Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Environmental Protection on DDO

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 11:31:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
87% of people on DDO are for Environmental protection...

I am among that 13% that opposes...

But, I find it odd that many from all groups support this... Not just leftists, but libertarians and conservatives too...

What is it about Environmental Protection that makes Libertarians and Conservatives abandon limited government views?
President of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 11:45:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 11:31:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
87% of people on DDO are for Environmental protection...

I am among that 13% that opposes...

But, I find it odd that many from all groups support this... Not just leftists, but libertarians and conservatives too...

What is it about Environmental Protection that makes Libertarians and Conservatives abandon limited government views?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 11:52:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 11:31:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
87% of people on DDO are for Environmental protection...

I am among that 13% that opposes...

But, I find it odd that many from all groups support this... Not just leftists, but libertarians and conservatives too...

What is it about Environmental Protection that makes Libertarians and Conservatives abandon limited government views?

The question needs to be reworded. It is worded as an all or nothing position. Who is for unchecked unlimited polluting? No one. It should read "Increasing environmental regulation on business" The way it is worded now it implies that anyone who opposes it wants to eliminate "all" environmental regulation.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 8:57:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You could also just look at it as whether you want to lower or raise the bar from current levels.

I'm not for enviro protection as an ends in itself, but I am definitely for a rekindling of the scientific respect we have as a nation. We view economics as the end-all, be-all of human decision-making. Instead of respecting physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, sociology, psychology, and ethics, we instead turn first to economics (and perhaps secondly political science) to figure out how we should proceed with building our communities, handling environmental issues, and otherwise creating the policies that shape how our nation exists. The only way to change this is to go to the kings - economists and politicians - and try and get them to devalue their disciplines in order for us to start working on bringing some scientific discipline into our affairs. As of now, economists and politicians have refused to relinquish the throne.

Economics has this fake sense of responsibility tied to it, as if to challenge it is to discredit yourself and prove that you neither understand nor care about our financial health. However, if economics disregards the harder sciences, it is ultimately dooming us all - scientifically as well as financially.
Rob
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 10:42:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 8:57:38 AM, Lasagna wrote:
You could also just look at it as whether you want to lower or raise the bar from current levels.

I'm not for enviro protection as an ends in itself, but I am definitely for a rekindling of the scientific respect we have as a nation. We view economics as the end-all, be-all of human decision-making. Instead of respecting physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, sociology, psychology, and ethics, we instead turn first to economics (and perhaps secondly political science) to figure out how we should proceed with building our communities, handling environmental issues, and otherwise creating the policies that shape how our nation exists. The only way to change this is to go to the kings - economists and politicians - and try and get them to devalue their disciplines in order for us to start working on bringing some scientific discipline into our affairs. As of now, economists and politicians have refused to relinquish the throne.

Economics has this fake sense of responsibility tied to it, as if to challenge it is to discredit yourself and prove that you neither understand nor care about our financial health. However, if economics disregards the harder sciences, it is ultimately dooming us all - scientifically as well as financially.

This, exactly! I hate that if you espouse anything that sounds remotely conservative, liberals are quick to think of you as cold or heartless. If you reject laissez faire capitalism, those on the right think you're too stupid to get it instead of accepting that you have a (probably legitimate) different POV. Anyway, very well said, Rob. I highlighted the important parts but I agree with all of it.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 2:32:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 10:42:12 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/22/2011 8:57:38 AM, Lasagna wrote:
You could also just look at it as whether you want to lower or raise the bar from current levels.

I'm not for enviro protection as an ends in itself, but I am definitely for a rekindling of the scientific respect we have as a nation. We view economics as the end-all, be-all of human decision-making. Instead of respecting physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, sociology, psychology, and ethics, we instead turn first to economics (and perhaps secondly political science) to figure out how we should proceed with building our communities, handling environmental issues, and otherwise creating the policies that shape how our nation exists. The only way to change this is to go to the kings - economists and politicians - and try and get them to devalue their disciplines in order for us to start working on bringing some scientific discipline into our affairs. As of now, economists and politicians have refused to relinquish the throne.

Economics has this fake sense of responsibility tied to it, as if to challenge it is to discredit yourself and prove that you neither understand nor care about our financial health. However, if economics disregards the harder sciences, it is ultimately dooming us all - scientifically as well as financially.

This, exactly! I hate that if you espouse anything that sounds remotely conservative, liberals are quick to think of you as cold or heartless. If you reject laissez faire capitalism, those on the right think you're too stupid to get it instead of accepting that you have a (probably legitimate) different POV. Anyway, very well said, Rob. I highlighted the important parts but I agree with all of it.

Well, to be fair, those on the left actually do score worse on economic understanding, so yes it is fair.

As far as an understanding of the above subjects, they are applicable to the decision making process, this should be obvious. Knowing how deadly a chemical is, and the effects of chemical "X" on the environment and humans is important. Same with biology, etc.

However, financial calculations are the most practical way to deal with things. Reduce the costs of goods and services, and that means more resources are available, and a person can buy more with their amount of labor. It should be self-evident why this is desirable.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 3:03:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But Kermit, by simply working off of $-based cost-benefit analysis, you are sweeping aside the whole of human knowledge and replacing it with economics. Economics is nifty - I'll give you that. It does have a sometimes magical way of letting us know the most efficient option. But it needs to be used after other, more fundamental disciplines are satisfied. Economics does not trump physics, biology, etc. Economics depends on human decisions. If those decisions are, like I said, based on more fundamental disciplines, then we should be good. But if they aren't (and in today's world they never are), then GIGO. Modern economics is one huge GIGO sandwich.

And why wouldn't we come to this conclusion? Are our environmental concerns not growing? Are our waters and air and resources not deteriorating every day? Are our economic practices not also deteriorating at the moment? If you were to come to the conclusion that our economics-first methods were spot-on, then that wouldn't agree very well with what we are observing all around us.

I watch every scientific discipline grow at a positive rate without exception, yet economics seems to putter out continuously. If economics became cross-disciplinary, then I bet it would grow like the other disciplines. I know that you, as well as the most of us on DDO are economically-inclined and economists are notorious for underscoring the importance of economics relative to other disciplines. In "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train," the author talks about the haughtiness of economists and how the mainstream rejects notions that aren't purely economic. Asserting ideas, based on physics, like "infinite growth is impossible," are rejected by the main-stream as inappropriate.
Rob
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 9:39:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 3:03:09 PM, Lasagna wrote:
But Kermit, by simply working off of $-based cost-benefit analysis, you are sweeping aside the whole of human knowledge and replacing it with economics.

That's like stating that "A chemist shouldn't rely on chemistry to create a drug, because he/she is weeping the whole human knowledge and replacing it with chemistry". Certain subjects are applicable in certain situations.
Also it should be noted, that using a cost-benefit analysis for environmental protection is impossible using just general math, because it is impossible to calculate the benefits. The only thing you can do is calculate costs of environmental protection (in the short run). You can calculate, and should calculate how much it will costs firms to engage in environmental protection. However, you cannot calculate what it means if chemical A causes an X percent increase in cancer. Some risk is always assumed. 100% risk free is impossible.

Really, it comes down to more politics then actually economics. Risk assessment is actually kind of a paradox really. News organizations use sensationalism to get views, so they cover stories that are rare. However, this distorts how people actually view how risky an event is. This is known as availability heursitic bias and zero risk bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Government comes in and creates policies that will make this rare event even "rarer" and waste money.While those actions that are indeed risky, do not get news coverage, since they are not news stories, so as a result people do not think they are risky, and government does nothing about it.

Economics is nifty - I'll give you that. It does have a sometimes magical way of letting us know the most efficient option. But it needs to be used after other, more fundamental disciplines are satisfied.

It depends on the situation where which discipline is used. You don't go to a sociologist If one is having a heart attack :p.

Economics does not trump physics, biology, etc.

nobody says it does. It just used in different situations.

Economics depends on human decisions. If those decisions are, like I said, based on more fundamental disciplines, then we should be good. But if they aren't (and in today's world they never are), then GIGO. Modern economics is one huge GIGO sandwich.

Economics uses mathematics and some psychology in part of their discipline, so I don't know what your problem is.

And why wouldn't we come to this conclusion? Are our environmental concerns not growing? Are our waters and air and resources not deteriorating every day?

Improving everyday actually. Our air and water is actually cleaner now then it was a century ago. Contrary to popular belief, our forests are not depleting.

Are our economic practices not also deteriorating at the moment? If you were to come to the conclusion that our economics-first methods were spot-on, then that wouldn't agree very well with what we are observing all around us.

Life is better now then it was a century ago. People are healthier, living longer, and the environment has improved.

I watch every scientific discipline grow at a positive rate without exception, yet economics seems to putter out continuously.

Its a social science, which means that one cannot get very accurate predictions. Nonetheless, we're better off now then we were 100 years ago. Business cycles have been reduced significantly. Just look at the data on inflation and deflation and you'd note that it used to be quite cyclical. One year it would be 17% inflation, then the next year 5% deflation.

I'd say that psychology, and sociology are also disciplines of fail as well due to the nature of social science. Especially since they are also restricted, since they try to remain PC.

If economics became cross-disciplinary, then I bet it would grow like the other disciplines. I know that you, as well as the most of us on DDO are economically-inclined and economists are notorious for underscoring the importance of economics relative to other disciplines.

I'd say my understanding of economics is actually not that great. Your idea of cross-disciplinary doesn't make sense though. Economics incorporates math and some psychology. Also, note that other disciplines are important, but they are important in different situations.

In "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train," the author talks about the haughtiness of economists and how the mainstream rejects notions that aren't purely economic. Asserting ideas, based on physics, like "infinite growth is impossible," are rejected by the main-stream as inappropriate.

That's not an idea based on physics and infinite growth is possible.

See:
Y = e^(t)
Y = growth, t = time
t goes to infinity, y goes to infinity
Basic math.

I think I know where you were going with, that there is a specific carrying capacity of a population, based on the amount of resources they have. The problem with using that ecological modeling as applied to economics, is that it doesn't take into consideration that humans are quite different. Resources are distributed based on prices. If prices increase, consumers then use substitute resources. Producers also look to either find substitute resources or increase efficiency in order to make a profit. As a result, we are a lot less wasteful today then we were years back. Think about it. modern society has a tendencies of making things smaller, and creating multi-purpose devices, which means less natural resources are used.

Thomas Malthus used the same modeling to predict that we would run out of resources by 1882, or sometime like that. I'll give you a hint: It didn't happen.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 10:55:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 9:39:50 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/22/2011 3:03:09 PM, Lasagna wrote:
But Kermit, by simply working off of $-based cost-benefit analysis, you are sweeping aside the whole of human knowledge and replacing it with economics.

That's like stating that "A chemist shouldn't rely on chemistry to create a drug, because he/she is weeping the whole human knowledge and replacing it with chemistry". Certain subjects are applicable in certain situations.

... and economics is only applicable when more fundamental disciplines are satisfied. If Economics is at odds with physics, chemistry, and biology, then it should be disregarded. Our environmental woes are a direct result of the opposite.

Also it should be noted, that using a cost-benefit analysis for environmental protection is impossible using just general math, because it is impossible to calculate the benefits. The only thing you can do is calculate costs of environmental protection (in the short run). You can calculate, and should calculate how much it will costs firms to engage in environmental protection. However, you cannot calculate what it means if chemical A causes an X percent increase in cancer. Some risk is always assumed. 100% risk free is impossible.

And if scientists are consulted before these calculations are undertaken, they will suggest staying away from things that release carcinogens into the environment. After that, the calculations may just become more manageable. Also, science is more capable of actually capturing those long-term factors - unlike economics.

Really, it comes down to more politics then actually economics. Risk assessment is actually kind of a paradox really. News organizations use sensationalism to get views, so they cover stories that are rare. However, this distorts how people actually view how risky an event is. This is known as availability heursitic bias and zero risk bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Government comes in and creates policies that will make this rare event even "rarer" and waste money.While those actions that are indeed risky, do not get news coverage, since they are not news stories, so as a result people do not think they are risky, and government does nothing about it.

Economics is nifty - I'll give you that. It does have a sometimes magical way of letting us know the most efficient option. But it needs to be used after other, more fundamental disciplines are satisfied.

It depends on the situation where which discipline is used. You don't go to a sociologist If one is having a heart attack :p.

AND YOU DON'T GO TO AN ECONOMIST WHEN THE RIVERS ARE ON FIRE.

Economics does not trump physics, biology, etc.

nobody says it does. It just used in different situations.

If people "said" it did, then I would have nothing to rant about. Science is just conveniently left out until money forces us to rely on it. This is incredibly ignorant.

Economics depends on human decisions. If those decisions are, like I said, based on more fundamental disciplines, then we should be good. But if they aren't (and in today's world they never are), then GIGO. Modern economics is one huge GIGO sandwich.

Economics uses mathematics and some psychology in part of their discipline, so I don't know what your problem is.

Economics uses math which ignores most of the variables out there. For example a cost-benefit analysis might take into account supply and demand and some consumer psychology, and then completely ignore pollution, resource degradation/depletion, sociological factors (like putting our people to work as burger-flippers as opposed to something more fruitful and less demeaning/stressful) and other things that have real effects on the equation. It's plain and simple GIGO, and is why we are continuing to fail environmentally nearly everywhere you look.

And why wouldn't we come to this conclusion? Are our environmental concerns not growing? Are our waters and air and resources not deteriorating every day?

Improving everyday actually. Our air and water is actually cleaner now then it was a century ago. Contrary to popular belief, our forests are not depleting.

That's extremely misleading. If somebody in N Korea said "civil rights are actually improving over the last 50 years" because of a comparison to the holocaust, then they would be essentially correct. I can't argue with you on this point dead-on because environmentalism was at one time so bad that it was unimaginable. There were rivers that had so much oil dumped in them that they were combustable. You could literally walk across another river because farmers had taken to dumping carcusses of dead farm animals there and filled up the entire thing. Here in Green Bay I might complain about days where I must call off my jog because of high particulate matter concentrations (and the associated carcinogenic effects) but at least it isn't as bad as the early 20th century when I would have come outside every single day to shovel off the inches of soot from my porch. To say we are improving is accurate in a sense, but highly deceptive. It's just that we aren't simply dumping raw sewage right into the rivers and destroying everything we see without hesitation any more. Our population is increasing every day and thus our problems become more delicate.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 11:24:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In "Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train," the author talks about the haughtiness of economists and how the mainstream rejects notions that aren't purely economic. Asserting ideas, based on physics, like "infinite growth is impossible," are rejected by the main-stream as inappropriate.

That's not an idea based on physics and infinite growth is possible.

See:
Y = e^(t)
Y = growth, t = time
t goes to infinity, y goes to infinity
Basic math.

I love DDOers and the theoreticals that have no basis in reality. Population increases, production increases, resources are limited, catastrophe ensues. But somehow that formula proves that we can grow forever and be just fine.

I think I know where you were going with, that there is a specific carrying capacity of a population, based on the amount of resources they have. The problem with using that ecological modeling as applied to economics, is that it doesn't take into consideration that humans are quite different. Resources are distributed based on prices. If prices increase, consumers then use substitute resources. Producers also look to either find substitute resources or increase efficiency in order to make a profit. As a result, we are a lot less wasteful today then we were years back. Think about it. modern society has a tendencies of making things smaller, and creating multi-purpose devices, which means less natural resources are used.

Actually we've tended towards practices that are less sustainable. We are now less likely to use products that are reusable. Instead of the old-faithful tools and implements that never break, made out of metal or wood, we now use cheap plastic crap that is super cheap at Wal-Mart but we have to re-purchase every year. Economics interprets this as good. Wal-Mart is expanding it's business and producing more (ignoring the drain on resources, the particular problems we have regarding oil, and the resulting pollution from expanding production), people are getting jobs and contributing to the economy (ignoring that they could just not have to work at all and be happier), people are getting the products they want (wheen they are actually just looking for the cheapest thing possible even though it costs them more in the long run to have to re-buy everything), and the whole time we are spending more and more time working menial crap jobs and spending less time enjoying life. We are sold on luxury and liesure; we imagine our lives becoming easier as all these devices take up more of the basic things we don't want to do. But somehow the opposite happens - we are working more than ever, we are poorer than ever and more dependent on the state, we are more stressed out than ever, and the things that are free - like clean lakes and rivers to swim in - are being compromised just so we can enjoy cheap plastic crap. 50 years ago a man could get a factory job, buy his house with cash, raise a family and afford to let his wife stay home unemployed to raise his family properly. Now, we need pay-check advance loans just to buy groceries, husband and wife work 3 jobs between the two of them (jobs that are much less productive to society no less), the kids are being raised in some facility, our laws are tightening and becoming more drakonian to deal with our obsessive greed (you're much more likely to be sued over the smallest thing these days), and our society is becoming increasingly impersonal and uncooperative (which hurts efficiency because many resources that can be shared are not). Economically speaking, we're doing great!

Thomas Malthus used the same modeling to predict that we would run out of resources by 1882, or sometime like that. I'll give you a hint: It didn't happen.

We've found ways to produce food in larger quantities. We grow monocultures which are more susceptible to disease and offset that with pesticide application. We use hormones to grow larger crops. We ship the crops across great distances, despite the incredible inefficiency, calorie-wise, and the terrible quality. Oil provides us with a "bank-account" that has accrued over hundreds of millions of years, which we are fast-draining and there are no miracle-technologies to take its place when it dies off.

We've also found ways to extract resources from deeper within the planet but this usually causes lots of damage and there will be a limit sooner or later to when these resources become much more scarce. Your little equation isn't going to make resources appear out of thin air or replenish the Colorado River or Ogallala Aquifer. It's not going to repopulate fish populations or control all the carbon we are releasing.
Rob
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 12:27:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 11:24:24 AM, Lasagna wrote:

I love DDOers and the theoreticals that have no basis in reality. Population increases, production increases, resources are limited, catastrophe ensues. But somehow that formula proves that we can grow forever and be just fine.

I love how you used an example without specification, and then insult me when it was a joke.

Actually we've tended towards practices that are less sustainable. We are now less likely to use products that are reusable. Instead of the old-faithful tools and implements that never break, made out of metal or wood, we now use cheap plastic crap that is super cheap at Wal-Mart but we have to re-purchase every year.

Wood and metal are reusable? Last I checked, metal rusts and wood rots :p. And they aren't exactly unbreakable either. Also, take into account processing costs, and you can find that's there more to the resource then just good old fashion "metal" and "wood".

Also, the amount of resources needed to create a good are a lot less than before due to increase in effiency. The price of a good conveys a lot of information, the amount of resources it took to produce the good, the scarcity of the labor and resources used to create the good, etc. The cheaper the good, the less resources and more abundant the good is.

Economics interprets this as good.

Economics is a positivism, not normative. Also there are so many schools of thought that they all don't have universal agreement. Economists are in universal agreement about externalities that occur in exchanges.

Wal-Mart is expanding it's business and producing more (ignoring the drain on resources, the particular problems we have regarding oil, and the resulting pollution from expanding production)

As stated above, prices determine how much resources are put into production. If oil prices will increase in the future, a free-market would allow others to buy them in future markets. If oil prices increases people will find other substitute goods, for example bio-plastics is an active area of research.

people are getting jobs and contributing to the economy (ignoring that they could just not have to work at all and be happier),

In a free society, they have the choice to work or not. Nobody is forcing them.

people are getting the products they want (wheen they are actually just looking for the cheapest thing possible even though it costs them more in the long run to have to re-buy everything), and the whole time we are spending more and more time working menial crap jobs and spending less time enjoying life.

False about the whole spending more time working. The amount of luxury time we've have has increased. It was on John Stossel "Myths, Lies and Downright stupidity". It's in one of them. Here's a one about the lie of garbage overflow:

We are sold on luxury and liesure; we imagine our lives becoming easier as all these devices take up more of the basic things we don't want to do. But somehow the opposite happens - we are working more than ever,

The amount of "labor hours" it takes to buy a good or service has dramatically decreased. http://www.youtube.com...

we are poorer than ever and more dependent on the state, we are more stressed out than ever, and the things that are free - like clean lakes and rivers to swim in - are being compromised just so we can enjoy cheap plastic crap.

These are assertions not based on reality. I have data that suggests otherwise. Yes we are more dependent on the state, i will agree with you on that.

50 years ago a man could get a factory job, buy his house with cash, raise a family and afford to let his wife stay home unemployed to raise his family properly.

Factory jobs are not desirable. A person can live off a one person salary and have more goods and services then 50 years ago, but people would rather have a two-person salary.

Now, we need pay-check advance loans just to buy groceries, husband and wife work 3 jobs between the two of them (jobs that are much less productive to society no less)

Again, this is pure fantasy.

the kids are being raised in some facility, our laws are tightening and becoming more drakonian to deal with our obsessive greed (you're much more likely to be sued over the smallest thing these days)

Socialism's fault :p.

and our society is becoming increasingly impersonal and uncooperative (which hurts efficiency because many resources that can be shared are not). Economically speaking, we're doing great!

You do realize that there are communal living areas :p.

Thomas Malthus used the same modeling to predict that we would run out of resources by 1882, or sometime like that. I'll give you a hint: It didn't happen.

We've found ways to produce food in larger quantities. We grow monocultures which are more susceptible to disease and offset that with pesticide application. We use hormones to grow larger crops. We ship the crops across great distances, despite the incredible inefficiency, calorie-wise, and the terrible quality. Oil provides us with a "bank-account" that has accrued over hundreds of millions of years, which we are fast-draining and there are no miracle-technologies to take its place when it dies off.


We've also found ways to extract resources from deeper within the planet but this usually causes lots of damage and there will be a limit sooner or later to when these resources become much more scarce. Your little equation isn't going to make resources appear out of thin air or replenish the Colorado River or Ogallala Aquifer. It's not going to repopulate fish populations or control all the carbon we are releasing.

Geothermal solutions could solve the global warming problem, if global warming really is a problem. As stated earlier the amount of resources that we used for products is less now since we are now creating products with multiple applications and are smaller. Fish farms are actually used now to solve the fish shortage. And water is cleaner now then it ever was. It's again in the "myths lie and stupidity" special by John Stossel. really, you should watch it.

Whenever there is scarcity of a resource, prices have a way of fixing things. Our population will soon reach steady state conditions. Then it's just a matter of technology to create recycling methods to reuse goods.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 4:01:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 12:27:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 11:24:24 AM, Lasagna wrote:

I love DDOers and the theoreticals that have no basis in reality. Population increases, production increases, resources are limited, catastrophe ensues. But somehow that formula proves that we can grow forever and be just fine.

I love how you used an example without specification, and then insult me when it was a joke.


Actually we've tended towards practices that are less sustainable. We are now less likely to use products that are reusable. Instead of the old-faithful tools and implements that never break, made out of metal or wood, we now use cheap plastic crap that is super cheap at Wal-Mart but we have to re-purchase every year.

Wood and metal are reusable? Last I checked, metal rusts and wood rots :p. And they aren't exactly unbreakable either. Also, take into account processing costs, and you can find that's there more to the resource then just good old fashion "metal" and "wood".

Also, the amount of resources needed to create a good are a lot less than before due to increase in effiency. The price of a good conveys a lot of information, the amount of resources it took to produce the good, the scarcity of the labor and resources used to create the good, etc. The cheaper the good, the less resources and more abundant the good is.

Economics interprets this as good.

Economics is a positivism, not normative. Also there are so many schools of thought that they all don't have universal agreement. Economists are in universal agreement about externalities that occur in exchanges.

Wal-Mart is expanding it's business and producing more (ignoring the drain on resources, the particular problems we have regarding oil, and the resulting pollution from expanding production)

As stated above, prices determine how much resources are put into production. If oil prices will increase in the future, a free-market would allow others to buy them in future markets. If oil prices increases people will find other substitute goods, for example bio-plastics is an active area of research.

people are getting jobs and contributing to the economy (ignoring that they could just not have to work at all and be happier),

In a free society, they have the choice to work or not. Nobody is forcing them.

people are getting the products they want (wheen they are actually just looking for the cheapest thing possible even though it costs them more in the long run to have to re-buy everything), and the whole time we are spending more and more time working menial crap jobs and spending less time enjoying life.

False about the whole spending more time working. The amount of luxury time we've have has increased. It was on John Stossel "Myths, Lies and Downright stupidity". It's in one of them. Here's a one about the lie of garbage overflow:


We are sold on luxury and liesure; we imagine our lives becoming easier as all these devices take up more of the basic things we don't want to do. But somehow the opposite happens - we are working more than ever,

The amount of "labor hours" it takes to buy a good or service has dramatically decreased. http://www.youtube.com...

we are poorer than ever and more dependent on the state, we are more stressed out than ever, and the things that are free - like clean lakes and rivers to swim in - are being compromised just so we can enjoy cheap plastic crap.

These are assertions not based on reality. I have data that suggests otherwise. Yes we are more dependent on the state, i will agree with you on that.

50 years ago a man could get a factory job, buy his house with cash, raise a family and afford to let his wife stay home unemployed to raise his family properly.

Factory jobs are not desirable. A person can live off a one person salary and have more goods and services then 50 years ago, but people would rather have a two-person salary.

Now, we need pay-check advance loans just to buy groceries, husband and wife work 3 jobs between the two of them (jobs that are much less productive to society no less)

Again, this is pure fantasy.

the kids are being raised in some facility, our laws are tightening and becoming more drakonian to deal with our obsessive greed (you're much more likely to be sued over the smallest thing these days)

Socialism's fault :p.

and our society is becoming increasingly impersonal and uncooperative (which hurts efficiency because many resources that can be shared are not). Economically speaking, we're doing great!

You do realize that there are communal living areas :p.

Thomas Malthus used the same modeling to predict that we would run out of resources by 1882, or sometime like that. I'll give you a hint: It didn't happen.

We've found ways to produce food in larger quantities. We grow monocultures which are more susceptible to disease and offset that with pesticide application. We use hormones to grow larger crops. We ship the crops across great distances, despite the incredible inefficiency, calorie-wise, and the terrible quality. Oil provides us with a "bank-account" that has accrued over hundreds of millions of years, which we are fast-draining and there are no miracle-technologies to take its place when it dies off.



We've also found ways to extract resources from deeper within the planet but this usually causes lots of damage and there will be a limit sooner or later to when these resources become much more scarce. Your little equation isn't going to make resources appear out of thin air or replenish the Colorado River or Ogallala Aquifer. It's not going to repopulate fish populations or control all the carbon we are releasing.

Geothermal solutions could solve the global warming problem, if global warming really is a problem. As stated earlier the amount of resources that we used for products is less now since we are now creating products with multiple applications and are smaller. Fish farms are actually used now to solve the fish shortage. And water is cleaner now then it ever was. It's again in the "myths lie and stupidity" special by John Stossel. really, you should watch it.

Whenever there is scarcity of a resource, prices have a way of fixing things. Our population will soon reach steady state conditions. Then it's just a matter of technology to create recycling methods to reuse goods.

Inflation, overpopulation, inefficient socio-economic design, environmental destruction, greed.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 4:07:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:01:26 PM, Tiel wrote:

Inflation

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

At an all time low

overpopulation

Populations stabilize in developed countries. European populations are actually contrasting.

inefficient socio-economic design

Maybe, but a much more efficient system then socialism or resource-based economy.

environmental destruction

Air and water is cleaner then it was decades ago.

greed.

Greed is not intrinsically bad. There's nothing wrong with wanting stuff, but how you obtain it is what is bad.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 4:53:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:07:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:01:26 PM, Tiel wrote:

Inflation

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

At an all time low

overpopulation

Populations stabilize in developed countries. European populations are actually contrasting.

inefficient socio-economic design

Maybe, but a much more efficient system then socialism or resource-based economy.

environmental destruction

Air and water is cleaner then it was decades ago.

greed.

Greed is not intrinsically bad. There's nothing wrong with wanting stuff, but how you obtain it is what is bad.

False on all accounts.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 8:03:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 11:31:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
87% of people on DDO are for Environmental protection...

I am among that 13% that opposes...

But, I find it odd that many from all groups support this... Not just leftists, but libertarians and conservatives too...

What is it about Environmental Protection that makes Libertarians and Conservatives abandon limited government views?

Why can't I be a good steward just because I'm a conservative?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 8:05:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I support environmental protection via private enterprise. In other words, the idea of environmental protection ITSELF I support.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 11:02:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually we've tended towards practices that are less sustainable. We are now less likely to use products that are reusable. Instead of the old-faithful tools and implements that never break, made out of metal or wood, we now use cheap plastic crap that is super cheap at Wal-Mart but we have to re-purchase every year.

Wood and metal are reusable? Last I checked, metal rusts and wood rots :p. And they aren't exactly unbreakable either. Also, take into account processing costs, and you can find that's there more to the resource then just good old fashion "metal" and "wood".

Wood can be regrown. Metal lasts a long time. It all depends on what product we are talking about. Both wood and metal are biodegradable, plastic is not. Plastic can be useful when it is controlled efficiently. Synthetics last a very long time without breaking down. The ways in which we use certain materials needs to be redesigned and controlled more efficiently, so that way humans can live in harmony with the planet.


Also, the amount of resources needed to create a good are a lot less than before due to increase in effiency. The price of a good conveys a lot of information, the amount of resources it took to produce the good, the scarcity of the labor and resources used to create the good, etc. The cheaper the good, the less resources and more abundant the good is.

What you say is partially true. It's what materials are being used and how those products are incorporated into the system that needs to be changed. The industrial capacity needs to be redesigned for producing items that are sustainable and eco friendly at the lowest cost possible.


Economics interprets this as good.

Economics is a positivism, not normative. Also there are so many schools of thought that they all don't have universal agreement. Economists are in universal agreement about externalities that occur in exchanges.

Economic preference is relative. Economic efficiency depends on the design and how closely it's inhabitants work in harmony with the design.


Wal-Mart is expanding it's business and producing more (ignoring the drain on resources, the particular problems we have regarding oil, and the resulting pollution from expanding production)

As stated above, prices determine how much resources are put into production. If oil prices will increase in the future, a free-market would allow others to buy them in future markets. If oil prices increases people will find other substitute goods, for example bio-plastics is an active area of research.

Yes, the problem is that corporations aren't looking at what products they are making from an eco friendly and sustainable perspective. This will cause problems everytime, no matter what the price. Greed and profit are going to start fighting a losing battle in the near future. Both are parasites and soon they will have sucked all the blood out of the system until it collapses dead.


people are getting jobs and contributing to the economy (ignoring that they could just not have to work at all and be happier),

In a free society, they have the choice to work or not. Nobody is forcing them.

This common argument is ignorant and juvenile. If you want to survive in society and be healthy, you have to work. Nobody is forcing you to breathe either, yet you do. Why is that?


people are getting the products they want (wheen they are actually just looking for the cheapest thing possible even though it costs them more in the long run to have to re-buy everything), and the whole time we are spending more and more time working menial crap jobs and spending less time enjoying life.

False about the whole spending more time working. The amount of luxury time we've have has increased. It was on John Stossel "Myths, Lies and Downright stupidity". It's in one of them. Here's a one about the lie of garbage overflow:

Absolutely false. John Stossel is a moron.



We are sold on luxury and liesure; we imagine our lives becoming easier as all these devices take up more of the basic things we don't want to do. But somehow the opposite happens - we are working more than ever,

The amount of "labor hours" it takes to buy a good or service has dramatically decreased.

Yeah, and people need those labor hours in order to stay employed. The economy can't function if people don't have purchasing power.

we are poorer than ever and more dependent on the state, we are more stressed out than ever, and the things that are free - like clean lakes and rivers to swim in - are being compromised just so we can enjoy cheap plastic crap.

These are assertions not based on reality. I have data that suggests otherwise. Yes we are more dependent on the state, i will agree with you on that.

You don't have any credible data that shows otherwise. The environment is indeed more polluted and destroyed than ever and people are indeed more stressed out than ever. Though an opinion about people being more stressed out is relative, where as the environmental damage is not.


50 years ago a man could get a factory job, buy his house with cash, raise a family and afford to let his wife stay home unemployed to raise his family properly.

Factory jobs are not desirable. A person can live off a one person salary and have more goods and services then 50 years ago, but people would rather have a two-person salary.

False. Factory jobs are desirable to people who aren't working. Also, you cannot have the same things and raise a family to the same standard on a similarly comparable income as you could decades ago. Want to go over some numbers?


We've found ways to produce food in larger quantities. We grow monocultures which are more susceptible to disease and offset that with pesticide application. We use hormones to grow larger crops. We ship the crops across great distances, despite the incredible inefficiency, calorie-wise, and the terrible quality. Oil provides us with a "bank-account" that has accrued over hundreds of millions of years, which we are fast-draining and there are no miracle-technologies to take its place when it dies off.



We've also found ways to extract resources from deeper within the planet but this usually causes lots of damage and there will be a limit sooner or later to when these resources become much more scarce. Your little equation isn't going to make resources appear out of thin air or replenish the Colorado River or Ogallala Aquifer. It's not going to repopulate fish populations or control all the carbon we are releasing.

Geothermal solutions could solve the global warming problem, if global warming really is a problem. As stated earlier the amount of resources that we used for products is less now since we are now creating products with multiple applications and are smaller. Fish farms are actually used now to solve the fish shortage. And water is cleaner now then it ever was. It's again in the "myths lie and stupidity" special by John Stossel. really, you should watch it.

John Stossel is a moron. Geothermal can't fix the damage we have caused. The amount of resources needed is increasing dramatically as the population keeps exploding and people think they need more and more consumer products. So again, your argument fails. Fish farms aren't going to change the fact the natural water resources are polluted on a global scale. Water is not cleaner than ever, it's more polluted than ever. You should really quit being so gullible with just believing any person that tells you something you want to hear (John Stossel).


Whenever there is scarcity of a resource, prices have a way of fixing things. Our population will soon reach steady state conditions. Then it's just a matter of technology to create recycling methods to reuse goods.

Now you are the one creating a fantasy.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 10:07:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tiel don't you know? All my metal/wooden hammers are rotted out and rusted away. I went downstairs to grab one the other day and there was just a pile of dust.
Rob
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:51:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 10:07:36 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Tiel don't you know? All my metal/wooden hammers are rotted out and rusted away. I went downstairs to grab one the other day and there was just a pile of dust.

I know.... I went to grab my iron pan from inside the cabinet and all that was left was a pile of rust..... Damn...and I wanted some eggs really bad too....
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:56:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 11:31:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
87% of people on DDO are for Environmental protection...

I am among that 13% that opposes...

But, I find it odd that many from all groups support this... Not just leftists, but libertarians and conservatives too...

What is it about Environmental Protection that makes Libertarians and Conservatives abandon limited government views?:

Environmental protection does not necessarily mean that I want the government protecting the environment. I want everyone to be good stewards of the earth.

The phrasing is a little ambiguous, but I don't mean for it to solely be represented by what a government would do, but rather what the people would do.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 4:26:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/21/2011 11:31:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
87% of people on DDO are for Environmental protection...

I am among that 13% that opposes...

But, I find it odd that many from all groups support this... Not just leftists, but libertarians and conservatives too...

What is it about Environmental Protection that makes Libertarians and Conservatives abandon limited government views?

We aren't selfish people, who have forgotten about the next generations. People who are for environmental protection take into consideration the next people to live on this earth. People who oppose environment protection sicken me.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 5:04:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 4:26:40 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 9/21/2011 11:31:33 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
87% of people on DDO are for Environmental protection...

I am among that 13% that opposes...

But, I find it odd that many from all groups support this... Not just leftists, but libertarians and conservatives too...

What is it about Environmental Protection that makes Libertarians and Conservatives abandon limited government views?

We aren't selfish people, who have forgotten about the next generations. People who are for environmental protection take into consideration the next people to live on this earth. People who oppose environment protection sicken me.:

What about the people who exaggerate the issue in order to line their pockets? For instance, take "carbon credits," for example, or tithing for Mother Earth, as I like to call it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)