FaceBook logging IP
-
@intertravel said:
I find any 'solution' to current 'problems' that involves the death through starvation and disease of 99.999% of the population of this planet to be simply evil
wtf are you talking about ? Did you post in the wrong thread or is it in any way related to what we said ?About Keynes ? Just a few years ago, just pronouncing that name in front of you people was nearly a communist coming-out... And now that the year 2008 has made nasty cracks in the nice "American way of life" scheme and its viability, everyone seem to rediscover Keynes, claim that he was right from the beginning, and that it was possible to make the capitalist system good and sustainable with a few control rules...
Every retarded theory like sustainable development seems good enough for these people to leave the old privilege system unchanged.
-
@toshir0 said:
Malthus has always clearly been an enemy.
Eh? He's simply plain wrong. The logic following from his hypothesis is fine, but the hypothesis - that food supplies increase geometrically whilst population increases exponentially - has been empirically proven wrong.This isn't like peak oilers, or your friend Georgescu-Roegen, who suffer from logic errors - Malthus proposed a falsifiable hypothesis that has subsequently been falsified. If his hypothesis had been correct, everything else he said would have been correct too - whether you like it or not. How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Wiki said:
Now that I understand your "bunk", I'm really amazed... didn't you know [url=http://www.peakoil.net/]that[/url] ? Or more probably you're on the denial side. The waking will be painful, I'm afraid.The reduced availability of energy sources (see peak oil)
Bunk.
-
@toshir0 said:
@intertravel said:
Er, it's what degrowth means. That degrowthers don't realise it means they're not malevolent, but they are bloody stupid. Degrowth means an end to plentiful food, to medical care, to sanitation and clean water. It means either killing billions - which is the kinder solution - or letting them starve to death or die of associated diseases. When killing billions is the nicer option of the two your proposal leaves us with, I'm willing to stick my neck out and call it an evil idea.I find any 'solution' to current 'problems' that involves the death through starvation and disease of 99.999% of the population of this planet to be simply evil
wtf are you talking about ? Did you post in the wrong thread or is it in any way related to what we said ?
-
@toshir0 said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Wiki said:
Now that I understand your "bunk", I'm really amazed... didn't you know that ? Or more probably you're on the denial side. The waking will be painful, I'm afraid.The reduced availability of energy sources (see peak oil)
Bunk.
Peak oil is either trivial, or nonsensical. Either it means that (trivially) at some point a peak in production will be reached, or that there is some magic effect that happens at that time (which is obviously nonsensical). Peak oil theory is in the same class of religion/pseudo-science as astrology, homeopathy, the justification for SSDS, and so-on. If instead of talking about peak oil, you talk about peak energy you can see what a ridiculous argument it is immediately.
-
@intertravel said:
How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
On the political field.He was acting for the well-being of a small class of people, not for the common good. That's why I call him an enemy, undepending on the uncorrectness of his hypothesis. But I'm happy to hear from you that he was wrong, we're OK on that point so exit Malthus.
-
@intertravel said:
Peak oil theory is in the same class of religion/pseudo-science as astrology, homeopathy, the justification for SSDS, and so-on.
Exactly. It assumes we're too stupid, as a species, to come up with an alternative to oil when it becomes expensive. And frankly, if that's the case, we deserved to go extinct. There's no difference between oil getting expensive and whale oil getting expensive. (On that note, the best thing the US could do to spur "green" technologies is to raise the tax on oil to Euroweenie levels. That won't be done, even by Obama, because it's political suicide.)
Coincidentally, it's pretty much the same mistake Malthus made.
-
@toshir0 said:
@intertravel said:
That still makes no sense. Is gravity a political theory? Of course not. Nor is Malthusianism. It's either right or wrong, whether or not it agrees with how you'd like the world to be. Malthus began with an if statement - his food supply/population growth hypothesis - and then showed what would logically follow if the hypothesis was correct. The hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect, but his logic was just fine.How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
On the political field.
-
@toshir0 said:
About Keynes ? Just a few years ago, just pronouncing that name in front of you people was nearly a communist coming-out... And now that the year 2008 has made nasty cracks in the nice "American way of life" scheme and its viability, everyone seem to rediscover Keynes, claim that he was right from the beginning, and that it was possible to make the capitalist system good and sustainable with a few control rules...
Oh, missed that bit before - or forgot to respond. You're confusing Keynesian theories of government with Keynsian economics. There's a big difference.
To go back to the point about 'degrowth', let me ask you a simple question. Who has more free time: a subsistence farmer, or a multi-millionaire? That many of us choose to use our free time to work in order to acquire stuff is not the point - it's economic growth which has given us the free time to spend as we choose. 'Degrowth' is the idea that by making us poorer, we will have more free time, which is obvious nonsense.
-
@intertravel said:
@toshir0 said:
@intertravel said:
That still makes no sense. Is gravity a political theory? Of course not. Nor is Malthusianism. It's either right or wrong, whether or not it agrees with how you'd like the world to be. Malthus began with an if statement - his food supply/population growth hypothesis - and then showed what would logically follow if the hypothesis was correct. The hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect, but his logic was just fine.How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
On the political field.It's also pretty ironic that someone who wants to drastically reduce the world population is criticizing someone else for, and I quote, "acting for the well-being of a small class of people".
-
@blakeyrat said:
@intertravel said:
To be fair, he doesn't want that at all. He just can't see that it's a necessary part of the process of achieving his aim.@toshir0 said:
@intertravel said:
That still makes no sense. Is gravity a political theory? Of course not. Nor is Malthusianism. It's either right or wrong, whether or not it agrees with how you'd like the world to be. Malthus began with an if statement - his food supply/population growth hypothesis - and then showed what would logically follow if the hypothesis was correct. The hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect, but his logic was just fine.How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
On the political field.It's also pretty ironic that someone who wants to drastically reduce the world population is criticizing someone else for, and I quote, "acting for the well-being of a small class of people".
-
@blakeyrat said:
@intertravel said:
@toshir0 said:
It's also pretty ironic that someone who wants to drastically reduce the world population is criticizing someone else for, and I quote, "acting for the well-being of a small class of people".@intertravel said:
That still makes no sense. Is gravity a political theory? Of course not. Nor is Malthusianism. It's either right or wrong, whether or not it agrees with how you'd like the world to be. Malthus began with an if statement - his food supply/population growth hypothesis - and then showed what would logically follow if the hypothesis was correct. The hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect, but his logic was just fine.How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
On the political field.But if that goal is achieved that small class of people will be the only people ergo it will benefit all humanity
-
@intertravel said:
@blakeyrat said:
@intertravel said:
To be fair, he doesn't want that at all. He just can't see that it's a necessary part of the process of achieving his aim.@toshir0 said:
It's also pretty ironic that someone who wants to drastically reduce the world population is criticizing someone else for, and I quote, "acting for the well-being of a small class of people".@intertravel said:
That still makes no sense. Is gravity a political theory? Of course not. Nor is Malthusianism. It's either right or wrong, whether or not it agrees with how you'd like the world to be. Malthus began with an if statement - his food supply/population growth hypothesis - and then showed what would logically follow if the hypothesis was correct. The hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect, but his logic was just fine.How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
On the political field.I'm pretty sure that if done gradually it could be less drastic, like decreasing birth rates and such, like it was done in SG-1
Who knew my post would generate such debate, also it seems that FaceBook and not Google is the one that is going to become our overlord, I need to go back and change the banners and the words for my speech/pledge.
-
@serguey123 said:
@blakeyrat said:
@intertravel said:
@toshir0 said:
It's also pretty ironic that someone who wants to drastically reduce the world population is criticizing someone else for, and I quote, "acting for the well-being of a small class of people".@intertravel said:
That still makes no sense. Is gravity a political theory? Of course not. Nor is Malthusianism. It's either right or wrong, whether or not it agrees with how you'd like the world to be. Malthus began with an if statement - his food supply/population growth hypothesis - and then showed what would logically follow if the hypothesis was correct. The hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect, but his logic was just fine.How can he be a friend or enemy any more than Newton?
On the political field.But if that goal is achieved that small class of people will be the only people ergo it will benefit all humanity
And you could be Facebook friends with the entire population of the world
-
@intertravel said:
Peak oil is either trivial, or nonsensical. Either it means that (trivially) at some point a peak in production will be reached, or that there is some magic effect that happens at that time (which is obviously nonsensical)
(Never encoutered such a blindness / "naiveness".) Yes, so, don't be worried, forget my naughty naughty words, there will always be an infinity of oil available, I was just joking. Farewell, my fellow !
-
@toshir0 said:
there will always be an infinity of oil available
It's about replacing energy sources when the oil's gone. Not about believing there's infinity+1 oil.
I'm personally more concerned about other resources; most notably the rare earth metals that are part of every electronic device you own.
-
@dhromed said:
I'm personally more concerned about other resources; most notably the rare earth metals that are part of every electronic device you own.
Totally OK with that.@dhromed said:
It's about replacing energy sources when the oil's gone.
But oil is not only an energy source, it's a lot more useful for the chemicals industry (plastics, medicine, and so on) and we have no alternative today. Oh, but I forgot : "they" will find a solution when it's needed so no worries.
-
@toshir0 said:
@dhromed said:
It's about replacing energy sources when the oil's gone.
But oil is not only an energy source, it's a lot more useful for the chemicals industry (plastics, medicine, and so on) and we have no alternative today. Oh, but I forgot : "they" will find a solution when it's needed so no worries.As soon as it becomes profitable to replace oil, why wouldn't it be done?
Of course, if we were in your utopic money-less society, there'd be no profit motive for replacing oil, and we'd be fucked. But as-is, peak oil is nothing to worry about.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@toshir0 said:
@dhromed said:
As soon as it becomes profitable to replace oil, why wouldn't it be done?It's about replacing energy sources when the oil's gone.
But oil is not only an energy source, it's a lot more useful for the chemicals industry (plastics, medicine, and so on) and we have no alternative today. Oh, but I forgot : "they" will find a solution when it's needed so no worries.Of course, if we were in your utopic money-less society, there'd be no profit motive for replacing oil, and we'd be fucked. But as-is, peak oil is nothing to worry about.
Because the profitable choice is always the correct choice?
-
@toshir0 said:
]But oil is not only an energy source, it's a lot more useful for the chemicals industry (plastics, medicine, and so on) and we have no alternative today.
That's one of the better reasons for switching away from oil as a fuel source, but still not a very good one. The amount of oil needed for plastics and so-on is very small, compared to the amount we burn. There'll be plenty left for petro-chemicals even if we used up all the oil it's economical to use for fuel - although it would be a bit more expensive, obviously.@toshir0 said:
@dhromed said:
I'm personally more concerned about other resources; most notably the rare earth metals that are part of every electronic device you own.
Totally OK with that.Worth pointing out that rare earth metals aren't actually very rare at all. Environmental concerns have prevented exploitation of North American resources, for example. If you're looking for a speculative investment, there are a couple of small US rare earth mining companies that are worth a look - if they're ever permitted to start mining, they'll suddenly be immensely valuable, and there's a reasonable prospect the US might change the law in order to encourage alternative energy stuff and lessen the reliance on China.
-
@serguey123 said:
Because the profitable choice is always the correct choice?
Depends on what criteria you use to measure "correct". What point are you trying to make?
-
@blakeyrat said:
@serguey123 said:
Because the profitable choice is always the correct choice?
Depends on what criteria you use to measure "correct". What point are you trying to make?Ok, what word should I use, my point is "Will the profitable choice always coincide with humanity best interest?" or something like that, my word choices and expresions are somewhat limited in this language.
-
@serguey123 said:
Ok, what word should I use, my point is "Will the profitable choice always coincide with humanity best interest?" or something like that, my word choices and expresions are somewhat limited in this language.
I guess I still don't get your point. You seem to just be restating the same question. Maybe I'm just dense today.
-
@serguey123 said:
If I understand what you're asking, then the answer 'only with a long-term view' should make sense. It's possible for people to make bad decisions in the short-term, but if they're sufficiently bad they'll go bust and others will replace them and do things right. If someone plans long-term, they'll make more money long-term, even if (perhaps) less in the short-term. This is the root of almost all the WTFs we see, ultimately: people will do something that makes sense only in the short-, or sometimes very, very short-term.@blakeyrat said:
@serguey123 said:
Because the profitable choice is always the correct choice?
Depends on what criteria you use to measure "correct". What point are you trying to make?Ok, what word should I use, my point is "Will the profitable choice always coincide with humanity best interest?" or something like that, my word choices and expresions are somewhat limited in this language.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I guess I still don't get your point. You seem to just be restating the same question. Maybe I'm just dense today.
Not really, is just that I don't know how to put this in words without sounding like a bleeding heart moron which is something I try to avoid most of the time
-
@intertravel said:
If I understand what you're asking, then the answer 'only with a long-term view' should make sense. It's possible for people to make bad decisions in the short-term, but if they're sufficiently bad they'll go bust and others will replace them and do things right. If someone plans long-term, they'll make more money long-term, even if (perhaps) less in the short-term. This is the root of almost all the WTFs we see, ultimately: people will do something that makes sense only in the short-, or sometimes very, very short-term.
Well I was referring more to society than to single humans, but I see your point. However is hard to evaluate the long term as we can't predict the future and to define what is good for the individual and for society as they sometimes contradict each other.
Although using profit to evaluate/make decisions is perhaps the simpler or more obvious delimitator/condition I think/hope there should be a better/more efficient way to produce a more consistent result set as I think the current system sometimes yield the incorrect result as sometimes one long term decision will contradict/invalidate another because a lack of proper data or contradicting view point/interest
-
@serguey123 said:
I don't know how to put this in words without sounding like a bleeding heart moron which is something I try to avoid most of the time
What a pity. You shouldn't hate yourself that much. Look at me : I am a fucking bleeding heart, and proud of it !Seriously... since when did the idea of aiming the common good become to sound moronic ? wtf happened to civilized people ???
-
@toshir0 said:
Seriously... since when did the idea of aiming the common good become to sound moronic ? wtf happened to civilized people ???
It's not your intent we have a problem with, it's your approach.
-
@serguey123 said:
Although using profit to evaluate/make decisions is perhaps the simpler or more obvious delimitator/condition I think/hope there should be a better/more efficient way to produce a more consistent result set as I think the current system sometimes yield the incorrect result as sometimes one long term decision will contradict/invalidate another because a lack of proper data or contradicting view point/interest
I'm reminded of Churchill's famous quotation: "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Similarly, profit is the worst system of organising these things, apart from everything else we've tried.
@toshir0 said:
Seriously... since when did the idea of aiming the common good become to sound moronic ? wtf happened to civilized people ???
It's not moronic at all, as a fantasy. As a reality, it's simply not the way people work. Lovely idea, but on a par with suggesting how civilization would be improved were we all able to fly by flapping our arms.
-
@toshir0 said:
What a pity. You shouldn't hate yourself that much. Look at me : I am a fucking bleeding heart, and proud of it !
Seriously... since when did the idea of aiming the common good become to sound moronic ? wtf happened to civilized people ???
Oh, I don't hate myself, is just that there is a contradiction in my mind between ideals and reality that is hard to reconcile.
Civilized people became extinct or at least that is the current theory.
I can't give an exact date for the moronization of the common good but I think is around the second half of the XX century
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
And you could be Facebook friends with the entire population of the world
Nah, even if was alive and not killed for food or for being obnoxious I would never get along with them
-
@intertravel said:
Similarly, profit is the worst system of organising these things, apart from everything else we've tried.
I don't recall any other system
@intertravel said:
@toshir0 said:
Seriously... since when did the idea of aiming the common good become to sound moronic ? wtf happened to civilized people ???
It's not moronic at all, as a fantasy. As a reality, it's simply not the way people work. Lovely idea, but on a par with suggesting how civilization would be improved were we all able to fly by flapping our arms.Sadly I agree with this, I just hope that in [insert sufficient time span] this will change
