Climate Change

Out of context: Reply #137

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 536 Responses
  • Ianbolton0

    Why do you think capitalism needs changing to save the environment when we've only realised that we're a destructive force on this planet within the last 50 years we've developed more sustainable technologies than ever. We're more likely to destroy ourselves through nuclear war than anything, but who knows?

    Capitalism (we as a collective) are rethinking our ways every single second and it'll still be too late if we don't sort out a global narrative to get along with each other.

    • because capitalism is contributing just as much to the denial of necessary changes to ensure profitability for a select few above survival for the manycolin_s
    • not to mention the multitude of ways greed and individualism harm society as a whole from a humanist viewpointcolin_s
    • not to mention capitalism has never thrived without enslavement and oppression so to believe it is a-OK is abhorrently self-centeredcolin_s
    • Okay, here we go! So what's your solution mate?Ianbolton
    • Capitalism is too nearsighted, and it's inclined to short term solutions and cutting corners. You can't save the planet and profit off all its resources.sarahfailin
    • I'm with you there, market based initiatives are the most likely to succeed. Air is free, so is polluting (mostly) so of course it's not taken into account butzarkonite
    • we're setting up costs and changing the system. No one's proposed any alternatives that I'm aware of anyways...zarkonite
    • In a socialist system where is the incentive to innovate, to invent, to push the boundaries. Profit is a very good motivator.Morning_star
    • The majority of people don't want to change the market system of capitalism, they just want regulation and a welfare safety net.T-Dawg
    • Socialism would be if the government (and then the workers) seized amazon, google, etc.T-Dawg
    • And there would be no private industry.T-Dawg
    • I'd say capitalism isn't what most people have a problem with. It's short term irresponsibility in the name of profit, like sarahf mentioned.T-Dawg
    • When people want more control over an aspect of their well being, healthcare for example. Some want the governement to run it (this is not socialism)T-Dawg
    • Because then they can at least have a say in how things are done with their votes and their tax dollars.T-Dawg
    • On the opposite side of that argument, Some will say that the government should stay out of it, and that consumers already have control in buying/not buying.T-Dawg
    • But in this case, the people without the means to buy/not buy don't get a say in anything.T-Dawg
    • And it cuts off access to a service or good to a large number of people.T-Dawg
    • In the case of the environment, which is a public good, people want more say. It's not so much about capitalism, but about regulation.T-Dawg
    • At least that's my understanding of it.T-Dawg
    • The sad thing is that even Adam Smith, supposed Patron Saint of the free market, never envisaged an entirely unconstrained and unmoderated market.Nairn
    • Capitalism's a best-fit system for the human psychology, but it needs to be bridled. It needs to guide, it needs to act with constraint in critical domains.Nairn
    • Welfare, healthcare and transportation at least should all be 'socialised', with base services bid to the best private contractor. Externalities should be taxedNairn
    • Industries should be compelled by law or tax to evolve into forms that don't abuse position. But underneath all this, capitalism needn't be noxious.Nairn
    • Humans are greedy and ambitious. The system we have needs to accept this and allow for it.Nairn
    • Add to the above industries - warfare and the envionment. We've just this century left a boundless and infinite world, we need time to transition to the next.Nairn
    • /deathboyNairn
    • Nairn: A market, by definition, is a set of rules to normalize the interactions between parties. Free market is basically an oxymoron.zarkonite
    • T-dawg think of it this way: China has lifted half a billion people out of poverty with market based economics. No other system on earth has achieved so much.zarkonite
    • Don't forget that the pursuit of happiness is also a human right, and some people are happy to be assholes. Whatever system you're under should be light touchzarkonite
    • to allow for maximum personal freedom. This leads to more happiness, much more than having tons of rules in your way when you try to make something of yourself.zarkonite
    • The point of government is smooth out the problems, not dictate how people are supposed to behave. So yeah, it's messy and people get hurt but most are betterzarkonite
    • off and more importantly MORE people will benefit than under any other top-down system.zarkonite
    • I can agree with you on those points Zark, but many of these social safety net proposals are inspired by the happiest nations.T-Dawg
    • I'm not a socialist by any means, I'm for a well regulated market economy.T-Dawg
    • Reading about China's growth, this sticks out: Market activity then generated problems that required officials to build stronger institutions.T-Dawg
    • Which in turn fostered the further development of markets.T-Dawg
    • What worries me, is I feel that the US's institutions are losing power to corporations and private interest.T-Dawg
    • From health, to education, to voting rights.
      (sorry I've gone a bit off topic from the thread)
      T-Dawg
    • Hehe I'm gonna stop because I'm rambling and I'm posting comments before forming them into cohesive ideas :)T-Dawg
    • "Capitalism is too nearsighted, and it's inclined to short term solutions and cutting corners. You can't save the planet and profit off all its resources."deathboy
    • Can such system be nearsighted or those involved? And how does one save the planet and from what? Need to hear more.deathboy
    • Tdawg! - "I'm not a socialist by any means, I'm for a well regulated market economy." what ism would you define that asdeathboy
    • Thanks for trying to sort this out for me guys. I hope the global governments are reading this threadIanbolton
    • @death I'm a capitalist with a progressive agendaT-Dawg
    • These days, anyone who supports welfare programs/regulation gets incorrectly smeared as a socialist. Hence the specification.T-Dawg
    • so you are not following anything on principle but only what suits your desires. Id say you are more closet case socialistdeathboy
    • you mentioned china earlier. commy, socialist all the same fundamentals, but china has done the best job of using "capitalism" for economic aims while maintaindeathboy
    • ing the POWER of the state or supreme emperor or whatever. however it will be short term success, since all success was not based on value of what people wanteddeathboy
    • when the money stops Xi will be fucked. Or we will with reserves currency status. which is what is being played outdeathboy
    • runnign debt for political gains only lasts so long. ask rome about itdeathboy
    • lolT-Dawg
    • I think our principles are pretty similar. It's the means to support them that differ.T-Dawg
    • If you had real world evidence of welfare programs bring replaced successfully by free market industry in developed countries.T-Dawg
    • Then let's examine those case by case.T-Dawg
    • Because introducing private ownership in rural China is a far stretch from carbon capping multinational corporations.T-Dawg
    • Even when you can argue broadly 'on principle' it's the same thing.T-Dawg
    • Also, Rome's economic troubles were to due to war and overexpansion, not environmental regulation and welfare programs.T-Dawg
    • Please do not make that equivocation fallacy.T-Dawg
    • Whoops, meant false equivalenceT-Dawg
    • Probably gonna let these discussions trail off, as they sort of get away from the original post.T-Dawg
    • Well of course our "desires" are similar. Not principles. We both want to see others do better and well.deathboy
    • However we all want to see others do well until it comes down to our self interest. Basic darwinism. This is where our principles differ. I don't want to forcedeathboy
    • people to comply or serve like an ant colony. China is probably the most successful ant colony however it is only due to money generation.deathboy
    • All our meant to serve one another. All slaves except the top brass. And as far as rome check it's monetary policy and pension system.deathboy

View thread