Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Old Debate Cont'd....
    #732316 -

This is continued from an old debate between hongomon and pinky,, my statements are in parenthesis,, I must have missed this debate.

Hongoman writes:

I still want to understand how capitilism as it is allowed to function in society today...

Note that what is referred to as "capitilism" is far form it.

I'm dealing with what is, now what will never be.

even under the most "ideal" situations, can be reconciled with facts. (Has'nt for 2500 years!)

What "facts" would those be?

concerning our continued degradation of the environment."

(Air
Drinking water
Chemical Poisonings (LIFE)
Arable farmland
Ecosystem)

As you yourself noted recently in a post in another thread, humans by their nature, must alter nature to survive, "the inevitable damage humans CURRENTLY inflict on their environment..." The more humans inhabit the planet , the more the environment must be manipulated in order to support htem. T?his is ture regardless of the politco/economic system in place. (you have a brief idea of history, you assume you know the the world's history of population)

any manipulation of the environment that leads to the destruction of the environment is , at the end of day, simply DESTRUCTION of the environment

The planet cannot sustain ":american style propserity" even at the level it has benn acheived today.

(When you say prosperity, I think of the capitilistic pollution)

Says who?

Says all the smart educated scientists.

It is unthinkable to think of that type of "prosperity" at a lrger scale... (and nothing you want)

Why? There is no reason (other then political) that Russia, for example, should be any less propserous than the us.

Yes there is a reason, the environment, cannot sustain it.

(The amt. of farmland determines prosperity, food is more applicalbe then goods such as oil) (communist gov't needed to connect south-north, creatin less individual wealth)

..and I accept (capitilism requires the ability to plan for the future and make business and investment decisions with reasonable expectations of future situations,, how does it jibe with envronmentalism?

How does any political system jibe with "environmentalism" (whatever that may be) It is easily obserable that the industrial countries of the world furtheste from true Capitilism ar ethose with the worst pollution problems.

(Population is directly proportionable to Pollution) (Also just because the country is communist, socailist, whatever, does'nt mean it is actually the own country polluting, because of economic turmoil, they need the foreign investment such as u.s. corporations who pollute.)

completely removed from any accountablity towards our evnornment , capitlism seems to thrive best...

(Depends on who's environment your talking about)

Actually, such is not the case, In a true capitilist system with 100 percent ownership of private property, the incentive to not pollute is higher than in any system involving public "ownership" of natural resources. Even evil Capitilist recognizse tbhe benefits of not shitting in their own nests

Pinky

(the only way to solve pollution is to educate citizen, for now all american needs is to fix itself, to help others, "evil capitilist" commonly use direct sewage lines in citizens "nests"



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Old Debate Cont'd.... [Re: nugsarenice]
    #732437 -

The bottom line is that
a) we use up too much, too fast,
and b) we produce too much waste.

Our environment provides us with "materials" (oxygen, wood, protein, etc.) to produce what we use, and it also takes back our waste (shit, trash, carbon dioxide, etc.) and processes it. Just as it does with every other inhabitant.

Obviously it can only produce faster than it can replace for a period of time.

Equally obvious is that it can only process a certain amount of waste in a given amount of time.

Not quite as obvious but also very true is that we have the technology to produce some things that our environment has no idea what to do with. This is why plastic articles will float around in the sea for years and years, and why nuclear waste created thirty years ago will be a concern for thousands of years.

Whatever the political or economic system one has to work with, these are pertinent issues. Of course, we can disregard them. A man out of his mind can think he is flying for the duration of his fall.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Old Debate Cont'd.... [Re: hongomon]
    #732703 -

hongomon writes:

The bottom line is that
a) we use up too much, too fast,
and b) we produce too much waste.

and

Not quite as obvious but also very true is that we have the technology to produce some things that our environment has no idea what to do with. This is why plastic articles will float around in the sea for years and years, and why nuclear waste created thirty years ago will be a concern for thousands of years.

This may be true. It may also be true that as-yet undiscovered technologies will never be able to solve the problem of nuclear waste. Note, however, that genetic engineering (that evil, evil technology) has already developed modified bacteria capable of breaking down oil spills and several kinds of plastics into harmless components. I see no reason this trend should not continue. Perhaps not until nanotechnology is fully developed will there be a solution to nuclear waste. Perhaps not even then.

Whatever the political or economic system one has to work with, these are pertinent issues.

Correct. My comments in the original thread were directed at your assertion that the problem was caused by CAPITALISM. Clearly this is not the case. Even the Green fanatics are fully aware (though they never mention it) that the most severe examples of environmental degradation are to be found in Communist countries. The problem does not have a socio-economic cause. It has a technological cause. Observe, however, that the worst example of a permanent man-made change to the environment, the Sahara desert, was the creation of ancient man. A relatively small human population working with pretty primitive technology managed to fuck things up royally, didn't they?

And they certainly weren't Capitalists.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Old Debate Cont'd.... [Re: Phred]
    #733023 -

I've mentioned before that I'm willing to rethink my terminology as I address the problems I address. We always run the risk of over-generalizing when we couple a solitary term to so complex a situation. How about "industrialism-combined-with-technology-and-whichever-sociopolitical-force-is-currently-in-place?
We'll call it icwtawsficip.

Refine it as you wish.

Oh, and I'm not anti-technology, in case that comment was directed at me. Technology is a golem. It could destroy us as quickly as it could save us.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Was Bush Wired During the Debate? EchoVortex 1,156 14 10/08/04 05:46 PM
by Gijith
* Ralph Nader to Debate Ron Paul Ancalagon 742 5 08/01/04 10:56 AM
by Tao
* Marijuana legalization debate in Indiana llamabox 4,634 9 04/26/06 07:46 AM
by shroommachine
* 'Debating' the Iraq War
( 1 2 all )		 Ancalagon 4,360 23 06/20/06 10:51 AM
by zappaisgod
* Direct Democracy = Technologically Feasible?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 DoctorJ 4,419 61 07/22/03 09:22 PM
by Crobih
* Kerry is going to destroy Bush in the debates.
( 1 2 all )		 Signo 3,101 29 08/22/04 11:42 AM
by Annapurna1
* Cowboys and Injuns (err, Israel and Palestine, cont'd)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 figgusfiddus 9,508 100 07/11/07 02:02 PM
by figgusfiddus
* Tax Payers Rights Missing in Stem Cell Research Debates gettinjiggywithit 921 7 06/28/07 10:36 AM
by dedjam

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
620 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 45 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.