Why Capitalism Cannot and Will Not Solve Climate Change

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
22,700
Reputation
3,620
Daps
98,203
Reppin
Detroit
In America companies are pushing to be carbon neutral with the largest corps claiming to be net negative(via offsets), and U.S. Carbon emission continues to trend downward...:yeshrug:

China continues to trend upwards per capita... but we know the agenda is really to bash America so derp derp

Typical "deflect to China" excuse whenever climate change comes up :mjlol:

You're right. I don't forsee societies breaking away from consumerism. But we still have to make an attempt to mitigating CC by any means. Plus as the climate disasters start piling up people will slowly start to see reality and demand action from their governments.

Unfortunately it'll be too late by then. The 2030s will not be pleasant :francis:
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,723
Reputation
4,365
Daps
88,653
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
Typical "deflect to China" excuse whenever climate change comes up :mjlol:
:umad:
America’s emissions are trending downward and private actors are investing in ways to reduce their carbon footprint. No deflection needed.


Sooner or later your going to have confront the world power(s) whose emissions are trending upward.

...there is no ignore everyone else and focus on us in regards to the climate crisis.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
48,842
Reputation
18,883
Daps
194,560
Reppin
the ether
I would say human nature is leading us down this road and no matter which system we are in environmental concerns will almost always be secondary. It's in our nature to want progress and to want more regardless of which system we follow.
Even if you removed the profit incentive people would still desire the comforts available in life. :unimpressed:

1. To make statements like that is to ignore the massive positive pressure on consumption that capitalism creates. An enormous portion of our consumption has nothing to do with "progress" or "the comforts of life". It's manufactured demand that does nothing to increase human happiness and is often antithetical to "the good life."

2. Capitalism is based on money created by loans at interest. In order to pay off the loans, you HAVE to create more money than you were given. But that money doesn't exist in the system, so people will have to take out loans to pay you, and then in turn will have to pay back more than they were given. This creates a CONSTANT demand for growth in capitalism that is inescapable. And demand for infinite growth is not compatible with a finite Earth.

3. Corporations are under enormous shareholder pressure to produce short-term profits. They are under enormous pressure to show growth, growth, growth. US law in particular makes it far easier for a shareholder to sue a corporation for failing to pursue profit sufficiently than it is to sue a corporation for harming the environment or its own workers. Profit is god in the system.


These three pressures - the constant growth caused by loans at interest, the constant growth caused by shareholder pressure for corporate profit and growth, and the enormous amount of manufactured demand - are issues which are especially true for capitalism. And you can't deny that it makes environmental conservation almost impossible so long as capitalism remains the law of the land.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
48,842
Reputation
18,883
Daps
194,560
Reppin
the ether
I post this shyt every time but people who wish to keep their heads in the sand ignore it. If you want to :cape: for capitalism, can you point to me where this parable is wrong?




The Eleventh Round

Once upon a time, in a small village in the Outback, people used barter for all their transactions. On every market day, people walked around with chickens, eggs, hams, and breads, and engaged in prolonged negotiations among themselves to exchange what they needed. At key periods of the year, like harvests or whenever someone’s barn needed big repairs after a storm, people recalled the tradition of helping each other out that they had brought from the old country. They knew that if they had a problem someday, others would aid them in return.

One market day, a stranger with shiny black shoes and an elegant white hat came by and observed the whole process with a sardonic smile. When he saw one farmer running around to corral the six chickens he wanted to exchange for a big ham, he could not refrain from laughing. “Poor people,” he said, “so primitive.” The farmer’s wife overheard him and challenged the stranger, “Do you think you can do a better job handling chickens?” “Chickens, no,” responded the stranger, “But there is a much better way to eliminate all that hassle.” “Oh yes, how so?” asked the woman. “See that tree there?” the stranger replied. “Well, I will go wait there for one of you to bring me one large cowhide. Then have every family visit me. I’ll explain the better way.”

And so it happened. He took the cowhide, and cut perfect leather rounds in it, and put an elaborate and graceful little stamp on each round. Then he gave to each family 10 rounds, and explained that each represented the value of one chicken. “Now you can trade and bargain with the rounds instead of the unwieldy chickens,” he explained.

It made sense. Everybody was impressed with the man with the shiny shoes and inspiring hat.

“Oh, by the way,” he added after every family had received their 10 rounds, “in a year’s time, I will come back and sit under that same tree. I want you to each bring me back 11 rounds. That 11th round is a token of appreciation for the technological improvement I just made possible in your lives.” “But where will the 11th round come from?” asked the farmer with the six chickens. “You’ll see,” said the man with a reassuring smile.

Assuming that the population and its annual production remain exactly the same during that next year, what do you think had to happen? Remember, that 11th round was never created. Therefore, bottom line, one of each 11 families will have to lose all its rounds, even if everybody managed their affairs well, in order to provide the 11th round to 10 others.

So when a storm threatened the crop of one of the families, people became less generous with their time to help bring it in before disaster struck. While it was much more convenient to exchange the rounds instead of the chickens on market days, the new game also had the unintended side effect of actively discouraging the spontaneous cooperation that was traditional in the village. Instead, the new money game was generating a systemic undertow of competition among all the participants.

This parable begins to show how competition, insecurity, and greed are woven into our economy because of interest. They can never be eliminated as long as the necessities of life are denominated in interest-money. But let us continue the story now to show how interest also creates an endless pressure for perpetual economic growth.

There are three primary ways Lietaer’s story could end: default, growth in the money supply, or redistribution of wealth. One of each eleven families could go bankrupt and surrender their farms to the man in the hat (the banker), or he could procure another cowhide and make more currency, or the villagers could tar-and-feather the banker and refuse to repay the rounds. The same choices face any economy based on usury.

So imagine now that the villagers gather round the man in the hat and say, “Sir, could you please give us some additional rounds so that none of us need go bankrupt?”

The man says, “I will, but only to those who can assure me they will pay me back. Since each round is worth one chicken, I’ll lend new rounds to people who have more chickens than the number of rounds they already owe me. That way, if they don’t pay back the rounds, I can seize their chickens instead. Oh, and because I’m such a nice guy, I’ll even create new rounds for people who don’t have additional chickens right now, if they can persuade me that they will breed more chickens in the future. So show me your business plan! Show me that you are trustworthy (one villager can create ‘credit reports’ to help you do that). I’ll lend at 10 percent-if you are a clever breeder, you can increase your flock by 20 percent per year, pay me back, and get rich yourself, too.”

The villagers ask, “That sounds OK, but since you are creating the new rounds at 10 percent interest also, there still won’t be enough to pay you back in the end.”

“That won’t be a problem,” says the man. “You see, when that time arrives, I will have created even more rounds, and when those come due, I’ll create yet more. I will always be willing to lend new rounds into existence. Of course, you’ll have to produce more chickens, but as long as you keep increasing chicken production, there will never be a problem.”

A child comes up to him and says, “Excuse me, sir, my family is sick, and we don’t have enough rounds to buy food. Can you issue some new rounds to me?”

“I’m sorry,” says the man, “but I cannot do that. You see, I only create rounds for those who are going to pay me back. Now, if your family has some chickens to pledge as collateral, or if you can prove you are able to work a little harder to breed more chickens, then I will be happy to give you the rounds.”

With a few unfortunate exceptions, the system worked fine for a while. The villagers grew their flocks fast enough to obtain the additional rounds they needed to pay back the man in the hat. Some, for whatever reason-ill fortune or ineptitude-did indeed go bankrupt, and their more fortunate, more efficient neighbors took over their farms and hired them as labor. Overall, though, the flocks grew at 10 percent a year along with the money supply. The village and its flocks had grown so large that the man in the hat was joined by many others like him, all busily cutting out new rounds and issuing them to anyone with a good plan to breed more chickens.

From time to time, problems arose. For one, it became apparent that no one really needed all those chickens. “We’re getting sick of eggs,” the children complained. “Every room in the house has a feather bed now,” complained the housewives. In order to keep consumption of chicken products growing, the villagers invented all kinds of devices. It became fashionable to buy a new feather mattress every month, and bigger houses to keep them in, and to have yards and yards full of chickens. Disputes arose with other villages that were settled with huge egg-throwing battles. “We must create demand for more chickens!” shouted the mayor, who was the brother-in-law of the man in the hat. “That way we will all continue to grow rich.”

One day, a village old-timer noticed another problem. Whereas the fields around the village had once been green and fertile, now they were brown and foul. All the vegetation had been stripped away to plant grain to feed the chickens. The ponds and streams, once full of fish, were now cesspools of stinking manure. She said, “This has to stop! If we keep expanding our flocks, we will soon drown in chicken shyt!”

The man in the hat pulled her aside and, in reassuring tones, told her, “Don’t worry, there is another village down the road with plenty of fertile fields. The men of our village are planning to farm out chicken production to them. And if they don’t agree … well, we outnumber them. Anyway, you can’t be serious about ending growth. Why, how would your neighbors pay off their debts? How would I be able to create new rounds? Even I would go bankrupt.”

And so, one by one, all the villages turned to stinking cesspools surrounding enormous flocks of chickens that no one really needed, and the villages fought each other for the few remaining green spaces that could support a few more years of growth. Yet despite their best efforts to maintain growth, its pace began to slow. As growth slowed, debt began to rise in proportion to income, until many people spent all their available rounds just paying off the man in the hat. Many went bankrupt and had to work at subsistence wages for employers who themselves could barely meet their obligations to the man in the hat. There were fewer and fewer people who could afford to buy chicken products, making it even harder to maintain demand and growth. Amid an environment-wrecking superabundance of chickens, more and more people had barely enough on which to live, leading to the paradox of scarcity amidst abundance.

And that is where things stand today.
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
43,052
Reputation
6,702
Daps
137,752
Reppin
CookoutGang
1. To make statements like that is to ignore the massive positive pressure on consumption that capitalism creates. An enormous portion of our consumption has nothing to do with "progress" or "the comforts of life". It's manufactured demand that does nothing to increase human happiness and is often antithetical to "the good life."

2. Capitalism is based on money created by loans at interest. In order to pay off the loans, you HAVE to create more money than you were given. But that money doesn't exist in the system, so people will have to take out loans to pay you, and then in turn will have to pay back more than they were given. This creates a CONSTANT demand for growth in capitalism that is inescapable. And demand for infinite growth is not compatible with a finite Earth.

3. Corporations are under enormous shareholder pressure to produce short-term profits. They are under enormous pressure to show growth, growth, growth. US law in particular makes it far easier for a shareholder to sue a corporation for failing to pursue profit sufficiently than it is to sue a corporation for harming the environment or its own workers. Profit is god in the system.


These three pressures - the constant growth caused by loans at interest, the constant growth caused by shareholder pressure for corporate profit and growth, and the enormous amount of manufactured demand - are issues which are especially true for capitalism. And you can't deny that it makes environmental conservation almost impossible so long as capitalism remains the law of the land.

Environmental adverse behavior is not rooted in capitalism. That's the point.

We've seen both China and Russia behave in destructive environmental ways before they ever adopted capitalism.

We have modern socialist countries like Venezuela that thrive off of natural resources.

You're doing that thing again. :francis:
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
48,842
Reputation
18,883
Daps
194,560
Reppin
the ether
You're doing that thing again. :francis:

You mean doing the thing where I'm dumb enough to engage in an argument with someone who has never educated themselves on the subject, who will never be willing to educate themselves on the subject, and who will merely engage is whataboutism and logical fallacies rather than debating any actual points that have been made?

Yup, if that's what you mean, I'm doing it again.


* I pointed out three specific ways in which capitalism makes environmental destruction worse. You ignored all of them.

* I posted a parable that shows how the introduction of capitalism specifically accelerated environmental destruction. You ignored it completely.

I'm interested - have you ever read a book on this specific subject in your entire life? Have you ever taken a class on this subject in your life? Have you ever worked in a specifically relevant field in your life? Then why position yourself as an expert who has nothing to learn in the subject and is only here to force their opinion on others? That's a cac mamba thing, I'm hoping you're better than that.


I named 3 specific reasons why capitalism makes environmental conservation extraordinarily difficult and posted a relevant parable. Either respond to those specifically or there's no need to respond at all.
 

Wargames

One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
23,221
Reputation
3,930
Daps
86,439
Reppin
New York City
Greed and exploitation in the pursuit of of "progress" isn't necessarily apart of human nature. Just look at some indigenous populations. We look upon these populations as backward and primitive but in many ways they had more wisdom. They provide a blueprint to how might begin to imagine a new civilization that appreciates the natural world.

On a grim note, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the only way humans stand a chance of surviving environmental collapse is for a complete collapse of global industrial civilization. Unfortunately that is probably the most realistic scenario. We aren't transitioning from a capitalist system to socialism anytime soon. There is simply too much power and money involved to the change the gears of this economic system in a timeframe that matters. Countries are going keep emitting CO2 and exploiting resources until it becomes no longer possible to do so.

I expect there to be wars first. The wars might just kill enough people that the rest of them can survive. Every war is a banker’s war and this will be no different.
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
43,052
Reputation
6,702
Daps
137,752
Reppin
CookoutGang
You mean doing the thing where I'm dumb enough to engage in an argument with someone who has never educated themselves on the subject, who will never be willing to educate themselves on the subject, and who will merely engage is whataboutism and logical fallacies rather than debating any actual points that have been made?

Yup, if that's what you mean, I'm doing it again.


* I pointed out three specific ways in which capitalism makes environmental destruction worse. You ignored all of them.

* I posted a parable that shows how the introduction of capitalism specifically accelerated environmental destruction. You ignored it completely.

I'm interested - have you ever read a book on this specific subject in your entire life? Have you ever taken a class on this subject in your life? Have you ever worked in a specifically relevant field in your life? Then why position yourself as an expert who has nothing to learn in the subject and is only here to force their opinion on others? That's a cac mamba thing, I'm hoping you're better than that.


I named 3 specific reasons why capitalism makes environmental conservation extraordinarily difficult and posted a relevant parable. Either respond to those specifically or there's no need to respond at all.

I double majored in philosophy and computer science at one of the top public universities in the nation. :comeon:

Now that we have that out of the way:

None of that responded to my initial claim.

That consumerism is a primary driver of waste more so than the mere accumulation of capital.

Further I've mentioned that despite the economic system, as long as government which is generally a reflection of society values "saving the environment" over convenience then it is what it is. :comeon:

You enjoy pointing out what you believe are problems, but very rarely are these discussions solutions oriented. Social and societal critique is cute, but it's pointless very much like this discussion without solutions and implementation.

There's a reason why you all keep getting these responses like, "oh you guys just want to shyt on America" and it isn't because we're uneducated on the topic. :comeon:
 

NZA

LOL
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
21,047
Reputation
4,009
Daps
53,867
Reppin
These Internet Streetz
I would say human nature is leading us down this road and no matter which system we are in environmental concerns will almost always be secondary. It's in our nature to want progress and to want more regardless of which system we follow.

In a world where every where wants to get rich quick and get more things it is difficult to envision a society where we will look out for each other and put the species as a collective above self or family. We all want the latest phones and the new cars and some of us get new clothes more often than others and most of us waste more than we consume.

The population is increasing at a rapid rate and some would say it is already at an unsustainable level. 2 countries by themselves have billions of citizens that we know of and both are hell bent on progress by any means necessary.

The Europeans talk a good game but as a collective they are extremely hypocritical and play politics behind their guise of ethics and so called morals. For all their "culture" they just seem like a scared bunch afraid of getting left behind.

The amount of mass resources that we waste on completely senseless things simply for posturing and projecting is insane and always has been and there is no reason to believe that we are capable of changing.

Capitalism in my opinion captures the human spirit of greedy progress in its essence whilst being extremely selective globally in regards to which citizens it favours in each nation and which citizens it inhibits.

In simpler words we are fukked.
this analysis is what happens when you think the whole planet and all of the past are modern day america. all the "primitive" people who live eons without endangering the environment and without advancing beyond their needs show that 'human nature" is not necessarily well-represented by capitalists. that being said, the cat is out of the bag so we have to deal with this economic nihilism that has been unleashed, but please dont believe this is the most natural way to live.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
48,842
Reputation
18,883
Daps
194,560
Reppin
the ether
I double majored in philosophy and computer science at one of the top public universities in the nation. :comeon:

Now that we have that out of the way:
That's literally not relevant in any way whatsoever. :why:

Is that seriously the closest you've come to learning about this issue? CS and philosophy courses?



None of that responded to my initial claim.

That consumerism is a primary driver of waste more so than the mere accumulation of capital.
You haven't provided any argument for why that is true, you simply asserted it as fact and demand that others accept it. I pointed out the specific ways that modern capitalism supercharges consumerism. You continue to ignore them.



You enjoy pointing out what you believe are problems, but very rarely are these discussions solutions oriented. Social and societal critique is cute, but it's pointless very much like this discussion without solutions and implementation.
That is a complete falsehood, I've spoken on the solutions numerous times. Unfortunately, the solutions will be ignored until the problems are understood. And you still haven't understood the problem

The parable I quoted comes from a book, Sacred Economics, which is incredibly solutions-oriented. And I've spoken on these solutions numerous times. Here are just a few instances where I spoke about that even just limiting to discussion of that one book:

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/cato-the-libertarian-alternative.828803/#post-40726075

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/is-...ertarianism-mjlol.831502/page-2#post-40926808

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/the...deficit-grew-48-in-2018.643111/#post-31941526

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/hel...rent-for-10-years.779299/page-8#post-37649059

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/por...f-food-thrown-out.832747/page-3#post-40989114

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/oil-just-crashed.774430/page-8#post-37362804



There's a reason why you all keep getting these responses like, "oh you guys just want to shyt on America" and it isn't because we're uneducated on the topic. :comeon:
No, I get those responses because some of you learned to reflexively defend America/capitalism/status quo and still haven't unlearned it.
 
  • Dap
Reactions: NZA

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
43,052
Reputation
6,702
Daps
137,752
Reppin
CookoutGang
The reason I find this a weird critique are varied:

Both Capitalism and Marxism view land as form of fixed capital:
  • capitalism views land as a finite resource who purpose is a means to enhance capital
  • Marxism views land as a finite resource who main purpose is to enhance labor
  • both recognize that the nature of land and other natural resources are limited as much as they are available and/or cyclical
In the end, you're largely just having an abstract discussion on the responses to scarcity. But your conclusion here is that producing the decision in the hands of labor instead of private owners and corporations we will end up a better response. And that operates on heavily unproven assumption on both sides that really disregard the various implementations of economic systems we see across the world.

That is a complete falsehood, I've spoken on the solutions numerous times. Unfortunately, the solutions will be ignored until the problems are understood. And you still haven't understood the problem


You're literally stuck in a scarcity paradox just like Marx. If you accept that nature is finite, hence the need to make changes (planning) to slow climate change as opposed to abolishing the issue. By what standard will you address these issues? Who will ultimately make these decisions? What happens once resources run out?

The destruction of capitalism doesn't resolve the issue of what to do with resources once it is gone. A corporation is merely a group of individuals acting as a single entity. What stop the newly formed individuals from falling into the same pitfalls as they search for a singular plan?

In one of your mentioned posts above you You advocate for a system that requires better central planning, while also criticizing central planning as the problem, as the solution :unimpressed:

Basically socialism but with control in the hands of people instead of centralized power in the state. The state sets up systems that discourage exploitation and keep wealth from being concentrated - mostly in terms of breaking monopoly power, enforcing worker's rights, and reforming the money system (new basis of currency, negative interest rates) such that wealth distribution is implicitly encouraged. But the actual governance of the structures is put in the hands of the people rather than the feds - co-ops, worker unions, community councils, etc. As much as possible power is delegated to the people most directly affected, with feds only stepping in to regulate the decisions that affect the whole country.

It has the goals that libertarians claim - to make people as free as possible and as free from exploitation as possible - but it actually works to remove exploitative structures rather than allowing the status quo by which the powerful have all the advantages to exploit the weak.

I don't talk about it much because it's not really something that can be implemented on a small basis - you need to make major changes to the structure of our system first or it won't work. Primarily, you need to change the basis of currency so that it is no longer based on loans at interest, because that is the central structure that dictates the constant competition, overproduction/overconsumption, and wealth accumulation that fukk our system up




@88m3 make a joke about feudalism, but he's not far off with some of these suggestions.:smugdraper:
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
48,842
Reputation
18,883
Daps
194,560
Reppin
the ether
The reason I find this a weird critique are varied:

Both Capitalism and Marxism view land as form of fixed capital:
  • capitalism views land as a finite resource who purpose is a means to enhance capital
  • Marxism views land as a finite resource who main purpose is to enhance labor
  • both recognize that the nature of land and other natural resources are limited as much as they are available and/or cyclical
In the end, you're largely just having an abstract discussion on the responses to scarcity. But your conclusion here is that producing the decision in the hands of labor instead of private owners and corporations we will end up a better response. And that operates on heavily unproven assumption on both sides that really disregard the various implementations of economic systems we see across the world.




You're literally stuck in a scarcity paradox just like Marx. If you accept that nature is finite, hence the need to make changes to slow climate change as opposed to abolishing the issue. By what standard will you address these issues? Who will ultimately make these decisions? What happens once resources run out?

The destruction of capitalism doesn't resolve the issue of what to do with resources once it is gone. A corporation is merely a group of individuals acting as a single entity. What stop the newly formed individuals from falling into the same pitfalls as they search for a singular plan?

You advocate for a system that requires better central planning, while also criticizing central planning as the problem, as the solution :unimpressed:


@88m3 make a joke about feudalism, but he's not far off with some of these suggestions.:smugdraper:


Who the fukk are you talking to? :why:

I'm not a Marxist and all that shyt you said bears almost no relation to the things I discussed as solutions. Nor does it address the problems I identified either. Did you read any of the posts or click on any of the links?

This is why y'all can't learn new things, you're programmed to just fight the same fukking 1950s Red Scare argument over and over. :snoop:
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
43,052
Reputation
6,702
Daps
137,752
Reppin
CookoutGang
The irony is most of the people I know who heavily champion leftist viewpoints don't actually produce anything beyond thoughts. It's just like the Republic. Ya'll have fun. :mjlol:
 
Top