|
Capitalism (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| wotyzoid |
Now that you've chosen which argument you're gonna fall on, how exactly do you consume more than you produce and not starve? If we use 1.5x of earth's capacity what's wrong with using 2.0x? How exactly do you use more than 100% of earth's capacity? Man, this is hilarious. You could have picked some less ridiculous quotes because they have nothing to do with the context you're presenting them in.
Those magical thinking jokes are really coming in handy now.
Edit:
| quote: |
Another study by the World Wildlife Fund in 2014 found that it would take the equivalent of 1.5 Earths of biocapacity to meet humanity's current levels of BOURGEOISIE consumption. |
Fixed that for you. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
Alright, seriously though, Jack, do you even know any mainstream, proposed "solutions" for "overpopulation"? How do you think this game ends? You really wanna go there?
Edit: Here we go, I'm gonna make it real easy for you. Do you know what are some influencing factors in what causes poorer people to have more children, and if so how is communism NOT an answer to those specific factors and problems? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Am I actually reading this? You are quite literally questioning how the concept of overconsumption works. Everything in this thread makes a thousand times more sense now. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
Overconsumption is an economics term you shameless idiot. I'm asking you and arithmetical question. If you produce x, how can you consume more than x? Please answer.
Edit: :stongue: never seen anyone crash and burn so spectacularly, thanks jack. I honestly didnt think you'd be the one. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
Overconsumption is an economics term you shameless idiot. |
Oh, this is absolutely priceless.
| quote: | | Overconsumption is a situation where resource use has outpaced the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to environmental degradation and the eventual loss of resource bases. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconsumption
Kenny, you have an awful lot of reading to do before you are ever allowed to talk to me about this subject again. |
|
|
| planetaryplayer |
| According to Bill Burr, Stalin and Mao are responsible for more deaths than Hitler, causing a question to be raised - who is the Michael Jordan of evil?? |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
:D
 |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Kenny, you have an awful lot of reading to do before you are ever allowed to talk to me about this subject again. |
I look forward to reminding you you had no idea "overconsume" is an american word created in 2007. :stongue: |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
I look forward to reminding you you had no idea "overconsume" is an american word created in 2007. :stongue: |
Kenny, with complete seriousness, can you tell me if you are joking now? Or do you genuinely think that a cited example in a dictionary is supposed to be the origin story of the word? After your last few posts, I'm actually prepared to believe this is real. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
:stongue: YES I'm being serious!
Find me a written "overconsume" used in an economic context before 2007. I'll be here all day. :)
It has to be "overconsume" not "over-consume".
Let's see if you can at least do that since you won't answer my math questions. You are really grasping at straws now, this is awesome. One more intellectually dishonest post and you drown lol. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Actually, I can't be bothered waiting for your next spree of trolling and provocation (EDIT: you replied while I was mid-post). It's pretty obvious at this point that you don't understand there's a difference between these two concepts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_(economics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_consumption
Overconsumption as I am referring to it is a well-established environmental concept. It's ludicrous that I even have to demonstrate that it existed before 2007 (because the random dictionary example happens to be from 2007), but here is an article from 2005 about it. The Wikipedia page I linked to you before cites webpages going back to at least 2001 using the term. It was not "invented in 2007". And so yes, the barrage of studies and reports I quoted to you before disagreeing with the Marxist argument that there's "enough food for all" are not out of context, and they're not wrong.
Frankly, I'm sick of this. You sent me a -eating PM saying you were happy with the "improvement in my attitude", so I thought you seriously wanted a cease-fire and decided to have a calm, sensible exchange of views with you where I wrote out long and halfway thoughtful posts. And yet, you have been unable to stop yourself acting like a complete prick towards me even when I have done nothing to provoke you. I tried to let it naturally trail off, but you had to come back again for more, trying to call me an idiot because you don't know your terminology. Why the should I improve my attitude towards you when this is your continuing attitude towards me?
Like I said before, I don't even want to berate you anymore. It starts to make me feel dirty when I'm basically just insulting the intelligence of someone with clear mental health problems over and over again on the Internet. It's gratuitous, and I've tried really hard in this thread not to rise to your provocation. I think everyone on this forum would be happy if we just stopped, so if you can't bring yourself to be calm with me, better we put each other on Ignore and stop interacting. Starting now. |
|
|
|
|
