A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

I've gotta apologize this is my first post in the commune in forever.


I'm majoring in environmental studies and this is a pretty good (raw) synthesis of my thoughts. I was just in the mood today to vent. I know there are some really bright minds here on FTR and ideally my post will generate discussion and maybe provide us all with some helpful information.



Had a talk with my mom today about how i basically feel everything is heading towards disaster. The consumption habits of the billion or so people with money in the world is doing long term damage to natural systems; we are destroying and using up natural capital today that won't be available tomorrow. There are over 300billion pounds of plastic in the ocean for God's sakes; despite this poisoning which is a double whammy (with increasing demand from rising populationn) on the animals of the sea humans depend on for food nobody is or really can do anything about it. To end overfishing and dredge the oceans for plastic requires countries voluntarily reducing their economic growth and condemning people who depend on food from the oceans to starvation. This is just one of many environmental/resource problems I can think of. Deforestation in the southern hemisphere is lowering the supply of long term natural capital future generations will be able to draw upon. Are the rainforests better off than they were in the 1980's? I think so, but they are still being repurposed for cattle farming and soybean fields when they would better serve the global community by acting as a carbon sink. Africa is a total disaster I can't even get into the environmental stuff when the political/war/disease issues are far more immediate and devastating.

I think it's a mind fuck for people when you tell them that although Earth can support 7 billion people and the consumptive levels of America+Western Europe at the present moment but that it won't be so in 20-30-50 years. Not being able to say WHEN resource limitations will affect us is a huge part of the misunderstanding. Watch the price of gas. Watch the price of food. The price of energy is fundamental to the operation of EVERYTHING.

Climate change is a huge but almost secondary concern and probably can't be dealt with anyways; energy shortages are probably going to come first and by then there won't be enough financial capital left to deal with the problems climate change will bring. Look at America right now; debt up the ass and we just approved tax cuts and extended unemployment benefits, and did nothing about entitlement programs SS and MDCR/Medicaid... So much of our agricultural and industrial infrastructure was built to suit a climate that will be very different in 2-3 decades. It tilts me that these global problems are manifesting too slowly for political institutions to coordinate any meaningful response. No one wants to make serious cuts in CO2 emissions because that means giving up stuff today. Individuals can give up things; societies don't/won't.

LOL WE"RE ALL FUCKED is all i can think sometimes. A couple months ago I would've blamed the Baby Boomer generation, but me and my generation are also to blame because we're not getting anything done either. My mom asked me what I think the energetic cost is to my playing poker on the computer. I don't really know what to say.. she's right that I'm burning fossil fuels by plugging in my computer. I should be out there picking up trash and educating people about being environmentally responsible. I just don't believe it'll make a difference. I'm watching this stupid ass commercial right now about renting furniture and I know there are too many idiots out there to make it worth a damn. Even if 20% of people 'got wise' and changed their lifestyles that'd still mean 80% of us (and the .1% who are immensely benefitting from the status quo) are locked in to the currently unsustainable system.

Yup I hope when I'm twenty five I'll be more hopeful.

[aka_red]

world is slowly imploding nobody cares and as a result neither do i.

[Penneywize]

EDIT: Fuck it, deleted post. Coles: I don't agree with you.

[couriermike]

this is malthus all over again. next generation it'll be a different calamity.

[CoccoBill]

Yup I hope when I'm twenty five I'll be more hopeful.

Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows.

[wufwugy]

This kind of topic is always so difficult to broach because it's so poorly understood. I'll make a couple points though


Catastrophe: We're already in catastrophe, and we have been for a long damn time. The thing is that you and me and the few lucky ones don't really see that due to ignorance. One billion people starving daily, twenty-three million prisoners in US alone, 100k suicides a year, the list goes on and on with things that are simply horrible, yet because they're normal to us, we do not realize the horribleness.

Human life itself is a sort of Stockholm's Syndrome. Nobody wants to hear this or admit to it, but our very existence is wrought with all sorts of unfathomable misery. Catastrophe is standard. The difference is that instead of individual or even regional catastrophe, we're now facing a new global and collective existential catastrophe.

Energy: This is not as big an issue as many believe. Our problems are not so much about limited resources, but with limited rate of production. There is a pretty big economic bright side to peak oil and increases in energy cost, but you won't hear many people talk about it. In fact, I've only seen one professional lecture on it, but that's largely because there are not that many people who are experts in both fields of economics and energy.

Anyways, as the price of oil gets high enough, we will begin to see a return from globalization. We will begin to see jobs returning for localized purposes. An example of China having all US manufacturing jobs is largely dependent upon oil being cheap enough. Once it's no longer cheap enough for transportation across the Pacific and all that, manufacturing will return to the US. There is a bright side to energy costs going up

Global Warming: This is the real kicker. The research is developing very rapidly, and it's all pointing in the same trend. That trend is something that even most climate scientists don't wanna admit, but are gradually coming around to. Every year or so, the projected worst-case scenario is being pushed back as mild.

Just a few years ago the Arctic ice caps were gonna stick around during summer all the way till 2100, then to 2050, but now we're predicted to have ice free Arctics in just 2020. Just a couple years ago, we believed that the current level of greenhouse emissions we've achieved would only account for like .5 degrees warming, but now we have reason to believe it's closer to 5.0 (will just take time to settle, the climate doesn't react to stimuli overnight). Just a few years ago we thought that it would be many, many decades before we triggered unstoppable feedback loops like permafrost melt, but today we think we may have already gone past.

Global Warming is going to turn our world into something unrecognizable. Scientists are only slowly beginning to see this for what it really is, but even then they don't wanna admit the doom to themselves and their families. On top of that, geophysicists and the like have very awful understandings of other sciences like economics and politics, and honestly they make egregious mistakes in predictive analyses because of it.

The ocean is going to be fish-less this century. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. While fishing has ravaged fisheries' magnitudes, that won't be what kills oceanic life. We've already begun to see enormous drop offs in plankton, they're going to go completely, virtually everything else will die off then, and the oceans will gradually develop overwhelming acidity and anoxia. Oceanic CO2 uptake is already rapidly slowing. That sign is unfathomably dreadful. We basically know for a fact that the oceans are fucked, just that it takes a lot of time to see the effects. Human time perception is nothing compared to geologic time

In turn, the anoxia, if enough of a feedback is triggered, will annihilate all life on Earth. It's happened many times before, we don't know exactly how it happens, but the safe money is on things like returning the levels of carbon and methane into the atmosphere that we know we are and will.

Before that possible anoxia, however, we will see the most unfathomable events unfold like Antarctica breaking up before 2200. Before that, systemic famine and desertification. Our ONLY possible respite will be a futuristic technology of incredibly powerful artificial trees that capture and sequester the gases. I don't know how likely that technology is to be developed, but it is last resort, and if it happens you can bet your ass that most of the planet is a dust bowl



To the naysayers, get a clue. Global warming killing everything is fucking fact. A basic understanding of geological history determines this. All that carbon and all that methane that scientists predict we will release into the atmosphere was once in this atmosphere, and at that time, there existed no lifeforms even remotely close to mammals. Opening up the oil wells, coal mines, and permafrost is more than enough established geophysical and chemical reactions to shoot our global temperatures far, far beyond 10C warming. 10C is what scientists say is a virtual doomsday. Actually, that's not true. They say that about 6C. Admitting 10C hasn't been something they can cope with yet, but it won't take more than just a couple years for that to happen. Only a few years ago, 2C wasn't something most climate scientists could admit to themselves


My personal hope is that we do annihilate ourselves. I mentioned human life itself being like Stockholms, but it runs much, much deeper than that. The amount of unstoppable suffering in the world is astronomically larger than the amount of joy, and it will only get worse.

The first great evil was the development of agriculture. That provided for human societies that we have not been biologically evolved for, and the misery has abounded because of it. The second great evil will probably be known as computing technology. At some point in our future, we will achieve things like perpetual consciousnesses, and with that, some will endure perpetual suffering. Just like how the ability for humans to suffer chronically became a reality upon the development of agriculture, the ability for humans to suffer at astronomical magnitudes beyond current levels will be made possible by computing technology

[Lukie]

The first great evil was the development of agriculture. That provided for human societies that we have not been biologically evolved for, and the misery has abounded because of it. The second great evil will probably be known as computing technology. At some point in our future, we will achieve things like perpetual consciousnesses, and with that, some will endure perpetual suffering. Just like how the ability for humans to suffer chronically became a reality upon the development of agriculture, the ability for humans to suffer at astronomical magnitudes beyond current levels will be made possible by computing technology

In that case you should also be able to live out the days in perpetual orgasmic bliss. And damnit, I want to be around for that!

[Roid_Rage]

World's gonna end? PAAAARRRRRTTTTTTAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

I'll bring the pot and booze.

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

ty wuf, i was kind of hoping i'd get a quality response from you

yea you're right the capacity for energy production is the issue, not a supply 'shortage'. apparently we've only exploited a fraction of the fossil fuel reserves, but the ones we have were the most accessible. as a result the price of energy will rise and in conjunction with increased global demand there is going to be something like less energy available per capita, and it'll be more expensive. economic contraction as a result

i like your point about we are presently living in a catastrophe but that we don't really appreciate it because we've become normalized to suicide/genocide/environmental degradation.

i wrote a paper about agriculture that viewed it like u are suggesting; it locked human societies into a self destructive relationship with the natural systems they relied upon for survival. did you go to college/what did u study?

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows.

lol yea, but I look at older and smarter people around me who are doing things for the betterment of society and I wonder if they do it not because they expect to stop the tide but just so they can sleep at night?

[wufwugy]

ty wuf, i was kind of hoping i'd get a quality response from you

yea you're right the capacity for energy production is the issue, not a supply 'shortage'. apparently we've only exploited a fraction of the fossil fuel reserves, but the ones we have were the most accessible. as a result the price of energy will rise and in conjunction with increased global demand there is going to be something like less energy available per capita, and it'll be more expensive. economic contraction as a result

I don't exactly agree with this even though I did for a very long time. It goes to my complaints about experts not understanding seemingly unrelated fields well enough.

From a superficial look, rising oil prices look like they will result in economic contraction, but I think when you look at it more deeply, you'll see the opposite. Not exactly the opposite because our view of macro econ is already not precise nor exhaustive, but we'll see things that are of great benefit for people (like contraction of GDP yet expansion of labor. Labor being an arguably more accurate indicator of economic health). Especially since the primary economic paradigm is very top heavy. With cheap oil, what this does is create poorly balanced systems like what we see in the US/China relationship. With overly expensive oil, we'll see that model vanish and production will become more localized. This is actually a very good thing, and I honestly want to see oil prices get up to 120$/barrel. There will be a lot of short term pain because of it, but it will ultimately bring a whole lot of jobs back and restructure different societies to be more self-sufficient

At least that's my theory. The vast majority of economists don't seem to have an opinion on the matter yet, and if they did, they would simply agree with the catastrophe aspect due to conventional wisdom and research into the idea has been nil. Curiously, Krugman's Nobel was awarded for his analysis on why centralized production benefits the global economy better than localized production, yet I doubt he mentioned oil much or how that paradigm would flip topsy turvy if it was expensive enough.

i like your point about we are presently living in a catastrophe but that we don't really appreciate it because we've become normalized to suicide/genocide/environmental degradation.

I could go on for days providing theory and examples about why tribal societies are actually a boon for human happiness, while modern societies produce a net sadness. I honestly feel like I need to kick this though. It doesn't really make my life any better knowing these kinds of things I think I know

i wrote a paper about agriculture that viewed it like u are suggesting; it locked human societies into a self destructive relationship with the natural systems they relied upon for survival. did you go to college/what did u study?

I barely graduated high school. Those were some very depressing years for me for reasons unrelated to academia, yet greatly affected academia.

I have been considering going back to school, and if I did it would probably be for economics. I likely will not, though.

[wufwugy]

In that case you should also be able to live out the days in perpetual orgasmic bliss. And damnit, I want to be around for that!

I don't think we will be around for that. I don't think any humans will be around for that actually. Some form of AI cyborg hybridization will probably turn humans partially extinct. I say partially, because I think it may still be possible that only the wealthy will experience the greatness, while the poor in isolated regions will still live as they currently do. To this day, there is still at least one "uncontacted" tribe in existence.

What I think we will have in our lifetimes, however, is immersive virtual reality and biological agelessness. The crazy, crazy thing is that since the advent of computers, technological development of just one decade is bigger than the rest of history combined.

As to exactly how machines will take over, I honestly have no clue. I think it will be gradual hybridization, and won't take off this century like it will in later centuries.

[philly and the phanatics]

tl;;dr

[!Luck]

Maybe it just a 20s thing. I remember first learning about peak oil freshman year and I was convinced that the end was neigh. Like others have mentioned there is always some crap that is going on in this world. Some poeple suffering such pain that death would be sweat release.

What I have seen from my limited experience (im 27) is those that tend to focus on the negative even if they are trying to improve them, become progressively bitter. While those that focus on taking care of things that have control over tend to become happier. (LOL sample size).

I can conclusively say that the earth will eventually be swallowed by the sun. But, by that time we shall all be dead. Whatever horrible problems come before then we will likely be gone. Or maybe we will get to see a reversion to a war torn world where we fight over the most precious resource (water). But, right now you can choose to be happy until the moment of your destruction or you can choose to embitter yourself and possible those around you as well.

I know this is slightly off topic, but your post appeared as a plea for help.

Cliffs: Enjoy what you have, humanity is not even a dot on the time continuum of the universe.

[mbiz]

Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows.

ugh...what do you call these catch phrasey things? whatever they are, they are no replacement for an actual argument. tilts me! And the quote itself is highly cynical - sounds liek the shit my ultra conservative stepdad says to justify his own selfishness, just because it sounds clever.

Idealism is one of the best things about humanity - you need to shoot for something great to achieve much good at all. Even if you don't achieve it in your lifetime, the existence of that ideal allows other people to continue towards it like cumulatively or soemthing. And look at most of the great achievers in our history and tell me they weren't idealists... (einstein, washington, van gogh, do you think these people looked around them and thought screw it whats the point?)

[boost]

its called a proverb... and ya, they are not dissimilar to buzz words and talking points used in politics.

[wufwugy]

And look at most of the great achievers in our history and tell me they weren't idealists... (einstein, washington, van gogh, do you think these people looked around them and thought screw it whats the point?)

This could actually prompt an interesting discussion

I think everybody is an idealist to some degree, but I'm not sure idealism plays that strong of a role in behavior.

Einstein's idealism could be said to have hindered him more than helped. I'm not sure if we know much about Washington to say one way or the other, but he was more of a good military general in the right place at the right time. It could be said his ideals were for his countrymen, which could be said to not be an ideal in the first place, but an instinct and the way people naturally feel. I don't know enough about Van Gogh to say anything, but I'm not sure if idealism is important for artists being good artists

Hitler may be a good point for this idea. A lot of people will say his idealism (manifested in patriotism, racism, xenophobia) is what provoked his actions, but I think the idealism was more a symptom. If anything is to blame for WW2, the rise of The Third Reich, and their philosophy, it's the hard times brought upon Germany by the economy. They were dealing with 50% unemployment being perpetuated by actions of foreign countries, and I think their ideals simply reflected that.

In a way, I've found that cliche catchphrases are more true than I want to admit.


All in all, I do not feel that idealism is important whatsoever. Just look at the results. Examining the spectrum of human civilization strongly suggests that we are who we are, and nothing is changing that. This is tough to understand because the micro seems so different than the macro (and it may actually be). On the macro, things reflect determinism, on the micro, things reflect at least some level of freedom, but that could just be appearances. However, appearances are deceiving, and no level of freedom can be isolated from determinism.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not in human biology to express ideals that eliminate or even reduce collective suffering, and that's why it doesn't and cannot happen. And what ideals we do have, I think are wrought by our environment regardless.

[Lukie]

I don't think we will be around for that. I don't think any humans will be around for that actually. Some form of AI cyborg hybridization will probably turn humans partially extinct. I say partially, because I think it may still be possible that only the wealthy will experience the greatness, while the poor in isolated regions will still live as they currently do. To this day, there is still at least one "uncontacted" tribe in existence.

that's fine, some sort of pseudo Lukie AI cyborg hybridization that lives in eternal bliss is fine with me. maybe ill build a virtual statue in my name or something

What I think we will have in our lifetimes, however, is immersive virtual reality and biological agelessness. The crazy, crazy thing is that since the advent of computers, technological development of just one decade is bigger than the rest of history combined.

that works too

As to exactly how machines will take over, I honestly have no clue. I think it will be gradual hybridization, and won't take off this century like it will in later centuries.

ill be honest, i've somewhat read into futurization theories and technologies and understand the validity of them, but there's something about all of it that makes me skeptical, without outright denying them, if that makes any sense.

[Monty3038]

yea you're right the capacity for energy production is the issue, not a supply 'shortage'. apparently we've only exploited a fraction of the fossil fuel reserves, but the ones we have were the most accessible. as a result the price of energy will rise and in conjunction with increased global demand there is going to be something like less energy available per capita, and it'll be more expensive. economic contraction as a result

I'm interested in hearing more about this statement/collection of statements. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of someone who feels we are headed towards destruction, but feels there are a large volume of fossil fuel reserves presently untapped...

Wouldn't tapping the untapped reserves rush us towards the precipice of destruction, as many environmentalists predict?

---

I'll start there... I'd like to try to have a civilized discussion on a number of the points brought up here, I have to think about the idealism aspect and try to form a coherent thought on it to add to the discussion...

[wufwugy]

ill be honest, i've somewhat read into futurization theories and technologies and understand the validity of them, but there's something about all of it that makes me skeptical, without outright denying them, if that makes any sense.

Quite understandable. The stuff isn't "normal" by any means. The biggest skeptics about quantum physics are physicists themselves

The theory is solid. The tough thing to figure out is the time frame. We have no reason to believe that biological agelessness is impossible or in the very distant future, while we do have reason to believe that something like time travel is not humanly possible.

[Monty3038]

This could actually prompt an interesting discussion

I think everybody is an idealist to some degree, but I'm not sure idealism plays that strong of a role in behavior.

This could be very interesting. The first people I thought of when you mentioned this were the rocketeers and physicists who worked on the technology that eventually led to nuclear missiles, most are often portrayed as troubled by their discoveries and advancements leading to weaponization, so they could I suppose be said to be idealists... but was it their idealism that led them to their discoveries (advancement of science) which then their discoveries led them to violate more basic humanitarian ideals?

That is a pretty convoluted thought pattern, but is what I first came up with, if it makes any sense, I'll try to hash out some of the other thoughts in a bit... doing this at work now...

[wufwugy]

I'm interested in hearing more about this statement/collection of statements. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of someone who feels we are headed towards destruction, but feels there are a large volume of fossil fuel reserves presently untapped...

Wouldn't tapping the untapped reserves rush us towards the precipice of destruction, as many environmentalists predict?

Yes. In a big way, too. CTL (coal to liquid) isn't yet economically feasible, but when oil is expensive enough, it will be, and it's far more carbon intensive. Coal reserves themselves are much bigger than oil too. Other unconventionals like shale oil and tar sands are also not online much if at all due to pricing, but they will be eventually, and they're on the order of 2x-4x more GHG (greenhouse gas) intensive. Not to mention there's still assloads of conventionals left in the Middle East. US doesn't keep flexing all its muscle over there for no reason. Iran is lucky it's so damn huge otherwise we'd have almost complete control of ME oil

GHG emissions hasn't even begun. Not even close. We're all talking about trying to drop down to 350 PPM (parts per million) CO2 (we're at somewhere around 385 right now), but that is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard. Lately, that target has been changing to 450 PPM, but also quite the fairy tale. We're going to blow past that without even trying.

I have a big, big problem with geophysicists and related climate scientists. That is, they have such crummy understanding of the social sciences. Hell, social scientists have poor understanding of their own field, but it's still magnitudes a greater understanding than climate scientists. The reason this is a problem is because every single thing about social sciences tells us that human civilization is NOT going to stop. The problem is too abstract, too slow-acting, special interests are too selfish or too irrational for the problem to fixed any time soon.

We're going to use ALL the fossil we can get our hands on. Guaranteed. Human society does not and virtually cannot willingly suffer momentary reductions in energy output. Even if we know our children will die because of it, our brains are just not sophisticated enough to make that kind of sacrifice.

There is NO replacement for liquid fuel. None, whatsoever. It's the packaging. One day we may have some level of super battery tech that can be powered via things like solar or wind, but we're not even close to that. We're going to be addicted to liquids for at least this entire century

My prediction is that the globe will be consuming even more fossil in 2030 than we do today. If you were to ask a climate scientist what that means for the environment, animal life, and most human life, he'd make like the most awesomest actor of all time and scream "GAME OVER MAN!"

I'll start there... I'd like to try to have a civilized discussion on a number of the points brought up here, I have to think about the idealism aspect and try to form a coherent thought on it to add to the discussion...

Cool. This is one of my favorite topics

[wufwugy]

This could be very interesting. The first people I thought of when you mentioned this were the rocketeers and physicists who worked on the technology that eventually led to nuclear missiles, most are often portrayed as troubled by their discoveries and advancements leading to weaponization, so they could I suppose be said to be idealists... but was it their idealism that led them to their discoveries (advancement of science) which then their discoveries led them to violate more basic humanitarian ideals?

That is a pretty convoluted thought pattern, but is what I first came up with, if it makes any sense, I'll try to hash out some of the other thoughts in a bit... doing this at work now...

Actually, I'm not sure if this is a topic I can provide much for because I view micro behaviors ultimately as products of macro realities. Under that paradigm, its not ideals that affect society, but environment. Any time I see an ideal affecting things, I can see how they're more basic than assumed, and can't be isolated from environmental factors.

As for the Manhattan Project specifically, I think the ideals were normal social protections and other ones that are found everywhere human society exists, and that it's largely deterministic since any individuals without those ideals would simply be replaced by ones who do, and that it was really the natural progression of physics at the time. Ideals may even be a red herring since the causes of those ideals are biology and environment

[Vi-Zer0Skill]

Maybe it just a 20s thing. I remember first learning about peak oil freshman year and I was convinced that the end was neigh. Like others have mentioned there is always some crap that is going on in this world. Some poeple suffering such pain that death would be sweat release.

What I have seen from my limited experience (im 27) is those that tend to focus on the negative even if they are trying to improve them, become progressively bitter. While those that focus on taking care of things that have control over tend to become happier. (LOL sample size).

I can conclusively say that the earth will eventually be swallowed by the sun. But, by that time we shall all be dead. Whatever horrible problems come before then we will likely be gone. Or maybe we will get to see a reversion to a war torn world where we fight over the most precious resource (water). But, right now you can choose to be happy until the moment of your destruction or you can choose to embitter yourself and possible those around you as well.

I know this is slightly off topic, but your post appeared as a plea for help.

Cliffs: Enjoy what you have, humanity is not even a dot on the time continuum of the universe.

you read into the intentions behind my post well. there's wisdom to not letting an unchangeable tide like environmental destruction get me down, and getting some affirmation that there is a problem eases my mental burden.

all the same I'm not going to drop the issue. I do need to do something proactive about the wreck of a planet we are leaving for future generations though so I can better live with what's happening in my lifetime

[Roid_Rage]

Why does it bother you so much to know that in all the vastness of space one form of intelligent species on the fast track to essentially microwaving themselves in the next few generations (or less)?

Like !Luck said, we're just a speck on the ass of the universe in the grand scheme of things. Live it up, don't let shit you can't do anything about get you down, unless of course you feel you can make a difference. In which case, by all means do it up brotha mang. If that's what makes you happy.

[boost]

Why does it bother you so much to know that in all the vastness of space one form of intelligent species on the fast track to essentially microwaving themselves in the next few generations (or less)?

Like !Luck said, we're just a speck on the ass of the universe in the grand scheme of things. Live it up, don't let shit you can't do anything about get you down, unless of course you feel you can make a difference. In which case, by all means do it up brotha mang. If that's what makes you happy.

I think its the same reason that many people feel so inclined to have children. Even if a person does nothing significant in life, if they have children, their legacy will be carried on. When humans cease to exist, even if you lived the most profoundly significant life, your legacy will die. The drive to achieve immortality through legacy is a clear extension of the biological drive to survive.

[Micro2Macro]

World's gonna end? PAAAARRRRRTTTTTTAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

I'll bring the pot and booze.

you remind me of an old friend, roid rage.

[Roid_Rage]

I can understand that boost. I'm always worried I won't be remember when I'm gone, but seriously, what does it matter? I'm not trying to be all 'FUCK THE WORLD MAN" and all that BS, but if you thing about the long term, what we do now is pretty inconsequential to the goings on in the universe.

We'll all be forgotten someday.

[Micro2Macro]

also do you guys think people reproducing excessively (or even at all) are only hurting us in the end?

[Roid_Rage]

We should legitimately start curtailing our reproduction rate at this point. Humanity has spread across the world like cancer over the past millenia, lately (last few thousand years) just asbo exploding in numbers. That will never happen though, and I shudder when I think what would happen if a gov't tried to take control of enough of the population to try and do so.

LOL @ trying to take away baby makin' from hillbilly's and people in the ghetto.

[Micro2Macro]

fuck poor hilly billy faggots and ghetto retards. poor people, ffs - they are always fucking shit up. they have too many kids. they drive really shitty cars that are terrible for the environment. they smoke too many cigs. they take up space in lines at the supermarket and smell bad. the list goes on. and meanwhile they are all like OMG I GOT NO MONEY OKAY SO IM GONNA HAVE 8.5 KIDS THEN LIVE OFF THE WELFARE BY SMOKIN CIGS AND DRIVING AN 84 HONDA THAT ISNT EVEN STREET LEGAL DUE TO MULTIPLE E TEST FAILURES

[Roid_Rage]

This is how shit like the holocaust gets started sir.

[mbiz]

Actually, I'm not sure if this is a topic I can provide much for because I view micro behaviors ultimately as products of macro realities. Under that paradigm, its not ideals that affect society, but environment. Any time I see an ideal affecting things, I can see how they're more basic than assumed, and can't be isolated from environmental factors.

As for the Manhattan Project specifically, I think the ideals were normal social protections and other ones that are found everywhere human society exists, and that it's largely deterministic since any individuals without those ideals would simply be replaced by ones who do, and that it was really the natural progression of physics at the time. Ideals may even be a red herring since the causes of those ideals are biology and environment

Anyone care to paraphrase this for me?

[CoccoBill]

ugh...what do you call these catch phrasey things? whatever they are, they are no replacement for an actual argument. tilts me! And the quote itself is highly cynical - sounds liek the shit my ultra conservative stepdad says to justify his own selfishness, just because it sounds clever.

Idealism is one of the best things about humanity - you need to shoot for something great to achieve much good at all. Even if you don't achieve it in your lifetime, the existence of that ideal allows other people to continue towards it like cumulatively or soemthing. And look at most of the great achievers in our history and tell me they weren't idealists... (einstein, washington, van gogh, do you think these people looked around them and thought screw it whats the point?)

Proverbs, yes. Obviously they are not a replacement for an argument, and clearly I had no point at all. Then again to categorically condemn catch phrases is a bit like being against regulation: neither are in or of themselves positive or negative, they are simply tools. My comment was meant to be cynically sarcastic, but I suppose those don't travel well over the interwebs.

George Carlin actually made a very similar statement: "Scratch a cynic and you'll find a disappointed idealist". That's how I see myself, even when I consider myself inherently an optimist. I wouldn't necessarily confuse idealism with ambition or curiosity, if you mean idealism in the philosophical sense I think it is contrasted with realism, which seems to clearly indicate that pure idealism is at odds with reality. To maintain a non-cynical view of the world while actually following it, requires a certain amount of naivety or faith, IMO.

[Monty3038]

I have to agree that Carlin has some pretty good wisdom hidden in that comedy...

Now back to where we were discussing... So... since there is currently no replacement for fossil fuels within a reasonable economic structure, do you expect it to stay that way? What I'm getting at, is do you feel that because the other options are so expensive today, that it will kill the economy to have to move to them? Or will we just continue to plod our way towards destruction... without any change at all?

If there is to be a change, who has to initiate it? Government? General Public? The rich guys like Ed Begley Jr.?

I'm not trying to sound overly cynical... and I'm trying to keep an open mind here, so I'd like to continue this discussion and see what comes from it.

[wufwugy]

Now back to where we were discussing... So... since there is currently no replacement for fossil fuels within a reasonable economic structure, do you expect it to stay that way? What I'm getting at, is do you feel that because the other options are so expensive today, that it will kill the economy to have to move to them? Or will we just continue to plod our way towards destruction... without any change at all?

If there is to be a change, who has to initiate it? Government? General Public? The rich guys like Ed Begley Jr.?

I'm not trying to sound overly cynical... and I'm trying to keep an open mind here, so I'd like to continue this discussion and see what comes from it.

We will continually plod towards destruction due to things like myopia and greed. I don't think that cost is the biggest deal because it will engender some healthy restructuring. There is a problem with simply running out of oil though because we don't have the tech (maybe not even the theory) to replace that kind of energy packaging. That won't be for quite a while though.

The change is gradual and initiated in several areas. The biggest change, however, will come in a long long time when oil corps lose some political power

[Monty3038]

We will continually plod towards destruction due to things like myopia and greed. I don't think that cost is the biggest deal because it will engender some healthy restructuring. There is a problem with simply running out of oil though because we don't have the tech (maybe not even the theory) to replace that kind of energy packaging. That won't be for quite a while though.

The change is gradual and initiated in several areas. The biggest change, however, will come in a long long time when oil corps lose some political power

From the sound of the earlier statements, I was going down the direction of will we continue to plod towards destruction by an increase in GHG. But ok, let's look at the greed/power thing. You mention the oil corps will have to lose power to make a big change... I have two comments on that... the first is: Do you feel technology will advance to a point where this will happen? And the second is: How do you think the oil companies get their power/how can you stop them?

[wufwugy]

also do you guys think people reproducing excessively (or even at all) are only hurting us in the end?

Excessive reproduction is one of the most destructive things any society can ever do. It is impossible to sustain, and there will be a correcting period. Personally, I'm not a fan of human reproduction at all anymore. I think we've strayed way too far from who we really are, and the problems that have arisen are too intense

We don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life, yet how unprepared we are for modern life. We take horrible, chronic conditions like depression for granted, but reality is that we did not evolve for these things. Just because we're capable of surviving doesn't mean we should

[wufwugy]

From the sound of the earlier statements, I was going down the direction of will we continue to plod towards destruction by an increase in GHG. But ok, let's look at the greed/power thing. You mention the oil corps will have to lose power to make a big change... I have two comments on that... the first is: Do you feel technology will advance to a point where this will happen? And the second is: How do you think the oil companies get their power/how can you stop them?

1. I don't think that technology will be the mover in changes, but the symptom of an actualized need to change. Science has always been stymied by money interests, this will be no different. People want what they want, and tend to only do what's right or look for help and change when they're out of options

2. They get their power due to ownership of one of the most valuable resources of all time. They will lose that power as the resource becomes less important

Oil companies are arguably the most powerful entities on the planet. US foreign policy since WW2 is almost exclusively for the purpose of oil acquisition. Europe is virtually a US proxy state via relying on US for maintaining oil as well. The Middle East is what it is mainly due to oil. Not only do corps like Exxon not pay any taxes, but I think they even get subsidized. That's how insanely powerful they are

[Roid_Rage]

Excessive reproduction is one of the most destructive things any society can ever do. It is impossible to sustain, and there will be a correcting period. Personally, I'm not a fan of human reproduction at all anymore. I think we've strayed way too far from who we really are, and the problems that have arisen are too intense

We don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life, yet how unprepared we are for modern life. We take horrible, chronic conditions like depression for granted, but reality is that we did not evolve for these things. Just because we're capable of surviving doesn't mean we should

Care explaining this a bit more? What do you mean we don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life but unprepared for modern?

[wufwugy]

Anyone care to paraphrase this for me?

I think this could be called environmental determinism. Determinism is not easy to accept, and likely impossible for humans to understand or demonstrate. But I find that every ounce of reality we have suggests environmental determinism. It doesn't feel that way on the individual level, but that may just be like we only feel like we live in four dimensional spacetime when reality is likely much deeper than that.

So when we broaden scope enough, we'll see that everything that happens is based on environment and laws, not individuals or ideals or what have you. Similar to how when you flip a coin over and over you get all sorts of different results, but when you broaden scope enough you see that the coin flipping plays by a set a rules that cannot be ignored and is rather deterministic

[Micro2Macro]

Excessive reproduction is one of the most destructive things any society can ever do. It is impossible to sustain, and there will be a correcting period. Personally, I'm not a fan of human reproduction at all anymore. I think we've strayed way too far from who we really are, and the problems that have arisen are too intense

We don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life, yet how unprepared we are for modern life. We take horrible, chronic conditions like depression for granted, but reality is that we did not evolve for these things. Just because we're capable of surviving doesn't mean we should

+1

I'm going to do my part for our world and not have children, and also refrain from purchasing an automobile (unless absolutely necessary).

[Roid_Rage]

SUCK UP THAT SWEET SWEET OIL WHILE YOU STILL CAN BOYS!!!

[wufwugy]

Care explaining this a bit more? What do you mean we don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life but unprepared for modern?

Okay, this is going to be a long post, but I also think it will be interesting. Cliffs at bottom

The first thing we need to do is understand what humans are, and that understanding comes primarily through examining what evolution is on a fundamental level. So I'll try to explain that

We're not here for any reason other than the fact that we happened to have survived. We happen to have survived because we have conformed to our environment for the purpose of survival exclusively. It's not so much survival of the fittest, but more like survival of whatever isn't less fit than the competition. That fitness is not a moral or a good fitness, but simply the ability to exploit the environment just enough to continually reproduce. We're not here for intelligence or happiness or morals, we're here because we're the last things that haven't died

What this means is that everything we are is based on the environments which molded our evolution. There is always overlaps and vestigial products of that evolution, but we are mainly suited for whatever environment we have evolved for.

We evolved for tribal societies VERY well. We have not evolved for modern civilization much at all. Agriculture raised ecological carrying capacity soooooo much that it is no longer survival of the fittest, but survival of all. And it changed everything. We're not evolved to handle abstractions well, but modern life is a virtual abstraction. We're not evolved to handle things like jobs or large societies or crime or just about everything "modern". The vast, vast majority of our problems can be explained due to modernness.

This is so hard to explain because we take everything for granted. We don't even realize that things like mental illness, pursuit of happiness, crime, education and work are simply not things that exist in tribal societies.

Our biology has evolved to only meet a small handful of potential mates over a lifetime, for nearly every person we know to be family, and to have pretty much no choice of what to do with your life. We are meant to copy mom and dad, protect our tribe/family, and work together for things that we naturally want and have little choice about.

Now what happens when we expand everything like modern society has? We get sexual repression and adultery and divorce like crazy simply because we don't know how to handle the overload of potential mates. We get crime and prisons and hateful emotions because we're no longer a unit that relies on itself for sustenance. We get depression, self-loathing, confusion, etc because we have to do a job that doesn't come that naturally

In tribal societies, I guarantee that humans are miserable only momentarily and the mainstay is an unquestioned sense of happiness and purpose. In modern society, it's the opposite. Lots of people will say it's not, but they're kidding themselves. We all know we all walk around secretly thinking poorly of ourselves. This type of thing is not even chronically possible in tribal societies because it would effectively make the society unfit to survive.

Modern life is a virtual prison that we take for granted. This is nearly impossible to understand due to that grantedness, but also due to the strongest instinct we have: survival. Biologically, we are not that capable of thinking that survival itself isn't a fundamental good, regardless of whether that existence is one of suffering.




Cliffs: Tribal societies struggle to survive, and that struggle determines that chronic problems cannot exist. Modern society is so powerful it survives without even trying, and all the possible bads hidden inside humans and inside the world come to fruition simply because they can. People in prison are not bad people, they're people trying to live the way they're supposed to, but get screwed by modernism. Pedophiles aren't even bad people. Everything we know about pedophilia strongly suggests that its a product of modernism and that it couldn't survive in tribalism

When a species doesn't struggle to survive, they begin opening up the door for bad things that wouldn't exist otherwise. And it's not the same way about opening up for good things since good things are mainly just things we're adapted for in the first place

[wufwugy]

+1

I'm going to do my part for our world and not have children, and also refrain from purchasing an automobile (unless absolutely necessary).

The thing is that it doesn't matter on the micro scale. If you go green that just means there's more left for somebody else at a cheaper price.

Kids are a tough thing. I'm not sure if I could ever figure it out even if I had them. In a way, kids are a fucked if you do, fucked if you don't thing

[Roid_Rage]

So the answer is, shut down all the factories, stop driving cars, stop mass producing agriculture and let who survives, survive?

I agree with you strongly that tribal > modern in most/all aspects. I'm even one of those people that walk around 'thinking poorly' of myself because I have no sense of purpose. Sure, I could go back to school, get a job, and live 'the life.' But it's not what I want, that wouldn't make me happy. Sure, I could attempt to make $100k+ a year, put money away for my retirement, have 2-3 kids and pass it all on to them when I'm done, but it all feels so fucking pointless to me.

I have no sense of what I'm supposed to do, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. This is taking it a bit off topic, so I'll stop derailing now. Thank you for expanding on what you said, makes perfect sense to me, if not to others.

[Penneywize]

Man... it seems every thread that is even remotely political on this forum inevitably turns in to be a wufwugy indoctrination thread. There's a lot I disagree with in his last few posts. I don't see any value in discussing this evolutionary psychology bs; I actually see very little reason to give credence to the "science" as a whole. Anyhow, that's another point entirely.

Wufwugy isn't, for once, echoing the opinions of a broad range of intellectual authorities when he talks about how "agriculture fucked humanity" or how "we weren't biologically meant for modern life" etc. I really am beginning to think that he just approaches this topic - and from what I've read over the past few years, many, many others - with the preset foregone conclusion that the world is going to shit, humanity is evil, and we should pay for even having the audacity to progress beyond our meager beginnings.

Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong about that; maybe he has approached each topic in a partial, balanced manner with no predispositions, and through unbiased analysis and discourse, reached similar conclusions every time. Maybe.

But I'll tell you what. It seems a hell of a fucking lot like cherry-picking to me.

I was going to launch into a tirade about agriculture and how shitty life was before its development etc but it seems I'd be wasting my time. No matter how convincing my argument is, it won't do anything to sway the opinion of someone who laments the fact that human civilizations ever even came to be; pining for the days when our species lived short, unenlightened and ultimately unfulfilling lives...

I dont know. Don't take this as a hate-on, wuf. I actually do have a lot of respect for you. I just wish you weren't so contrarian. It's like you're so cynical, you're not even a cynic anymore; you're something else. It's distressing, mainly because you write eloquently and your arguments are usually very convincing.

At any rate. I don't agree with you, not on this, not on what you believe to be the inevitable course of humanity. I don't agree with your moral evaluation of human progress. I also don't agree with the implications of any of these things. Call it a cop-out, but I just don't want to argue about it; it seems to me to be an exercise in futility. I'm not a big fan of Sisyphus.

[Penneywize]

I will, however, quickly get a point in on reproduction / overpopulation, etc:

Point form, because it took me 30 mins to write that last post:

- Those of us living in highly industrialized societies face an impending, possibly unavoidable problem in the next 30-40 years: an aging population.

- Overpopulation is a problem in underdeveloped / developing nations primarily. All credible population models show that as economies modernize, birth rates slow down and eventually decrease. This suggests that economic development should be the focus of any efforts to curb overpopulation (this says nothing of the other quality-of-life improvements that would come along with it).

- If those of us living in 1st world nations decided to "do their part" to "stop the overpopulation of earth" by not having children of our own, we'd only be exacerbating the issue our own countries face, and ultimately do nothing to help the world as a whole. We need to have more children. We can't help developing nations if our own countries have populations with median ages of 50+ (going to happen by 2050 in Canada, maybe a little later in the United States, probably earlier in many European countreis) and over 1/3rd over the retirement age. We'd be incredibly unproductive and face the enormous social security costs / taxes that would be necessary to care for our elderly.

In other words, we'd be fucked, and have no means to extend a helping hand to the countries that need it most.

[Penneywize]

I agree with you strongly that tribal > modern in most/all aspects. I'm even one of those people that walk around 'thinking poorly' of myself because I have no sense of purpose. Sure, I could go back to school, get a job, and live 'the life.' But it's not what I want, that wouldn't make me happy. Sure, I could attempt to make $100k+ a year, put money away for my retirement, have 2-3 kids and pass it all on to them when I'm done, but it all feels so fucking pointless to me.

So, so sad man. I don't mean to be condescending. But the feeling of pointlessness you have is self-sustaining. You are given one life; make the most of it. Living in this world is at least marginally better than any alternative.

[wufwugy]

Man... it seems every thread that is even remotely political on this forum inevitably turns in to be a wufwugy indoctrination thread. There's a lot I disagree with in his last few posts. I don't see any value in discussing this evolutionary psychology bs; I actually see very little reason to give credence to the "science" as a whole. Anyhow, that's another point entirely.

Depends on what you mean, but any problem with this approach would be in getting things wrong, not in examining evolutionary effects.

Wufwugy isn't, for once, echoing the opinions of a broad range of intellectual authorities when he talks about how "agriculture fucked humanity" or how "we weren't biologically meant for modern life" etc.

That is generally correct because there aren't that many jobs that actually pay for research into this. It does get some play, but not much. Consensus isn't really something to come by on this kind of topic anyways. Kinda like how Jared Diamond's theory on technological/geographical/social inequality isn't consensus, but it's still the best we have and makes the most sense

I really am beginning to think that he just approaches this topic - and from what I've read over the past few years, many, many others - with the preset foregone conclusion that the world is going to shit, humanity is evil, and we should pay for even having the audacity to progress beyond our meager beginnings.

I believe whatever Dystopian ideas I have came after.

I was going to launch into a tirade about agriculture and how shitty life was before its development

I'd like to hear that

I dont know. Don't take this as a hate-on, wuf. I actually do have a lot of respect for you. I just wish you weren't so contrarian. It's like you're so cynical, you're not even a cynic anymore; you're something else. It's distressing, mainly because you write eloquently and your arguments are usually very convincing.

It's hard to say what I am. But when it comes to things of the intellect, I have always tried, often learn, and usually admit when wrong. I wonder if I should dig up an old post of mine from back in like 2004 on a different board where I adamantly defending homeopathy, only to shortly after admit to doing more research and being wrong. On the interwebs, nonetheless. That was also somewhat of a turning point for me intellectually, which may be why I remember it

At any rate. I don't agree with you, not on this, not on what you believe to be the inevitable course of humanity. I don't agree with your moral evaluation of human progress. I also don't agree with the implications of any of these things. Call it a cop-out, but I just don't want to argue about it; it seems to me to be an exercise in futility. I'm not a big fan of Sisyphus.

I do not believe the suffering of one person is worth the joy of a billion. I am honestly not a fan of emotionally conscious life for this reason. I'm not a sociopath or something so I have no desire to take matters into my own hands, but on an abstract moral level...

But that's not what you were referring to. My response to that is that the level of suffering experience under tribal societies is nothing even remotely close to that which we have in modern society. Take Josef Fritzl for example. The level of suffering his kids endured is pretty much impossible in a hunter/gatherer society.

My opinion is that suffering is not justified, and my expression of fact is that modernism brings more suffering than tribalism. I really would like to hear what you have to say about how things were in hunter/gatherer days, though. Ultimately, I'd rather learn things than feel like I was right from the beginning

[wufwugy]

I will, however, quickly get a point in on reproduction / overpopulation, etc:

Point form, because it took me 30 mins to write that last post:

- Those of us living in highly industrialized societies face an impending, possibly unavoidable problem in the next 30-40 years: an aging population.

- Overpopulation is a problem in underdeveloped / developing nations primarily. All credible population models show that as economies modernize, birth rates slow down and eventually decrease. This suggests that economic development should be the focus of any efforts to curb overpopulation (this says nothing of the other quality-of-life improvements that would come along with it).

- If those of us living in 1st world nations decided to "do their part" to "stop the overpopulation of earth" by not having children of our own, we'd only be exacerbating the issue our own countries face, and ultimately do nothing to help the world as a whole. We need to have more children. We can't help developing nations if our own countries have populations with median ages of 50+ (going to happen by 2050 in Canada, maybe a little later in the United States, probably earlier in many European countreis) and over 1/3rd over the retirement age. We'd be incredibly unproductive and face the enormous social security costs / taxes that would be necessary to care for our elderly.

In other words, we'd be fucked, and have no means to extend a helping hand to the countries that need it most.

While you're right about economies have enormous internal problems due to aging demographics, I'm not sure if this isn't simply the "lesser of two evils" (even though I hate that phrase)

I think the kinds and levels of corrections we will experience are unpredictable, and that you're basically right. But that doesn't mean that corrections won't come and undo a lot of it. If I were the man in charge, I think my approach would be your approach, regardless

[wufwugy]

So, so sad man. I don't mean to be condescending. But the feeling of pointlessness you have is self-sustaining. You are given one life; make the most of it. Living in this world is at least marginally better than any alternative.

The feeling is definitely self-sustaining, but also more complex than that. I have similar problems, and haven't yet figured them out. Actually, I kinda have figured them out but in an easier said than done kind of way

What do you do when your sense of self-identity is one of sorrow? When you're afraid of making changes for the better because you feel like you'll lose a precious piece of yourself? The question is kinda rhetorical, but just an expression of how complex the issue is

[Roid_Rage]

So, so sad man. I don't mean to be condescending. But the feeling of pointlessness you have is self-sustaining. You are given one life; make the most of it. Living in this world is at least marginally better than any alternative.

I don't think its sad at all, it just is how it is. I'm 100% sure I'm not the only one that feels this way too. I get that I only have one life and that I should 'make the most of it' but I can't help but feel like its all so pointless. Idk, I've been going through this emo stage lately because its Christmas and I really hate everything about the holidays so that probably has something to do with it and I'll be loving life once the weather starts to get nicer again.

The fact remains that I don't feel like I was put on this Earth to sit on my ass behind a desk and crunch numbers or whatever other BS job I'll end up doing for 35-55 years. Idk what I would rather be doing, but it isn't this shit.

[Lukie]

I do not believe the suffering of one person is worth the joy of a billion. I am honestly not a fan of emotionally conscious life for this reason. I'm not a sociopath or something so I have no desire to take matters into my own hands, but on an abstract moral level...

and this is why, regardless of how well-read might be on a particular subject, I very often don't agree with you.

life is awesome man, try to live it. if you really care as much about other people as you profess, you would find better uses of your time, knowledge, expertise, and genuine good-heartedness than posting on a small poker forum.

here's an example i'll use specifically because i know how much you hate billionaires. bill gates, evil empire and all, has donated tens of billions of dollars to charity. that's a lot of people fed, clothed, etc.

and while shooting become one of the richest men in the world might be unrealistic, there's no reason that a person of your intelligence and caring couldn't do some serious good in the world. but as far as i can tell, you don't.

[Lukie]

I do not believe the suffering of one person is worth the joy of a billion. I am honestly not a fan of emotionally conscious life for this reason. I'm not a sociopath or something so I have no desire to take matters into my own hands, but on an abstract moral level...

re-quoting this because it's kind of bothering me.

you wouldn't actually deny joy/happiness to 1,000,000,000 people in order to prevent the suffering of 1 person, would you? that seems so incredibly immoral and absurd bording on lunacy that i just sort of skipped over it originally.

the above applies both to real and abstract moral levels, whatever that menas.

[!Luck]

Wufwugy,

Your self identity is whatever you want it to be. Trying to be more happy for a year and "optomistic" shouldn't destroy the old Wufwugy. But who knows maybe you like it and if you feel hollow with your happiness, well you can always go back. It's not like you are planning on hitting the crack pipe.

I don't really understand the one suffering for 1 million joy. This a bit off topic, but this thread has derailed anyways.

I might get flamed for this. I fear that if given the choice to shot/kill an innocent kid to save a million people, I wouldn't be able to pull the trigger. Even though logically I see how moronic to not kill him/her. I guess you wouldn't pull the trigger either, but you see it as a strength, while I see is a true character weakness.

!luck

[boost]

life can be awesome man

I think my fyp is far more accurate.

here's an example i'll use specifically because i know how much you hate billionaires. bill gates, evil empire and all, has donated tens of billions of dollars to charity. that's a lot of people fed, clothed, etc.

I'm not saying this is the case, but one could potentially argue that, although he donates godly amounts of coin to charity, Gate's net impact on society is one of suffering.

[Lukie]

I might get flamed for this. I fear that if given the choice to shot/kill an innocent kid to save a million people, I wouldn't be able to pull the trigger. Even though logically I see how moronic to not kill him/her. I guess you wouldn't pull the trigger either, but you see it as a strength, while I see is a true character weakness.

!luck

this is a significantly different proposition than what wuf wrote.

[Lukie]

I think my fyp is far more accurate.



I'm not saying this is the case, but one could potentially argue that, although he donates godly amounts of coin to charity, Gate's net impact on society is one of suffering.

you can 'potentially argue' anything. by all means, give some reasons why his net impact on society is one of suffering. i don't have a particularly strong opinion either way, so by all means convince me.

that wasn't the point in bringing up gates in the first place, so it's sort of a moot point. it should be interesting though.

[boost]

you can 'potentially argue' anything. by all means, give some reasons why his net impact on society is one of suffering. i don't have a particularly strong opinion either way, so by all means convince me.

that wasn't the point in bringing up gates in the first place, so it's sort of a moot point. it should be interesting though.

Well the reason I left it at "potentially" is because it would be impossible to prove unless we can quantify happiness and suffering. And if you weren't basing your point on the idea that Gates has provided a net happiness, then I am lost.

p.s. I too lack a definitive opinion on the matter.

[wufwugy]

re-quoting this because it's kind of bothering me.

you wouldn't actually deny joy/happiness to 1,000,000,000 people in order to prevent the suffering of 1 person, would you? that seems so incredibly immoral and absurd bording on lunacy that i just sort of skipped over it originally.

the above applies both to real and abstract moral levels, whatever that menas.

It is not my assertion that is disturbing, but the reality we live in

The misery of others is mostly unfathomable and entirely unjustifiable. I haven't said anything crazy, only taboo and poorly understood.


Regardless, it's an abstraction, not a practicality. If you have read The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, you may have noticed that one of the many profound implications of the allegory is that there is no real and practical solution. I think you've taken what I've said out of context.

I don't want to discuss this though. While we're dealing with some of the deepest fundamentals of morality, it's unsolvable. I shouldn't have mentioned it anyways. It wasn't really that relevant to my post in the first place. But it is absolutely true. Nothing justifies the misery of others. Humans naturally feel differently than this, but that has no bearing on the truth of the matter


In a nutshell, my position on this topic is whatever position optimally reduces suffering. Nothing insane about that.

RE: billionaires. I never said I don't like them, I said I don't like societies that are structured in such a way as to necessitate a few billionaires riding on the backs of a billion sufferers. My comments on billionaires in the past had to do with economic constructs, not that I think they're bad people or whatever

[Monty3038]

The Middle East is what it is mainly due to oil. Not only do corps like Exxon not pay any taxes, but I think they even get subsidized. That's how insanely powerful they are

Wuf, I agree, that Middle East is all due to Oil, but the fact remains, they have the oil and unless we deal with them, one way or another, we have no oil, so that I don't disparage, the people with the product you want set the price.

As towards us setting policy mostly based on oil, I can see some of that, I mean Vietnam makes no sense for the US unless you realize why we were there... and what we have never realized from going there.

Now... the Exxon thing, I don't know about the not paying any taxes thing, do you have any information to back that up?

(Note: I have only read this far, if explained in later posts, disregard, I have been very sick the last few days and online not at all. I may make a post as towards how fucked my weekend was).

[Monty3038]

- If those of us living in 1st world nations decided to "do their part" to "stop the overpopulation of earth" by not having children of our own, we'd only be exacerbating the issue our own countries face, and ultimately do nothing to help the world as a whole. We need to have more children. We can't help developing nations if our own countries have populations with median ages of 50+ (going to happen by 2050 in Canada, maybe a little later in the United States, probably earlier in many European countreis) and over 1/3rd over the retirement age. We'd be incredibly unproductive and face the enormous social security costs / taxes that would be necessary to care for our elderly.

So this prompts the question... is social security something that should be eliminated, as it continues to cause those who pose less productive value to society to 'hang around'?

I wrote a whole lot more to this, as a follow up, but it made me sound pretty callous and cold, especially towards my own kin.

[wufwugy]

Now... the Exxon thing, I don't know about the not paying any taxes thing, do you have any information to back that up?

ThinkProgress » ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)

It's not just Exxon. It's most megacorps getting away with very little taxation. I recall Google pays <3%

So this prompts the question... is social security something that should be eliminated, as it continues to cause those who pose less productive value to society to 'hang around'?

I like that you said "prompts the question". Most will say "begs the question", which actually has nothing to do with prompting a question, but is a circular logic idiom.

Anyways, on to the question. No, social security should not be eliminated. For starters, it's not a subsidy, it's something everybody who receives has paid into. It's our money. The only difference is that it's structured in a way that benefits a populace and economy much more than if it didn't exist.

On top of that, SS is one of the things about government that works extremely well. It has an enormous 2+ trillion surplus, and it's geared up to pay out full benefits without any changes till near the end of the century. But that hasn't stopped the sociopaths in charge of the politicians from doing everything they can to convince the people that it needs to be gut

From an economic perspective, cutting SS would be disastrous. It would help about 1% of the richest richies, but would figuratively chop off the arm of the rest of the people. One of the most important aspects of a healthy economy is the flow of finances and purchasing power of the poor and median people. This isn't theory, but actual data. Return on investment of things like food stamps is infinitely higher than things like cuts in estate tax. Infinite is the correct number too because many things, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy, are fully understood to have a negative economic multiplier effect. But that doesn't stop regular people from listening to Prophet Beck tell them the world would explode if megacorps aren't allowed to molest whomever they please


As to old people "hanging around", we're not even remotely close to answering that question. As sarbox would say, that's one of our civilization's golden calves that needs to be burned, yet we ain't doing it. Human rights are not a perfect thing. Give some in one place and it will detract in other places. Engendering an older and older population will cause unimaginable problems down the road, but not doing it will as well


BTW, I would like to point out that subsidies and welfare are not inherently bad. The words have been vilified. Not only does the data show that welfare for the unfortunate is extremely beneficial for the health and happiness of an economy, but that the mega wealthy receive hidden welfare several magnitudes greater than the plebians they point their fingers at. The next time you see somebody whine about some form of welfare, remember that Wall Street is subsidized by the Federal Reserve, and they get their money straight out of the pockets of the middle class.

[Monty3038]

ThinkProgress » ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)

I'm at work so this may have to be short, but I clicked through to the Forbes article this is picked from. On page two of the article it states that Exxon had a tax expense of 17.6 billion out of the 42 billion in profit. That is approximately 47% of their pre-tax earnings.

So, they owe 17.6 Billion in income tax for 2009. Let's then read the rest of the article, which states they also owe high income taxes to many of the countries they do business with, especially the oil producing countries. So they incur income taxes there as well... not just in the US.
-- From the article --
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.
--- End of Article quote ---
Which as I read it states that their income from some of the operations is legally sheltered in off shore accounts, not subject to taxation. This does not say that they pay no taxes, just that some of their income is sheltered.

--- From the article ---
Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."
--- End of Article Quote ---

Ok, so their financial statements don't show any net income tax liability... as mine doesn't either... that doesn't mean that I didn't PAY taxes to uncle sam, I get a fair share of what I paid in back, but not all of it. Exxon has to follow the proper filing procedures with the SEC and such as well... so unless I see better than a forbes article stating they aren't paying enough in taxes, I don't really know what they are paying in taxes.

And from what I've heard, though not researched, oil companies don't have as high of a profit margin as other industries, so taxing them futher only hurts the consumer, who it is passed along to.

I'll try to add more if work permits, got to check a server right now.

[Monty3038]

Ok, so I did some more looking, the server reboot worked

The US Corporate income tax works in a graduated percentage based upon profits of US Resident corporations. So, now on to the Exxon page...

Well, nothing I can find there on their financial statements, so I went to the SEC filings section of my brokerage account, where I find that for 2009, on their 10-K SEC statement, Exxon Mobil claims 19.2 billion dollars in profit before shareholder payments and taxes.

Searching further, I find the following in their statements:

"
Income, sales-based and all other taxes and duties totaled $78.6 billion in 2009, a decrease of $37.6 billion or 32 percent from 2008. Income tax expense, both current and deferred, was $15.1 billion, $21.4 billion lower than 2008, reflecting lower pre-tax income in 2009. A higher share of total income from the Upstream segment in 2009 increased the effective income tax rate to 47 percent compared to 46 percent in 2008. Sales-based and all other taxes and duties of $63.5 billion in 2009 decreased $16.2 billion from 2008, reflecting lower prices and foreign exchange effects. "

Which would seem to imply that they are paying a pretty large amount of income taxes. I am having difficulty interpreting all of the sections of their financial reports (I am no accountant, that is for sure)... but it appears they paid a pretty large amount of income taxes around the world...

[Monty3038]

Ok, one last thing about Oil companies... here is a statement on CNN.com about the oil companies and profits...

"The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.
Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax? "

So... it appears that oil companies are not as well off as many think... even though they deal in really big numbers.

Now... the social security thing...

Yes, everyone who receives it has paid into it... and if they received back what they paid into it, I'd be good with that, even with a mild form of interest attached. For example, if I paid in $200 a week for 20 years, I would have 'banked' $208,000 dollars into the system. Now, I'm not an accountant so I might screw this math up royally, but let's say that we compound 4% interest on that to be generous, over the 20 years, I have now invested about $318,000 dollars INTO social security. Take away 5% (for round numbers) for administration, leaving me around $302,000.

So, now I start getting my social security check... how much should it be?

If I take out my $200 per week again, I should be able to withdraw for 20 years, right?

But does it work that way?

Nope... a lower income worker gets a higher percentage of their contributions back than a higher income worker does. Benefits are also based on Cost of living indexes and also are reduced if you work and earn more than your social security benefit.

So... I also found a chart that in 1960 5.1 workers supported the system and each beneficiary of the system, where in 2031 it is estimated that only 2.1 workers will be supporting that same beneficiary, which means their SS contribution will have to increase... or the beneficiary benefit has to decrease to keep the system solvent...

While it is a workable system, the fact that we have fewer paying into a system that has been reduced or ineffectively managed makes it a defective system. It will eventually fail in the current form.

So what would be so wrong with phasing it out and expecting people to pay for their own retirement?

[spoonitnow]

Rescued Banks Teeter Towards Collapse

just didn't feel like this deserved its own thread but i lol'd

[wufwugy]

So what would be so wrong with phasing it out and expecting people to pay for their own retirement?

First off, I'm on neither side. I want both. This is in regards to virtually all things economic. I want balances between social programs and private programs, a balance between socialism and capitalism. So I tend to not like the idea of, say, phasing out a good social program like SS when it, as well as related issues, can be improved.

The reason lower brackets receive more (or at least should) is because that's an important aspect of flourishing economies. An economy is made up of the people, the commons, the masses, the middle class. If the goal is to optimize an economy, there needs to be social programs that distribute purchasing power in such a way that the lower brackets receive some extra benefits paid for by higher brackets.

Philosophically, you can disagree with that, like many people do. But don't think it's good economic policy. The reasons are many, but they're also irrelevant. A society that pursues egalitarianism cannot do so without adequate progressive wealth distribution. There are many ways to achieve that, and our current SS system is quite valuable in that respect


Think of this: The economic problems that created the situation we have is widely regarded as a bit worse than that which caused the Great Depression. But if that's the case, why is the Great Recession not nearly as bad as the GD? There are a couple reasons, but the main answer is social safety nets. In the 20s and 30s, there was no unemployment insurance or social security. When the numbers of poor people increased due to job losses, those people lost virtually everything, and the economy spiraled into a Hooverville where even the wealthy were hurting hard.

We don't have that nearly as badly today because we learned the importance of maintaining some semblance of balance in wealth distribution. We have a long, long way to go before we achieve a truly fair sense of egalitarianism and economic greatness, but the little bit of "take some money from those who can spar it and give to those who have too little" has paid for itself countless times over.

Because people are a product of economies, they need to be accounted for. When a segment of those people are depressed or under utilized or whatever it has a negative drag on virtually the entire system. That's why the simplistic "why should one person do more or less than another person" just doesn't cut it

[wufwugy]

Rescued Banks Teeter Towards Collapse

just didn't feel like this deserved its own thread but i lol'd

And that is not going to change until wages begin going up. Which won't happen until debt is easily managed and employment is nearing full. Which won't happen for many, many years

The establishment buys too much of their own shit. They're trying to fix this thing, but they live in a bubble of some of the most egregious top-down, supply heavy retardation in modern history. They're using their power drill on a nail, and remain oblivious to the hammer hanging in the corner

Step 1: Save the banks with something like TARP. They did that, good on them

Step 2: Finish what FDR wasn't able, and pass a Laborer's Bill of Rights. Something as simple as everybody has the right to a job and shelter during times of underemployment. This would force the government to shovel trillions into paying the unemployed to build infrastructure from 8-1 and go to school from 3-7 or something. They've already dumped less than that into the banks

In virtually no time, employment and productivity would skyrocket, wages would not take any hits, the foreclosure epidemic would stop, the banks' balance sheets would go black again, the deficit would enter positive projections, and the economy would be gangbusters


The solution is easy, just that those in charge won't do it

[Monty3038]

. Something as simple as everybody has the right to a job and shelter during times of underemployment.

Fundamentally this is what makes a difference between a conservative and a liberal. A job is not a right IMO... it is a privilege... one you have to earn and deserve to keep.

[wufwugy]

Fundamentally this is what makes a difference between a conservative and a liberal. A job is not a right IMO... it is a privilege... one you have to earn and deserve to keep.

A highly sought job should be a privilege, but the right to any job should absolutely be a right. We live in a society with all sorts of interdependencies, and we have virtually no choice in the matter. The backbone of this society is the ability to work to provide for oneself.

There is nothing fundamentally different between a social right to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself and the social right to speak or congregate or practice religion. As long as I'm a mandatory citizen of my society, I should have the right to adequately function in that society. Not providing the right to employment in this society is like not providing the right to chop trees or hunt animals on whatever land you currently occupy in tribal societies

The right to employment is just as basic as any of our other established rights. The difference is it's not been established in this society.

[Lukie]

It is not my assertion that is disturbing, but the reality we live in

yeah, the reality we live in is pretty disturbing. most of us just tend not to think about it much and i'll fully admit that i'm guilty of that as well.

The misery of others is mostly unfathomable and entirely unjustifiable. I haven't said anything crazy, only taboo and poorly understood.


Regardless, it's an abstraction, not a practicality. If you have read The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, you may have noticed that one of the many profound implications of the allegory is that there is no real and practical solution. I think you've taken what I've said out of context.

possibly/probably

I don't want to discuss this though. While we're dealing with some of the deepest fundamentals of morality, it's unsolvable. I shouldn't have mentioned it anyways. It wasn't really that relevant to my post in the first place. But it is absolutely true. Nothing justifies the misery of others. Humans naturally feel differently than this, but that has no bearing on the truth of the matter

understandable if you don't want to discuss it. i will say though that 1,000,000,000 units of happiness/joy in my opinion justifies 1 unit of suffering given no better alternative. i'm not sure where i'd draw the line. i've spent all of 30 seconds thinking of it, and with little way of meaningfully quantifying it, i will set the line at 10:1 happiness:suffering as my starting point.

In a nutshell, my position on this topic is whatever position optimally reduces suffering. Nothing insane about that.

RE: billionaires. I never said I don't like them, I said I don't like societies that are structured in such a way as to necessitate a few billionaires riding on the backs of a billion sufferers. My comments on billionaires in the past had to do with economic constructs, not that I think they're bad people or whatever

fair enough. i think we agree in a roundabout way to an extent, although my point was mostly that you're an extremely smart guy and that you could do much more good in the world with the power, wealth, and status that comes with being more successful, but i have made similar points to you before and i feel it's mostly unwanted advice, maybe bordering on criticism but that's really not how i mean it.

[wufwugy]

i will set the line at 10:1 happiness:suffering as my starting point.

I have gone through some shit in this life. Not the absolute worst shit, but one small step below that. It is because of my experiences that I empathize so deeply with the miserable. It's impossible to understand the severity of dread and horribleness that real misery brings unless it is currently happening to you. I have personally never experienced any joy or pleasure that was even close in measuring up to the intensity of my deepest sorrow.

fair enough. i think we agree in a roundabout way to an extent, although my point was mostly that you're an extremely smart guy and that you could do much more good in the world with the power, wealth, and status that comes with being more successful, but i have made similar points to you before and i feel it's mostly unwanted advice, maybe bordering on criticism but that's really not how i mean it.

I did notice that, and when you've made the point in the past, I didn't miss it. I appreciate the kind words

I'm not exactly sure what to say. Life is a struggle, and the answers are sometimes not answers. Human instincts and desires are largely dilemmatic. Tackling the issues of how to live ones life is not something I will profess to have figured out because, frankly, my results would be different if I wasn't delusional

[Monty3038]

A highly sought job should be a privilege, but the right to any job should absolutely be a right. We live in a society with all sorts of interdependencies, and we have virtually no choice in the matter. The backbone of this society is the ability to work to provide for oneself.

There is nothing fundamentally different between a social right to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself and the social right to speak or congregate or practice religion. As long as I'm a mandatory citizen of my society, I should have the right to adequately function in that society. Not providing the right to employment in this society is like not providing the right to chop trees or hunt animals on whatever land you currently occupy in tribal societies

The right to employment is just as basic as any of our other established rights. The difference is it's not been established in this society.

I fundamentally disagree with these statements. It is my belief that in a tribal society if you are unable to contribute, you are cast out of that society, as they are unwilling and unable to support you. It is your choice to survive or not to survive, to work to improve your condition or not to. The 'right' you mention to provide your basic needs of shelter, clothing and food is a choice, you choose to provide them or you choose not to.

Let me try to explain it a bit differently. Without providing some value to the society, even in tribal societies, you are a burden to that society, not a contributing member. Thus you don't get to have any power or any 'value' to the society. The only members of tribal society that I have learned of that do not work are usually the shamans. They provide value by contributing the knowledge and 'mysticism' that the society feels it needs. If they stop providing that value, they are forced to either work or are cast out.

Another way to look at it, if this was a right, why are there still starving peoples in third world areas of this planet of ours?