Dog 3000
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 19:23
|
Demonstrably untrue that oil production has peaked -- it rises every year as demand rises.
The earliest predictions for the "peak" are around 2010. In historical terms, we'll soon see who's right about that.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:24
|
And the "unfree" world doesn't start wars?
Saddam didn't hope to profit by invading Iran and Kuwait?
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 19:25
|
|
The question is, where would the motivation and the money come from if someone wasn't standing to make a profit? I know that sounds cynical, but it's a real question? Capitalism (as i see it) is a slick as Slick Mc Slick, because it profits where it 'fails'. If it polutes, it sells an anti-pollutant.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:26
|
What I'm trying to say, again, is that's it's not a bogeyman "system" that causes wars, it's simply a problem with humanity in general.
Wars have been started by every ideology or system you can think of, throughout history.
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:27
|
|
I don't want to play with them or against them. Criticising capitalism onmy part, doesn't mean I don't criticise *whatever* . That's the whole American argument. If you dare criticise us, then you are Saddam's brother.
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:35
|
Yes but i was replying to your 'force' being against the whole idea of capitalism. I see huge forces working for the markets, this means I'm obviously paranoid, or in reality it's not a consumer-led operation but a very real pyschological and physical invasion of concepts of freedom, dressed as the good guys, because 'x' and 'y' are baddies and 'would you like to live under Pol Pot 'etc etc. What about my rights to live on the land, self-sufficiently? I have none, because the land is owned by a Capitalist, and was the minute I was born into debt. I'll have to work for someone else for the greater part of my life to be able to have a tiny patch of land in order to grow crops, even then my house is subject to planning permission and architect fees, when could knock up a perfectly good one evey few years and redesign it from renewable materials. But no, I have to live in a box, and work 9-5 forever, and buy packaged food.
It's just an example of the way 'force' works unde the guise of 'freedom'.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 19:37
|
The great thing about "markets" is they are self-correcting.
Suppose I could make tremendous profits selling hand-held personal nuclear weapons to everybody. I sell a few million, the world gets vaporized and along with it my money and my life. Realizing this is the likely outcome, I don't sell those weapons. More profitable not to.
Of course it doesn't work perfectly, but like "overpopulation" -- if we use up all the oil and can't figure out how to replace it, or pollute the earth to the point where life expectancy falls and we can't grow enough food, etc. -- Mama will kick our asses and we'll be right back to the stone age or extinct.
To the extent we can anticipate these problems (obviously we can, we're doing it right now) we can take steps to avoid them.
I've never said "buy an SUV and drive everywhere, oil will last forever" have I? I am a strong advocate of developing alternative energy systems. The difference is I am confident we'll be able to before the crisis point -- hence the crisis can be avoided.
It really boils down to optimism vs. pessimism I suppose.
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:38
|
|
I never said Saddam wasn't a Capitalist.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:45
|
First of all zoning laws and housing council permission are a lot closer to socialism than capitalism . . . that's the govt regulating your "freedoms" "for your own good."
Second, again it's not "the capitalist system" that has you living in a box etc. it's more a factor of population density and the technology that makes our population possible. Everyone simply can't be self-sufficient living in the country, because there isn't enough "country" to go around. This would be true no matter what "system" was in place. Land is the only truly finite resource.
And the only ways to get enough land for everyone to live the idyllic dream lifestyle are: 1) kill a lot of people, or 2) migrate off the planet.
I suppose there is a third way, involving slowing population growth until it peaks and then starts to decline. In such a scenario population continues to grow (to say 20 billion?) then it would fall off through death rates being higher than birth rates until it reached a sustainable level (though the effect on culture and economy would probably be catastrophic.)
In fact that's the theme of one of the first Sci-Fi novels (human birthrate falls to near zero), I forget the author (think he was Czech?) -- title is "Rostum's Robots" or something like that.
|
MonkeyBoy
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 19:49
|
If your arguement is true all capitalist companies would produce in the most environmentally sustainable ways.
They don't. Capitalism is only interested in the short to medium term of profits.
It is true that even the ruling class will be effected by environmental catastrophe. But if a company producing Widgets, uses environmentally sound methods it will be less competitive than the one that doesn't and will go out of business. It's all short to medium term Mister!
|
