Why Capitalism Cannot and Will Not Solve Climate Change

[Pressure]

Who the fukk are you talking to?

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.

Yea, I quoted a post of your where you admitted Rhakism isn't actually feasible, but just like Marx it fails to address the issue of scarcity.

 

[Pressure]

Enjoy the ride. Humanity is going to go extinct one day. It's a shame that our hubris has us believing we will defeat the inevitable.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

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.

This is one of the most cacmamba-like things you've said on here. Don't actually make an argument, just yell at everyone who disagrees with you and paint them with some vague, unproveable personal insult.

Do logical fallacies mean anything to you?

 

[Pressure]

This is one of the most cacmamba-like things you've said on here. Don't actually make an argument, just yell at everyone who disagrees with you and paint them with some vague, unproveable personal insult.

Do logical fallacies mean anything to you?

I made my argument in another post. Now I'm just here for the jokes because it gets you upset when people refuse to engage argumentation within your extremely narrow set of parameters.
that being said, people won't even take vaccines and wear masks to end or even lessen a once in a generation pandemic so they can get back to doing the things they want to do. If that isn't an indicator that humanity will never be on the same page to the point to solve what to many feels like an abstract threat in the climate crisis, I don't know what will.

People ain't shyt, I've been saying that for years.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I made my argument in another post. Now I'm just here for the jokes because it gets you upset

Then just move on to TLR. Some of us post in Higher Learning because we're explicitly trying to avoid wasting our time talking to people like you.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Yea, I quoted a post of your where you admitted Rhakism isn't actually feasible, but just like Marx it fails to address the issue of scarcity.

Wow that's ignorant as fukk.

1. It's not my idea

2. I didn't say it wasn't feasible

3. Several of the links I posted explicitly deal with the question of addressing scarcity, such as: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/oil-just-crashed.774430/page-8#post-37362804


My earlier arguments show the very direct ways that capitalism artificially increases scarcity. Through the loans-at-interest money system, through the shareholder-driven corporate system, and through the constant propping of artificial demand, scarcity of numerous resources is driven far beyond anything necessary for human well-being. You still haven't addressed those issues at all.

 

[Mook]

I disagree with that story rhakim. The lust for power is the core problem. It's why all the Communist countries became dictator's.

 

[Pressure]

Wow that's ignorant as fukk.

1. It's not my idea

2. I didn't say it wasn't feasible

3. Several of the links I posted explicitly deal with the question of addressing scarcity, such as: https://www.thecoli.com/threads/oil-just-crashed.774430/page-8#post-37362804


My earlier arguments show the very direct ways that capitalism artificially increases scarcity. Through the loans-at-interest money system, through the shareholder-driven corporate system, and through the constant propping of artificial demand, scarcity of numerous resources is driven far beyond anything necessary for human well-being. You still haven't addressed those issues at all.

I did answer than question when I mentioned the scarcity paradox, which being as well read as you are I figure you understood.

Let's try it again?

• Who determines what is necessary?
• How do they determine what is necessary?
• How do we keep those people from turning into the power corrupted people we abandoned the old system for?
• How do maintain their decision making provides the best solution and one that does not increase suffering in the name of good?
• Will this planning ever eventually fix the problem?

And moreso how do we keep the power listed above from corrupting or leading to fascism? There's more to life than just planning climate change and labor function.

Lastly, I haven't made any argument suggesting that unrestricted capitalism will find it equitable to protect the environment, despite having seem them presented before. And I usually offer critique there as well, isn't that right lord free market? @DEAD7


In the end, it seems you all just want another vector to attack capitalism and attempt to guilt shame people who don't fully agree with your ideas.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I did answer than question when I mentioned the scarcity paradox, which being as well read as you are I figure you understood.

Let's try it again?

• Who determines what is necessary?
• How do they determine what is necessary?
• How do we keep those people from turning into the power corrupted people we abandoned the old system for?
• How do maintain their decision making provides the best solution and one that does not increase suffering in the name of good?
• Will this planning ever eventually fix the problem?

I haven't made any argument suggesting that unrestricted capitalism will find it equitable to protect the environment, despite having seem them presented before. And I usually offer critique there as well, isn't that right lord free market? @DEAD7

In the end, it seems you all just want another vector to attack capitalism and attempt to guilt shame people who don't fully agree with your ideas.

I made three very clear arguments as to why capitalism artificially increases scarcity. Through the loans-at-interest money system, through the shareholder-driven corporate system, and through the constant propping of artificial demand, scarcity of numerous resources is driven far beyond anything necessary for human well-being. You still haven't addressed those issues at all.


Instead of addressing those issues, you pose vague hypothetical questions which can be used to attack literally every system of government ever conceived. There's nothing at all in your questions that are specific to the system I told you about or even specific to questions of environmental scarcity - they're the same questions that EVERY government is forced to answer. If you want to read more about how they potentially could be answered in this framework, read Sacred Economics as just a bare beginning primer - the entire book is available online.

The greatest difference is that the model I told you about provides a framework in which fixing our environmental problems is incentivized, whereas in modern capitalism the continued destruction of the environment is incentivized.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I disagree with that story rhakim. The lust for power is the core problem. It's why all the Communist countries became dictator's.

I agree that lust for power is a fundamental issue. That's something I really like about libertarian socialism - decisions are made at the level of the people affected by the decision. While no governmental system can eliminate people's own sinful nature, libertarian socialism at least would incentivize it less.

But I believe that lust for power is just one fundamental issue. Greed is another, selfishness is another. The problem with capitalism is that rather than trying to combat or even ignore these negative human drives, it directly incentivizes them. Greedy people are rewarded with more power, selfish people are rewarded with more control. And people who are not as plagued by greed and selfishness end up getting caught up in the system too, due to the need to pay interest on their loans and/or report to shareholders. That's what the parable is about.

However, there are positive human tendencies too. People naturally want to get along with their neighbors. There is an innate human desire to cooperate where it is mutually beneficial. We're one of the most social organisms on the planet, arguably THE most social considering how well-developed our language and community structures are. We appreciate beauty, we appreciate nature, we don't like seeing polluting factories or destructive eyesores going up in our own backyards. People really did used to come together to help each other put up barns. They used to come together to help each other complete their harvest. There was a degree of cooperation that was built in community rather than in self-centered greed, that has been lost as modern capitalism attempts to consume literally every aspect of human society.


Ayn Rand is one of the greatest prophets of capitalism ever, and one of her pinnacle works is The Virtue of Selfishness. Her whole argument is that benevolence and charity is destructive bullshyt, and that humans should just give in entirely to greed and selfishness and thereby will build the ideal human society. The current Republican party and many major business leaders are HUGE Ayn Rand fans. Greed and selfishness go hand-in-hand with modern capitalism.

Some of us believe there can be a different way. Or at least we should fukking try before we destroy ourselves.

 

[Oville]

I agree that lust for power is a fundamental issue. That's something I really like about libertarian socialism - decisions are made at the level of the people affected by the decision. While no governmental system can eliminate people's own sinful nature, libertarian socialism at least would incentivize it less.

But I believe that lust for power is just one fundamental issue. Greed is another, selfishness is another. The problem with capitalism is that rather than trying to combat or even ignore these negative human drives, it directly incentivizes them. Greedy people are rewarded with more power, selfish people are rewarded with more control. And people who are not as plagued by greed and selfishness end up getting caught up in the system too, due to the need to pay interest on their loans and/or report to shareholders. That's what the parable is about.

However, there are positive human tendencies too. People naturally want to get along with their neighbors. There is an innate human desire to cooperate where it is mutually beneficial. We're one of the most social organisms on the planet, arguably THE most social considering how well-developed our language and community structures are. We appreciate beauty, we appreciate nature, we don't like seeing polluting factories or destructive eyesores going up in our own backyards. People really did used to come together to help each other put up barns. They used to come together to help each other complete their harvest. There was a degree of cooperation that was built in community rather than in self-centered greed, that has been lost as modern capitalism attempts to consume literally every aspect of human society.


Ayn Rand is one of the greatest prophets of capitalism ever, and one of her pinnacle works is The Virtue of Selfishness. Her whole argument is that benevolence and charity is destructive bullshyt, and that humans should just give in entirely to greed and selfishness and thereby will build the ideal human society. The current Republican party and many major business leaders are HUGE Ayn Rand fans. Greed and selfishness go hand-in-hand with modern capitalism.

Some of us believe there can be a different way. Or at least we should fukking try before we destroy ourselves.

Facts! Its difficult to break down to people that commodifying natural resources is a choice because its so ingrained in our way of thinking. There were specific historical circumstances in human history that led for a system like capitalism to emerge. Its not natural though. Energy resources like oil not something that needs to be provided to people by means of exchange. That's a choice we make. WiFi is not something that needs to be commodified through cable companies. However we're getting to a point where even water is commodified. We don't necessarily to have a system based on constant expansion of private actors who are looking out simply for their best interest. A call for a system with different incentives and different organizational coordinations does not mean that human greed can be eradicated. It just means that we're no longer as reliant on mechanisms of trade and exchange to get the things we need in life as we currently are.

 

[Pressure]

I made three very clear arguments as to why capitalism artificially increases scarcity. Through the loans-at-interest money system, through the shareholder-driven corporate system, and through the constant propping of artificial demand, scarcity of numerous resources is driven far beyond anything necessary for human well-being. You still haven't addressed those issues at all.


Instead of addressing those issues, you pose vague hypothetical questions which can be used to attack literally every system of government ever conceived. There's nothing at all in your questions that are specific to the system I told you about or even specific to questions of environmental scarcity - they're the same questions that EVERY government is forced to answer. If you want to read more about how they potentially could be answered in this framework, read Sacred Economics as just a bare beginning primer - the entire book is available online.

The greatest difference is that the model I told you about provides a framework in which fixing our environmental problems is incentivized, whereas in modern capitalism the continued destruction of the environment is incentivized.

You can't artificially increase scarcity. You can dictate access. That was foundational of socialist to defeat capitalism. It didn't work though because of militarism and the desire of humans to want.

With regard to your model, it's based around limiting the destruction of finite resources as its main goal. I don't disagree with the concept, but you can't give concrete numbers about how much "access to convenience" humans should have.

I'm not arguing that there doesn't exist some a priori solution. I'm just merely pointing out that your solution needs the one thing you view a counterintuitive to your goal - - a collective agreement.

 

[Pressure]

I enjoy these conversations with you smart and well read men, but if it were as simple and ear as your suggest we'd never have these discussions a

 

[Pressure]

After reading the discussion regarding long peace between @Shogun and @Rhakim I have an even harder time with this discussion.

During Ww1/2 and the cold war the belief was that capitalist countries would run out of resources to the point that their citizens would revolt. It didn't happen. Race was a bigger issue.

But the idea of being able to control finite resources has helped push China ahead of Russia and able to threaten the US.

Capitalist need those that have to play ball to continue to succeed. And those who have in abundance need a willing parter to help fill their gaps.

The reason I singled out consumerism over capitalism is because there isn't a scenario where labor decides they aren't working during the chip shortage.

Further, if the entirety can't come to an agreement we ultimately end up In war - - more destructive.

I think many of the ideas presented will help people, but that's not what this thread is about.

Spoiler

and y'all self proclaimed smart nikkas are going to have to start showing some receipts on what you're making. POILER]

 

[Pressure]

I know for a fact the largest corporations were interested in lowering their footprints wrt data centers before Covid.

I also know they all increased their footprints during covid due to consumer demand.