let's say those in poorer countries. I think it was Jared Diamond who noticed that the biggest environmental crisis tend to happen in the poorest countries.However, in the equation of Impact = Population x Technology x Affluence; it's the technology and affluence that can be changed significantly in relatively short periods of time — boethius
quantum vacuum fluctuation engine — Benkei
It's funny to see how you consider aspects, such as shareholders and capital rates of return, as inherent to capitalism. They're not. They're fictions introduced by law. Earliest corporations only got limited liability for capital providers because they invested in something worthwhile to the public that they would benefit from themselves (for instance merchants building a bridge increasing commerce). — Benkei
It makes me wonder what you do for a living if you have such little historic and economic knowledge. — Benkei
I didn't raise economics to discuss whether my economic position is correct, merely to point out your representation of my position was false. — Benkei
Finally, "sustaining capitalism" is an utter shit goal. It is and always has been about people, not some system or ideology. People first, system second. Whatever system creates the best world for people is the one we should implement. It isn't capitalism despite the many good things it has brought when the excesses it's been causing since the 90s wasn't a problem yet. — Benkei
I'm against the current type of capitalism, I think it's implementation, especially when the corporation was introduced, has and will lead to untold misery. I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor. — Benkei
The "goodwill" of a company is generated by its labourers so I believe one solution could be (if we must have corporations) is to introduce a dynamic equity system where labourers, over time, become majority shareholders as opposed to those providing capital. — Benkei
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.