Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

E. F. Schumacher

Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:24:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Any other fans out there? I would make love to him like an eagle falling out of the sky if he were still alive.

New kid on the block, btw.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

"If greed were not the master of modern man--ably assisted by envy--how could it be that the frenzy of economism does not abate as higher "standards of living" are attained, and that it is precisely the richest societies which pursue their economic advantage with the greatest ruthlessness? How could we explain the almost universal refusal on the part of the rulers of the rich societies--where organized along private enterprise or collective enterprise lines--to work towards the humanisation of work? It is only necessary to assert that something would reduce the "standard of living" and every debate is instantly closed. That soul-destroying, meaningless, mechanical, monotonous, moronic work is an insult to human nature which must necessarily and inevitably produce either escapism or aggression, and that no amount of of "bread and circuses" can compensate for the damage done--these are facts which are neither denied nor acknowledged but are met with an unbreakable conspiracy of silence--because to deny them would be too obviously absurd and to acknowledge them would condemn the central preoccupation of modern society as a crime against humanity."

"Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology toward the organic, the gentle, the elegant and beautiful."
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Was going to post this in response to your post in the 'What's your Economic Policy' thread, but since you made your own thread to discuss this person's ideas, I'll post it here.

Natural resources are not limited in any real sense. Someone today saying that we'll run out of oil and not be able to run our cars is like someone in 1900 saying that city streets will soon be so clogged with horse manure that no one will be able to travel on them. It seems to be true if you simply extrapolate from the current state of the world, but wrong if you understand economics.

The limiting factor for resource use is not the amount of resources we have, but the ways we can think of to use them. Oil, copper, iron--none are important relative to the ultimate resource, the human mind. Land is finite--but food production continuously increases while costs decrease. Sources of energy are technically finite--but energy costs continually go down as energy becomes abundant. This is true for nearly all resources we use, if you look at the long-term trend. We do keep polluting--but the environment we live in becomes cleaner and cleaner. Since 1961 (as long as the data has been collected), water quality has improved in the United States.

Quality of life has been improving for everyone on Earth. 200 years ago, the average life expectancy, even in rich countries, was in the 20s. Now no country can imagine being so poor--even the 3rd world is better off than that. And this progress isn't just in the past--the first decade of the 21st century was the most prosperous decade in humanity's history. We can support a world of 7 billion people now, when ten thousand years ago there were only 4 million. And with a much higher quality of life, with resources far cheaper than when we only had a few million people. Why? Because the ultimate resource--people--is what matters. We used up lots of resources over the past few hundred years, but we discovered new and more efficient ways to do things even faster. There's no reason to think this trend can't continue indefinitely.

To those who are against the very idea of economic growth and higher standards of living: speak for yourself. We have economic growth because that's what people want. People could choose to work less and have simpler lives if they wanted to--if they don't, who are you to question their preferences? Just because you subjectively value things different from them doesn't make them wrong. I personally don't think we've grown even close to enough. We've made a lot of progress toward conquering poverty and disease, but we're not done yet. We still haven't explored the stars or cured the last lethal disease--aging. I don't think we need to think about stopping economic growth until we have trillions of immortal humans spread out across the universe--each with a much higher standard of living than is even imaginable today.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 11:25:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I direct you to the Simon-Ehrlich wager:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 1:00:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Was going to post this in response to your post in the 'What's your Economic Policy' thread, but since you made your own thread to discuss this person's ideas, I'll post it here.

Natural resources are not limited in any real sense. Someone today saying that we'll run out of oil and not be able to run our cars is like someone in 1900 saying that city streets will soon be so clogged with horse manure that no one will be able to travel on them. It seems to be true if you simply extrapolate from the current state of the world, but wrong if you understand economics.

The limiting factor for resource use is not the amount of resources we have, but the ways we can think of to use them. Oil, copper, iron--none are important relative to the ultimate resource, the human mind. Land is finite--but food production continuously increases while costs decrease. Sources of energy are technically finite--but energy costs continually go down as energy becomes abundant. This is true for nearly all resources we use, if you look at the long-term trend. We do keep polluting--but the environment we live in becomes cleaner and cleaner. Since 1961 (as long as the data has been collected), water quality has improved in the United States.

Quality of life has been improving for everyone on Earth. 200 years ago, the average life expectancy, even in rich countries, was in the 20s. Now no country can imagine being so poor--even the 3rd world is better off than that. And this progress isn't just in the past--the first decade of the 21st century was the most prosperous decade in humanity's history. We can support a world of 7 billion people now, when ten thousand years ago there were only 4 million. And with a much higher quality of life, with resources far cheaper than when we only had a few million people. Why? Because the ultimate resource--people--is what matters. We used up lots of resources over the past few hundred years, but we discovered new and more efficient ways to do things even faster. There's no reason to think this trend can't continue indefinitely.

To those who are against the very idea of economic growth and higher standards of living: speak for yourself. We have economic growth because that's what people want. People could choose to work less and have simpler lives if they wanted to--if they don't, who are you to question their preferences? Just because you subjectively value things different from them doesn't make them wrong. I personally don't think we've grown even close to enough. We've made a lot of progress toward conquering poverty and disease, but we're not done yet. We still haven't explored the stars or cured the last lethal disease--aging. I don't think we need to think about stopping economic growth until we have trillions of immortal humans spread out across the universe--each with a much higher standard of living than is even imaginable today.

>if you understand economics
>The limiting factor for resource use is not the amount of resources we have

But the definition of economics is the social science devoted to measuring the scarcity of resources. I'm just asking you to look at the opportunity cost of mining those resources.

Everything you said, rhymes with what the last Caesar said. I'm asking you to look at the world from the perspective of man living alongside nature rather then fiercely trying to tame it. Just because we find metals naturally in nature does not mean it will be that simple in the future. The path of super-consumption does not necessary lead to a happier society. No. Instead, stop thinking of resources as a source of revenue and rather as a piece of capital. It's a one-time application. Then it's gone forever. We need to use those resources for conservatism.

The price we are paying, as a desert people, for your lower costs in resources, is not nearly equal. Many ranchers have lost their livelihoods because of copper poisoning in water wells near four corners. And this shows up in the low quality meat you eat.

Nobody is doubting the progress we've made. Just like Rome, you've hoisted yourself up by your own bootstraps. But its unsustainable. You can't put all your faith in scientific endeavors that are yet to be.

>We've made a lot of progress toward conquering poverty and disease, but we're not done yet. We still haven't explored the stars or cured the last lethal disease--aging.

That day will never come. We'll probably will never colonize another planet at the pace we are going. I say this because we are going in reverse. The economic gains we in human QOL are insurmountable, but they are ultimately temporary. The harder we drill for resources, the more pollution we release into the air; the less likely our civilization will live past this vulnerable window in our evolution as superior beings.

Ultimately, I too want my children to see the stars. They can't do that, however, if our generation wins the war with nature. Our future generations will be on the losing side. Your water quality might be becoming more clean, but that is a facade because it is becoming more scarce. Your Ipod might be cheap, but your child will have asthma. You cannot really expect me to ride off and become a nomad if your purposely sabotaging it from a world away.

Overall, I just feel that human sustainability is more important then short-term QOL gains. Releasing CO2 into the air for solar panels is okay in my book, but when we rampantly consume, like a virus, it only aids in our extinction.
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 1:05:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 11:25:40 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
I direct you to the Simon-Ehrlich wager:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Too POV!

This article is now blatantly POV in favor of Simon and against Ehrlich. It needs to be rewritten for objectivity and balance. Just the facts--stop being cheerleaders for your "cause" and start being Wiki-scholars! 173.16.125.178 (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Two useful papers on the subject :

- Lawn P. (2010): On the Ehrlich-Simon bet: Both were unskilled and Simon was lucky. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2045-2046 - DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.009.

- Kiel K., Matheson V. & Golembiewski K. (2010): Luck or skill? An examination of the Ehrlich-Simon bet. Ecological Economics 69(7): 1365-1367 - DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.007

The problem is that Ehrlich was utterly wrong about nearly everything. In the 70s it was still, barely, possible to believe that we were near the limits. Now, when we can look at the Green Revolution in the light of hindsight and can begin to understand the potential of biotech for crops, there is no reason whatsoever to think so beyond mistaking the limits of our current economy (essentially dependent on century-old fossil-fuel technology) for some kind of theoretical limit. 128.194.250.117 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems heavily biased in favor of Simon. I've begun revising some of the more flagrant examples of this. It strikes me that the section title "Analysis of why Ehrlich lost" places undue emphasis on Ehrlich's status as "loser." Couldn't it be changed to just "Analysis"? --74.96.103.19 (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Seriously, dude, Wikipedia? And a poor article at that? You should be ashamed.
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:00:29 AM, Erik_Erikson wrote:
>if you understand economics
>The limiting factor for resource use is not the amount of resources we have

But the definition of economics is the social science devoted to measuring the scarcity of resources. I'm just asking you to look at the opportunity cost of mining those resources.

Everything you said, rhymes with what the last Caesar said. I'm asking you to look at the world from the perspective of man living alongside nature rather then fiercely trying to tame it. Just because we find metals naturally in nature does not mean it will be that simple in the future. The path of super-consumption does not necessary lead to a happier society. No. Instead, stop thinking of resources as a source of revenue and rather as a piece of capital. It's a one-time application. Then it's gone forever. We need to use those resources for conservatism.

The price we are paying, as a desert people, for your lower costs in resources, is not nearly equal. Many ranchers have lost their livelihoods because of copper poisoning in water wells near four corners. And this shows up in the low quality meat you eat.

Nobody is doubting the progress we've made. Just like Rome, you've hoisted yourself up by your own bootstraps. But its unsustainable. You can't put all your faith in scientific endeavors that are yet to be.

>We've made a lot of progress toward conquering poverty and disease, but we're not done yet. We still haven't explored the stars or cured the last lethal disease--aging.

That day will never come. We'll probably will never colonize another planet at the pace we are going. I say this because we are going in reverse. The economic gains we in human QOL are insurmountable, but they are ultimately temporary. The harder we drill for resources, the more pollution we release into the air; the less likely our civilization will live past this vulnerable window in our evolution as superior beings.

Ultimately, I too want my children to see the stars. They can't do that, however, if our generation wins the war with nature. Our future generations will be on the losing side. Your water quality might be becoming more clean, but that is a facade because it is becoming more scarce. Your Ipod might be cheap, but your child will have asthma. You cannot really expect me to ride off and become a nomad if your purposely sabotaging it from a world away.

Overall, I just feel that human sustainability is more important then short-term QOL gains. Releasing CO2 into the air for solar panels is okay in my book, but when we rampantly consume, like a virus, it only aids in our extinction.

People have been saying what you're saying for centuries, and they've always been wrong.

Ranchers being poisoned by copper? Low-quality meat? This is bad--compared to what? You're comparing our society to something that has never existed. Those ranchers are much better off than ranchers used to be, and we consume much higher quality food than we used to.

What, specifically, are you concerned about? What will we run out of? We pollute--but the Earth is getting cleaner. We mine for resources, but we find more faster than we can consume them, which is why the price of those resources keeps falling. What evidence do you have that the trend of the last 200 years is going to reverse? What you describe--resources becoming more scarce, rather than less--has never happened, because human ingenuity has found new ways to produce things much faster than we use resources. It won't matter that we don't have any oil left 100 years from now, just as it doesn't matter that we don't have enough horses for everyone to ride one today.

Minerals drying up? Projects to mine asteroids are underway now--projects that are only possible because of the economic progress we've made. Water becoming scarce? Completely absurd--we can convert Ocean water into drinkable water. It's expensive now, but there's no reason it will continue to be by the time we need it. A child might get asthma? Air quality has been improving, not declining, even as we have more people using more energy and driving more. http://www.epa.gov...

You think resources are going to become more scarce? Prove it. Explain why we won't be able to find new ways to grow food, produce energy, build things faster than we use resources--why the trend of the past 200 years will suddenly reverse.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:00:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:05:34 AM, Erik_Erikson wrote:
At 7/31/2012 11:25:40 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
I direct you to the Simon-Ehrlich wager:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Too POV!

This article is now blatantly POV in favor of Simon and against Ehrlich. It needs to be rewritten for objectivity and balance. Just the facts--stop being cheerleaders for your "cause" and start being Wiki-scholars! 173.16.125.178 (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Two useful papers on the subject :

- Lawn P. (2010): On the Ehrlich-Simon bet: Both were unskilled and Simon was lucky. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2045-2046 - DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.009.

- Kiel K., Matheson V. & Golembiewski K. (2010): Luck or skill? An examination of the Ehrlich-Simon bet. Ecological Economics 69(7): 1365-1367 - DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.007

The problem is that Ehrlich was utterly wrong about nearly everything. In the 70s it was still, barely, possible to believe that we were near the limits. Now, when we can look at the Green Revolution in the light of hindsight and can begin to understand the potential of biotech for crops, there is no reason whatsoever to think so beyond mistaking the limits of our current economy (essentially dependent on century-old fossil-fuel technology) for some kind of theoretical limit. 128.194.250.117 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems heavily biased in favor of Simon. I've begun revising some of the more flagrant examples of this. It strikes me that the section title "Analysis of why Ehrlich lost" places undue emphasis on Ehrlich's status as "loser." Couldn't it be changed to just "Analysis"? --74.96.103.19 (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Seriously, dude, Wikipedia? And a poor article at that? You should be ashamed.

Ehrlich's proposed 2nd bet is basically a concession that Simon was right and he was wrong. Look at these proposed terms:

The three years 2002–2004 will on average be warmer than 1992–1994.
There will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than in 1994.
There will be more nitrous oxide in the atmosphere in 2004 than 1994.
The concentration of ozone in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) will be greater than in 1994.
Emissions of the air pollutant sulfur dioxide in Asia will be significantly greater in 2004 than in 1994.

Why not some measure of human health? If the air gets worse, but people are healthier anyway, it doesn't really matter.

There will be less fertile cropland per person in 2004 than in 1994.
There will be less agricultural soil per person in 2004 than 1994.
There will be on average less rice and wheat grown per person in 2002–2004 than in 1992–1994.

Why not simply food production per person? The 3rd one is close, and Ehrlich would have won it--but total food production per capita was up during that time period. I'm not familiar enough with the data to know exactly why there's slightly less rice/wheat per capita but more other stuff, but perhaps because poor people in China and India got much richer during that time period, and could afford different kinds of food.


In developing nations there will be less firewood available per person in 2004 than in 1994.

Firewood per person? Why not whether the amount of people who need to use firewood instead of modern electricity will go up or down?

The remaining area of virgin tropical moist forests will be significantly smaller in 2004 than in 1994.
The oceanic fishery harvest per person will continue its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994.
There will be fewer plant and animal species still extant in 2004 than in 1994.

Again--these aren't really measures of human welfare.

More people will die of AIDS in 2004 than in 1994.
Why not whether the expected lifespan of someone diagnosed with AIDS will go up or down?

Between 1994 and 2004, sperm cell counts of human males will continue to decline and reproductive disorders will continue to increase.
I suppose this is technically a measure of human welfare, but a minor one.

The gap in wealth between the richest 10% of humanity and the poorest 10% will be greater in 2004 than in 1994.
Why not whether the poorest 10% will be better or worse off?

Julian Simon characterized his proposed bet best:
Let me characterize their offer as follows. I predict, and this is for real, that the average performances in the next Olympics will be better than those in the last Olympics. On average, the performances have gotten better, Olympics to Olympics, for a variety of reasons. What Ehrlich and others says is that they don't want to bet on athletic performances, they want to bet on the conditions of the track, or the weather, or the officials, or any other such indirect measure.

Ehrlich predicted mass starvation and huge declines in human welfare in his books--his bet proposal shows that he was completely full of it and he knew it. It's easy to predict a "population bomb" when there's no consequences for you if you're wrong. When there's $10,000 riding on it though, he backed down from even claiming that any reasonable measure of human welfare would decline at all--relying instead on indirect measures.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:52:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 1:00:29 AM, Erik_Erikson wrote:
>if you understand economics
>The limiting factor for resource use is not the amount of resources we have

But the definition of economics is the social science devoted to measuring the scarcity of resources. I'm just asking you to look at the opportunity cost of mining those resources.

Everything you said, rhymes with what the last Caesar said. I'm asking you to look at the world from the perspective of man living alongside nature rather then fiercely trying to tame it. Just because we find metals naturally in nature does not mean it will be that simple in the future. The path of super-consumption does not necessary lead to a happier society. No. Instead, stop thinking of resources as a source of revenue and rather as a piece of capital. It's a one-time application. Then it's gone forever. We need to use those resources for conservatism.

The price we are paying, as a desert people, for your lower costs in resources, is not nearly equal. Many ranchers have lost their livelihoods because of copper poisoning in water wells near four corners. And this shows up in the low quality meat you eat.

Nobody is doubting the progress we've made. Just like Rome, you've hoisted yourself up by your own bootstraps. But its unsustainable. You can't put all your faith in scientific endeavors that are yet to be.

>We've made a lot of progress toward conquering poverty and disease, but we're not done yet. We still haven't explored the stars or cured the last lethal disease--aging.

That day will never come. We'll probably will never colonize another planet at the pace we are going. I say this because we are going in reverse. The economic gains we in human QOL are insurmountable, but they are ultimately temporary. The harder we drill for resources, the more pollution we release into the air; the less likely our civilization will live past this vulnerable window in our evolution as superior beings.

Ultimately, I too want my children to see the stars. They can't do that, however, if our generation wins the war with nature. Our future generations will be on the losing side. Your water quality might be becoming more clean, but that is a facade because it is becoming more scarce. Your Ipod might be cheap, but your child will have asthma. You cannot really expect me to ride off and become a nomad if your purposely sabotaging it from a world away.

Overall, I just feel that human sustainability is more important then short-term QOL gains. Releasing CO2 into the air for solar panels is okay in my book, but when we rampantly consume, like a virus, it only aids in our extinction.

People have been saying what you're saying for centuries, and they've always been wrong.

Ranchers being poisoned by copper? Low-quality meat? This is bad--compared to what? You're comparing our society to something that has never existed. Those ranchers are much better off than ranchers used to be, and we consume much higher quality food than we used to.

What, specifically, are you concerned about? What will we run out of? We pollute--but the Earth is getting cleaner. We mine for resources, but we find more faster than we can consume them, which is why the price of those resources keeps falling. What evidence do you have that the trend of the last 200 years is going to reverse? What you describe--resources becoming more scarce, rather than less--has never happened, because human ingenuity has found new ways to produce things much faster than we use resources. It won't matter that we don't have any oil left 100 years from now, just as it doesn't matter that we don't have enough horses for everyone to ride one today.

Minerals drying up? Projects to mine asteroids are underway now--projects that are only possible because of the economic progress we've made. Water becoming scarce? Completely absurd--we can convert Ocean water into drinkable water. It's expensive now, but there's no reason it will continue to be by the time we need it. A child might get asthma? Air quality has been improving, not declining, even as we have more people using more energy and driving more. http://www.epa.gov...

You think resources are going to become more scarce? Prove it. Explain why we won't be able to find new ways to grow food, produce energy, build things faster than we use resources--why the trend of the past 200 years will suddenly reverse.

>Explain why things that haven't happened yet, will not happen.
Yeah, I'm not going to have that conversation with you.

>Projects to mine asteroids are underway now
You think I'm not aware of crazy ideas to mine asteroids? Look at my icon.
Space Base Gingrich is coming, right?

Why is your gut reaction to put debt on our children? Wouldn't the responsible free-market approach be to wait until we have the appropriate technology to clean up excessive pollution? Why leave it up to chance?

Especially

http://www.nola.com...

When

http://www.reuters.com...

Mining

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com...

Is

http://www.thestate.com...

Currently Killing

http://www.michiganradio.org...

Us.

We won't reach that crazy space age, because we will all have drowned of global warming. And before we drown in salt water, we'll run out of fresh water. Good times. And we'll do this because the free market dictated we burn all the coal before we investigated alternative sources of power.

Humans are greedy and we need a dramatic shift in how we perceive natural resources. Not as sources of revenue, but as capital investments.
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 3:38:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:52:27 AM, Erik_Erikson wrote:
At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

People have been saying what you're saying for centuries, and they've always been wrong.

Ranchers being poisoned by copper? Low-quality meat? This is bad--compared to what? You're comparing our society to something that has never existed. Those ranchers are much better off than ranchers used to be, and we consume much higher quality food than we used to.

What, specifically, are you concerned about? What will we run out of? We pollute--but the Earth is getting cleaner. We mine for resources, but we find more faster than we can consume them, which is why the price of those resources keeps falling. What evidence do you have that the trend of the last 200 years is going to reverse? What you describe--resources becoming more scarce, rather than less--has never happened, because human ingenuity has found new ways to produce things much faster than we use resources. It won't matter that we don't have any oil left 100 years from now, just as it doesn't matter that we don't have enough horses for everyone to ride one today.

Minerals drying up? Projects to mine asteroids are underway now--projects that are only possible because of the economic progress we've made. Water becoming scarce? Completely absurd--we can convert Ocean water into drinkable water. It's expensive now, but there's no reason it will continue to be by the time we need it. A child might get asthma? Air quality has been improving, not declining, even as we have more people using more energy and driving more. http://www.epa.gov...

You think resources are going to become more scarce? Prove it. Explain why we won't be able to find new ways to grow food, produce energy, build things faster than we use resources--why the trend of the past 200 years will suddenly reverse.

>Explain why things that haven't happened yet, will not happen.
Yeah, I'm not going to have that conversation with you.
>Projects to mine asteroids are underway now
You think I'm not aware of crazy ideas to mine asteroids? Look at my icon.
Space Base Gingrich is coming, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org... We're a long way off from needing that anyway.
Why is your gut reaction to put debt on our children? Wouldn't the responsible free-market approach be to wait until we have the appropriate technology to clean up excessive pollution? Why leave it up to chance?
We won't have the technology if we wait before continuing industrialization and growth. How about you wait? If you're right, the long-term trend of prices of energy/food/etc will reverse, and standards of living will start to decline. It's not like we'd wake up one day and suddenly have no more coal and everything would shut down--the price of energy would rise first, for decades, as coal became more scarce.

Technology has been getting better and better at a rate much faster than we've been using up resources. The amount of resources we can use has been becoming more abundant, rather than scarce, because of this--we find new resources we can use and new ways to use the ones we have faster than we can use them up. There is no reason to expect this trend to reverse.

Continuing resource use and economic growth isn't giving our children a "debt"--it makes them better off. Imagine if the people alive during the industrial revolution followed your advise--would we be better off because of it?

Especially

http://www.nola.com...
http://www.google.com...
When

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.google.com...
Mining

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com...

Is

http://www.thestate.com...

Currently Killing

http://www.michiganradio.org...

Us.
http://www.google.com...

http://www.google.com...

If mining is killing us, it isn't doing a very good job--it's doing so poor a job that its dangerous effects are more than completely outweighed by the positive effects of economic growth. In fact, pollution is doing such a poor job of killing us that air and water quality has improved over the past few decades.

We won't reach that crazy space age, because we will all have drowned of global warming.
Several degrees over 100 years--hardly a catastrophe. What if you told someone in 1900 what would happen with the global climate over the next hundred years? They'd could probably think of a bunch of problems we'd face, and all of their predictions would be wrong, because they'd have no idea what other progress we were going to make during the 20th century.

And before we drown in salt water, we'll run out of fresh water.
The technology to create unlimited fresh water already exists. New technology will improve the situation even more. http://www.ted.com...
Good times. And we'll do this because the free market dictated we burn all the coal before we investigated alternative sources of power.
And the streets will be too full of horse manure for anyone to travel. . . There's no reason to think that the way we make energy will be the same as it is today by the time we run out of coal.
Humans are greedy and we need a dramatic shift in how we perceive natural resources. Not as sources of revenue, but as capital investments.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:24:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 3:38:59 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:52:27 AM, Erik_Erikson wrote:
At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:

People have been saying what you're saying for centuries, and they've always been wrong.

Ranchers being poisoned by copper? Low-quality meat? This is bad--compared to what? You're comparing our society to something that has never existed. Those ranchers are much better off than ranchers used to be, and we consume much higher quality food than we used to.

What, specifically, are you concerned about? What will we run out of? We pollute--but the Earth is getting cleaner. We mine for resources, but we find more faster than we can consume them, which is why the price of those resources keeps falling. What evidence do you have that the trend of the last 200 years is going to reverse? What you describe--resources becoming more scarce, rather than less--has never happened, because human ingenuity has found new ways to produce things much faster than we use resources. It won't matter that we don't have any oil left 100 years from now, just as it doesn't matter that we don't have enough horses for everyone to ride one today.

Minerals drying up? Projects to mine asteroids are underway now--projects that are only possible because of the economic progress we've made. Water becoming scarce? Completely absurd--we can convert Ocean water into drinkable water. It's expensive now, but there's no reason it will continue to be by the time we need it. A child might get asthma? Air quality has been improving, not declining, even as we have more people using more energy and driving more. http://www.epa.gov...

You think resources are going to become more scarce? Prove it. Explain why we won't be able to find new ways to grow food, produce energy, build things faster than we use resources--why the trend of the past 200 years will suddenly reverse.

>Explain why things that haven't happened yet, will not happen.
Yeah, I'm not going to have that conversation with you.
>Projects to mine asteroids are underway now
You think I'm not aware of crazy ideas to mine asteroids? Look at my icon.
Space Base Gingrich is coming, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org... We're a long way off from needing that anyway.
Why is your gut reaction to put debt on our children? Wouldn't the responsible free-market approach be to wait until we have the appropriate technology to clean up excessive pollution? Why leave it up to chance?
We won't have the technology if we wait before continuing industrialization and growth. How about you wait? If you're right, the long-term trend of prices of energy/food/etc will reverse, and standards of living will start to decline. It's not like we'd wake up one day and suddenly have no more coal and everything would shut down--the price of energy would rise first, for decades, as coal became more scarce.

Technology has been getting better and better at a rate much faster than we've been using up resources. The amount of resources we can use has been becoming more abundant, rather than scarce, because of this--we find new resources we can use and new ways to use the ones we have faster than we can use them up. There is no reason to expect this trend to reverse.

Continuing resource use and economic growth isn't giving our children a "debt"--it makes them better off. Imagine if the people alive during the industrial revolution followed your advise--would we be better off because of it?

Especially

http://www.nola.com...
http://www.google.com...
When

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.google.com...
Mining

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com...

Is

http://www.thestate.com...

Currently Killing

http://www.michiganradio.org...

Us.
http://www.google.com...

http://www.google.com...

If mining is killing us, it isn't doing a very good job--it's doing so poor a job that its dangerous effects are more than completely outweighed by the positive effects of economic growth. In fact, pollution is doing such a poor job of killing us that air and water quality has improved over the past few decades.

We won't reach that crazy space age, because we will all have drowned of global warming.
Several degrees over 100 years--hardly a catastrophe. What if you told someone in 1900 what would happen with the global climate over the next hundred years? They'd could probably think of a bunch of problems we'd face, and all of their predictions would be wrong, because they'd have no idea what other progress we were going to make during the 20th century.

And before we drown in salt water, we'll run out of fresh water.
The technology to create unlimited fresh water already exists. New technology will improve the situation even more. http://www.ted.com...
Good times. And we'll do this because the free market dictated we burn all the coal before we investigated alternative sources of power.
And the streets will be too full of horse manure for anyone to travel. . . There's no reason to think that the way we make energy will be the same as it is today by the time we run out of coal.
Humans are greedy and we need a dramatic shift in how we perceive natural resources. Not as sources of revenue, but as capital investments.

I looked up that water bottle. It only filters out biological matter. Not pollutants. Moot points. It's been 3 years since that video was posted. What happened?

Did you read http://www.michiganradio.org...

It documents people in the horse and buggy days who actually thought more like you then me. And we're still cleaning it up. At a significantly higher price.

Good night, bro.
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:42:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 4:24:30 AM, Erik_Erikson wrote:

I looked up that water bottle. It only filters out biological matter. Not pollutants. Moot points. It's been 3 years since that video was posted. What happened?
I don't know--it's just an example. I remember seeing another video of a much cheaper desalination process invented recently, but I can't find it. I'm sure other things that we can't even imagine yet will be invented later.
Did you read http://www.michiganradio.org...

It documents people in the horse and buggy days who actually thought more like you then me. And we're still cleaning it up. At a significantly higher price.
At a significantly higher price than the benefits of industrialization? I don't think so.
Good night, bro.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:44:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Then let me say something dramatically radical. Ultimately, industrialization has led us down the road to self-ruin. You keep claiming that magic will happen and that we will be able to save ourselves from global emissions. The problem of CO2 has been with us since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. Technology to combat this has not been made on a feasible scale. We need to make changes in our consumer lifestyles to a way of life that is more communal. In this way we can most effectively combat the environmental apocalypse which is a violent, forthcoming death.

Small changes like:
*Cap & Trade
*Vegetarianism
*Public Transit Investment
*Greater efficiency in the industrial sector

Will be all the conservative measures we need in order to avoid future cleanup costs. Environmental cleanup will be much higher and less effective then altering human consumption, through free-market application, now. All I'm worried about is the sustainability of the human species.

We are entering a very narrow gap in our evolutionary pattern. If the human species we to go extinct in the next century, it would be because we did not act now.
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:43:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:44:49 AM, Erik_Erikson wrote:
Then let me say something dramatically radical. Ultimately, industrialization has led us down the road to self-ruin.
There's pollution particles in the water! Smoke in the air! The Earth might warm slightly! And all we got in return was civilization--enough food to feed 7 billion people, which the planet could never do before; the nutrition and medicine to allow us to have an average life expectancy in the 70s, rather than in the 20s; the wealth to live a life of comfort and ease, rather than back-breaking toil working as starving peasants for the entirety of our short lives.

You keep claiming that magic will happen and that we will be able to save ourselves from global emissions.
No, I am saying that "magic" has been happening for 200 years. You are claiming it will suddenly stop for some reason.

The problem of CO2 has been with us since Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. Technology to combat this has not been made on a feasible scale.
Because it isn't needed. Several degrees of warming over a hundred years is not a serious problem. People in the 3rd world that can't afford to adjust to the changes might have problems, but the solution to that is to just industrialize poor countries.

We need to make changes in our consumer lifestyles to a way of life that is more communal. In this way we can most effectively combat the environmental apocalypse which is a violent, forthcoming death.
Your evidence of this 'environmental apocalypse? Let me guess--nothing. You just personally disapprove of our 'consumer lifestyles' and want to stop people from living the way they want to live.

Small changes like:
*Cap & Trade
*Vegetarianism
*Public Transit Investment
*Greater efficiency in the industrial sector
So wait--there's an apocalypse coming but these small changes will stop it?

Will be all the conservative measures we need in order to avoid future cleanup costs. Environmental cleanup will be much higher and less effective then altering human consumption, through free-market application, now. All I'm worried about is the sustainability of the human species.

We are entering a very narrow gap in our evolutionary pattern. If the human species we to go extinct in the next century, it would be because we did not act now.
We're going to go extinct--why? What, exactly, is going to cause our extinction? Air and water gets cleaner as we grow--pollution can't be the problem. Are we going to go extinct because of a few degrees of global warming? That's not even close to the scientific consensus on the effects of global warming.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 5:34:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So aggressive. So angry. If you keep this up, your going to give yourself an ulcer by your senior year.

The effects of global warming have been well documented. Even by those who have been paid by carbon lobby (Koch brothers cool $61 million) to find otherwise. Examine the case of Richard Muller:

"I certainly felt that there is lots of room for skepticism on the human component of warming."

After receiving funding from Charles Koch to conduct a smear-study against Global warming, he came to the opposite conclusion.

"Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Honestly, your being pretty boring. And it shows your age. If you would like to have a debate the existence of global warming, or a discussion of viable free-market policies (because we're both no commies) to curtailing it, then lets have that conversation. Even with a kid who has no background in science, it would be a refreshing change from all the BS debates on this website.

Also, I haven't even started on the quantity, quality of scientists who have confirm global warming.

"Although, preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among cimate scientists on the tenements of an anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself the distribution of credibility of dissenting researcher relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted an would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use a extensive data-set of 1,372 climate researcher and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org...

See you around, comrade.

One last thing,
Saying that we cannot change global warming, even if it is a natural cycle, is just denying that it is happening.

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
--Jesus
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 6:18:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't remember ever saying there wasn't global warming. It was pretty clear from my post I said that there was global warming--several degrees over a hundred years, because of CO2. My point was that it's not a major problem. But if you can't defend your claims and want to argue against arguments I never made, you go ahead.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 7:53:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 6:18:07 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Don't remember ever saying there wasn't global warming. It was pretty clear from my post I said that there was global warming--several degrees over a hundred years, because of CO2. My point was that it's not a major problem. But if you can't defend your claims and want to argue against arguments I never made, you go ahead.

Earlier:

At 7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM
There's pollution particles in the water! Smoke in the air! The Earth might warm slightly! And all we got in return was civilization--enough food to feed 7 billion people, which the planet could never do before;

That statement infers that you feel that the marginal effects of global pollution, and it's love-child global warming, are not significant enough to be considered in comparison to the increases of human quality of life. However, on it's face this statement is short-sighted. The long-term pollution will cause greater damage to human quality of life the the short- term gains we get from rabid consumerism. The likes of which are maintained by tight, leveraged controls of the state. Of which I would think you would oppose.

7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM
The limiting factor for resource use is not the amount of resources we have, but the ways we can think of to use them.

At this point, we're pretty much on the same page. You acknowledge that humans use resources, but sometimes in inefficient ways. What I'm proposing is nothing radical. Just that we reduce the red-tape in the industrial sector and introduce carbon mandates so we don't over-harvest our planet. Thus we would have a mitigated impact on our environment and an extra 100 to 200 years that would allow us to research future technologies.

7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM
Quality of life has been improving for everyone on Earth. 200 years ago, the average life expectancy, even in rich countries, was in the 20s. Now no country can imagine being so poor--even the 3rd world is better off than that. And this progress isn't just in the past--the first decade of the 21st century was the most prosperous decade in humanity's history.

This statement actually flies in the face of history. It's been used since the beginning of the annuals of time to give leaders the excuse to over-expand and thus leave civilization wide open for irony.

Herbert Hoover's administration had never even conceptualized a recession until the he had The Depression.
Up to that point, there had never been a economic relapse. People figured that the swinging 20's would just continue on forever.

Only by curtailing our over-expansion can we increase our stability. We do this by using natural resources as sources of capital investment, not revenue. In this way, the long-term equilibrium will favor human development then it currently does (a.k.a. consuming iPods instead of producing renewable energy investments)

At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
We pollute--but the Earth is getting cleaner. We mine for resources, but we find more faster than we can consume them, which is why the price of those resources keeps falling. What evidence do you have that the trend of the last 200 years is going to reverse?

If this isn't global warming denial sentiment, I don't know what is.

At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
Ranchers being poisoned by copper? Low-quality meat? This is bad--compared to what? You're comparing our society to something that has never existed. Those ranchers are much better off than ranchers used to be, and we consume much higher quality food than we used to.

http://www.usatoday.com...

Meat prices are about to increase dramatically and be of lower grade. Your point is moot.

At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
You think resources are going to become more scarce? Prove it. Explain why we won't be able to find new ways to grow food, produce energy, build things faster than we use resources--why the trend of the past 200 years will suddenly reverse.

This trend you speak of -- even if it does exist, which I do not admit, it would require more time to research new methods of development then time we can maintain the human civilization with, given current geological data relating to fossil fuels.

8/1/2012 2:00:50 AM
Ehrlich's proposed 2nd bet is basically a concession that Simon was right and he was wrong. Look at these proposed terms:

I'm not going to discuss a poor-grade Wikipedia paper with you. Get a legit source and stop ignoring mine.

8/1/2012 3:38:59 AM
We won't have the technology if we wait before continuing industrialization and growth. How about you wait? If you're right, the long-term trend of prices of energy/food/etc will reverse, and standards of living will start to decline.

Why is it we have to wait until we permanently erode our environment? Why is it we must wait until billions die before we change our lifestyles? This is a circumstance in which humanity won't have a second chance. Too much can go wrong. Our earth is too precious a commodity to take a leap of faith in favor of hypothetical science that has yet to be even conceptualized.

At 8/1/2012 3:38:59 AM
Continuing resource use and economic growth isn't giving our children a "debt"--it makes them better off. Imagine if the people alive during the industrial revolution followed your advise--would we be better off because of it?

Your the one building me into straw-man statements. I would not have given that advice at that time because that is a far different scenario. Given the current variables: We've been releasing CO2 into the air for hundreds of years; We've seen a rise in sea levels; We've yet to have Universal Care and Coverage: industrialization has not completed it's goals.

Instead, why don't you impersonate Thomas Jefferson's reaction to global warming. That might be interesting. (but totally pointless because he's dead and doesn't care)

8/1/2012 4:42:05 AM
I don't know--it's just an example. I remember seeing another video of a much cheaper desalination process invented recently, but I can't find it. I'm sure other things that we can't even imagine yet will be invented later.

You tried to mislead me. I caught you. Stop making up excuses and just accept that our rate of technological growth cannot keep up with the rate at which we are mining fossil fuels.

8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
http://www.epa.gov...

Also, every time you, the anarchist, cites a government body who's main goal is to guard the welfare of natural resources--I giggle. I hope you see the irony in your statements.

At 8/1/2012 4:43:18 PM

Small changes like:
*Cap & Trade
*Vegetarianism
*Public Transit Investment
*Greater efficiency in the industrial sector

So wait--there's an apocalypse coming but these small changes will stop it?

Duh, the earlier we make capital investments in renewable resources, the better we will be off in the long-term.

Thanks for the practice bro. I feel like I learned a lot today.

.
.
.

Can I call you "My Little Kropotkin"?
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 3:25:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 7:53:00 PM, Erik_Erikson wrote:
At 8/2/2012 6:18:07 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Don't remember ever saying there wasn't global warming. It was pretty clear from my post I said that there was global warming--several degrees over a hundred years, because of CO2. My point was that it's not a major problem. But if you can't defend your claims and want to argue against arguments I never made, you go ahead.

Earlier:

At 7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM
There's pollution particles in the water! Smoke in the air! The Earth might warm slightly! And all we got in return was civilization--enough food to feed 7 billion people, which the planet could never do before;

That statement infers that you feel that the marginal effects of global pollution, and it's love-child global warming, are not significant enough to be considered in comparison to the increases of human quality of life. However, on it's face this statement is short-sighted. The long-term pollution will cause greater damage to human quality of life the the short- term gains we get from rabid consumerism. The likes of which are maintained by tight, leveraged controls of the state. Of which I would think you would oppose.
Prove it. Explain why the air and water getting cleaner is going to cause damage in the long term, or what exactly the major problems of several degrees of global warming over a hundred years are.

7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM
The limiting factor for resource use is not the amount of resources we have, but the ways we can think of to use them.

At this point, we're pretty much on the same page. You acknowledge that humans use resources, but sometimes in inefficient ways. What I'm proposing is nothing radical. Just that we reduce the red-tape in the industrial sector and introduce carbon mandates so we don't over-harvest our planet. Thus we would have a mitigated impact on our environment and an extra 100 to 200 years that would allow us to research future technologies.
Why would those slight changes give us an extra 100 to 200 years? You're just making up numbers.

7/31/2012 10:42:55 PM
Quality of life has been improving for everyone on Earth. 200 years ago, the average life expectancy, even in rich countries, was in the 20s. Now no country can imagine being so poor--even the 3rd world is better off than that. And this progress isn't just in the past--the first decade of the 21st century was the most prosperous decade in humanity's history.

This statement actually flies in the face of history. It's been used since the beginning of the annuals of time to give leaders the excuse to over-expand and thus leave civilization wide open for irony.
There hasn't been much progress since the beginning of time, except the past 200 years. All the progress before seems insignificant, when compared to the Industrial Revolution. It's unprecedented, and can't be compared to earlier failures like the Roman Empire.

Herbert Hoover's administration had never even conceptualized a recession until the he had The Depression.
Up to that point, there had never been a economic relapse. People figured that the swinging 20's would just continue on forever.
There had been plenty of economic crashes before that. http://en.wikipedia.org...
There had never been a significant economic relapse in the sense of a declining standard of living, but that didn't happen in the Great Depression either. It went down for a few years, but then shot right back up. If you assumed the growth of the 20s would continue on forever, you would have undershot what actually happened over the next 20-30 years.
Only by curtailing our over-expansion can we increase our stability. We do this by using natural resources as sources of capital investment, not revenue. In this way, the long-term equilibrium will favor human development then it currently does (a.k.a. consuming iPods instead of producing renewable energy investments)
This same argument could have been applied 50, 100 years ago--and it clearly would have been wrong. There's no need to think of resources as a capital investment, because we can use them up as fast as we want and be fine anyway. We can try to use up fossil fuels as fast as we can without any negative effects, because we'll think of something to replace them before they run out (in fact, we've already found replacements for them--although newer, even better replacements might be on the way).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2012 3:25:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
We pollute--but the Earth is getting cleaner. We mine for resources, but we find more faster than we can consume them, which is why the price of those resources keeps falling. What evidence do you have that the trend of the last 200 years is going to reverse?

If this isn't global warming denial sentiment, I don't know what is.
Well, I suppose saying 'the Earth isn't warming' or 'CO2 emissions aren't causing global warming' would--I'd think a 'global warming denial sentiment' would have to have something to do with global warming.
At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
Ranchers being poisoned by copper? Low-quality meat? This is bad--compared to what? You're comparing our society to something that has never existed. Those ranchers are much better off than ranchers used to be, and we consume much higher quality food than we used to.

http://www.usatoday.com...

Meat prices are about to increase dramatically and be of lower grade. Your point is moot.
In the short term? Sure. But there's no reason to think the long-term trend in food prices won't continue. There's http://en.wikipedia.org... and other new technology we haven't thought of yet.
At 8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
You think resources are going to become more scarce? Prove it. Explain why we won't be able to find new ways to grow food, produce energy, build things faster than we use resources--why the trend of the past 200 years will suddenly reverse.

This trend you speak of -- even if it does exist, which I do not admit, it would require more time to research new methods of development then time we can maintain the human civilization with, given current geological data relating to fossil fuels.
You have zero evidence of this. Even if we run out of oil some time in the next century, we'll just find something new. It's not like we'd be going along fine and then suddenly we'd have no more oil and everything would shut down. If we we're running out, then prices would steadily increase over several decades as supply became more scarce. There's no reason we couldn't adjust our economy to using different kinds of fuel in that time, just as we adjusted from whale oil when we found something better.
8/1/2012 2:00:50 AM
Ehrlich's proposed 2nd bet is basically a concession that Simon was right and he was wrong. Look at these proposed terms:

I'm not going to discuss a poor-grade Wikipedia paper with you. Get a legit source and stop ignoring mine.
lol. Wikipedia's source for those terms is http://www.stanford.edu... You can find those exact same terms on many other websites.

8/1/2012 3:38:59 AM
We won't have the technology if we wait before continuing industrialization and growth. How about you wait? If you're right, the long-term trend of prices of energy/food/etc will reverse, and standards of living will start to decline.

Why is it we have to wait until we permanently erode our environment? Why is it we must wait until billions die before we change our lifestyles? This is a circumstance in which humanity won't have a second chance. Too much can go wrong. Our earth is too precious a commodity to take a leap of faith in favor of hypothetical science that has yet to be even conceptualized.
Until billions die? You are so full of it. Billions are going to die because the Earth is getting slightly warmer, or the environment is getting dirtier?

Much of the technology to support humanity has been conceptualized, or even already exists. Desalination technology already exists--and it will only get more efficient. There's no reason to think we'd run out of food--even in the unlikely scenario that we don't keep increasing agricultural productivity faster than the population grows, we could just devote more people and resources to farming. Only something like 2% of Americans need to work on farms to more than support our population--we could just use more land and people for farming if we needed to. Alternative energy ideas aren't only already conceptualized, but often already exist--they're just more expensive than fossil fuels now. As alternative technology gets better, and fossil fuels become more scarce, that will reverse, and we'll switch--problem solved.

At 8/1/2012 3:38:59 AM
Continuing resource use and economic growth isn't giving our children a "debt"--it makes them better off. Imagine if the people alive during the industrial revolution followed your advise--would we be better off because of it?

Your the one building me into straw-man statements. I would not have given that advice at that time because that is a far different scenario. Given the current variables: We've been releasing CO2 into the air for hundreds of years; We've seen a rise in sea levels;
Yes--and we dealt with it! Has the past rise in sea levels been a serious problem? No, because it's so slow it's easy to adjust to.
We've yet to have Universal Care and Coverage: industrialization has not completed it's goals.
Industrialization has succeeded beyond the wildest imaginations of the people who lived before it. It only hasn't completed its goals in the sense that people keep getting higher and higher expectations as life improves more and more, and as such can never really reach its goals. But 'universal care and coverage' wasn't even conceivable by the people alive 200 years ago--they hardly had any real medicine to speak of. Simply universal food would have been a big leap for them.
Instead, why don't you impersonate Thomas Jefferson's reaction to global warming. That might be interesting. (but totally pointless because he's dead and doesn't care)

8/1/2012 4:42:05 AM
I don't know--it's just an example. I remember seeing another video of a much cheaper desalination process invented recently, but I can't find it. I'm sure other things that we can't even imagine yet will be invented later.

You tried to mislead me. I caught you. Stop making up excuses and just accept that our rate of technological growth cannot keep up with the rate at which we are mining fossil fuels.
I'll accept it when you prove your claim. I think technological growth will actually be much greater than it has been. Before, most new technology had to come from the West, because that was the only part of the world rich enough to educate its people and invest in new ideas. But now, the 3rd world is developing. There are so many new scientists and engineers coming from China, India, wherever, that it's inconceivable that we won't *at least* keep up the rate we've been going at.
8/1/2012 1:35:25 AM
http://www.epa.gov...

Also, every time you, the anarchist, cites a government body who's main goal is to guard the welfare of natural resources--I giggle. I hope you see the irony in your statements.
So I take it you concede my claim that air and water are getting cleaner, not dirtier?
At 8/1/2012 4:43:18 PM

Small changes like:
*Cap & Trade
*Vegetarianism
*Public Transit Investment
*Greater efficiency in the industrial sector

So wait--there's an apocalypse coming but these small changes will stop it?

Duh, the earlier we make capital investments in renewable resources, the better we will be off in the long-term.

Thanks for the practice bro. I feel like I learned a lot today.

.
.
.

Can I call you "My Little Kropotkin"?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.