|
Capitalism (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| The problem with the "bring the third world out of poverty and they'll stop breeding" argument is that it means dramatically increasing the environmental footprint of billions of people for quite a long window before their birth rate can be expected to drop below replacement rate. It just results in more consumption. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
The problem with the "bring the third world out of poverty and they'll stop breeding" argument is that it means dramatically increasing the environmental footprint of billions of people for quite a long window before their birth rate can be expected to drop below replacement rate. It just results in more consumption. |
It does if we bring them out of poverty and into the same capitalist economy as the west, yes. Is that necessarily something that has to happen, though?
I feel like a lot of people in this thread are falling back on the same human nature argument that Lews just presented, and I don't find it that convincing. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| They're all ing cynical cowards. They bring up environmentalism when you bring up the ills of the system. ing pussies. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Just bomb everyone we don't like! |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
It does if we bring them out of poverty and into the same capitalist economy as the west, yes. Is that necessarily something that has to happen, though?
I feel like a lot of people in this thread are falling back on the same human nature argument that Lews just presented, and I don't find it that convincing. |
Well we're back to designing our hypothetical Communist paradise. As I've said in this thread, I can't see much inherent in Communism that sets a lifestyle limit on its population, beyond a vague notion of "need". Without the shift in attitude I mentioned earlier towards lifestyle and luxury, I can only see a Communist model being accepted if it guarantees a significantly more lavish lifestyle than the austere misery that previous regimes have provided. And that doesn't solve the problem.
And here we're being purely hypothetical. Realistically, wealth distribution isn't going to manifest as a sudden global shift to universal Communism. Which is why I think this is a blue-sky line of thinking towards the enormous environmental problem.
Realistically, we're just going to drive headlong into crisis until it forcefully remaps the world, the environment and the level and distribution of the human population. I can't see any way of avoiding that outcome with current global apathy and ignorance towards the subject. But I would target top-down population control and enforced carbon quotas for each Western citizen as the best practical solutions.
Anyway, my main point is that both Capitalism and Communism are equally ed if humans don't collectively decide to surrender over-consumptive lifestyles. That attitude shift is the core challenge, and the economic system in which it occurs is a side-show. That's all I've been trying to get across in this thread. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Silky Johnson
Just bomb everyone we don't like! |
Well more like bomb poor people because they ing get their together and they're slowing us down. Overpopulation uknow. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Anyway, my main point is that both Capitalism and Communism are equally ed if humans don't collectively decide to surrender over-consumptive lifestyles. That attitude shift is the core challenge, and the economic system in which it occurs is a side-show. That's all I've been trying to get across in this thread. |
I'm trying to be nice Jack, but you just don't wanna see the fallacies in your argument no matter how much they are pointed out to you. Humans as a whole cannot be collectively blamed for overconsumption as this a phenomenon of capitalism. How can you blame all humans for overconsuming when the vast majority of us live in porverty? 10 million people die of preventable causes, every year, and you wanna blame them. You are looking at the side show like it's the main show and missing the main show altogether. You need to have a more proactive, radical vision for the future because that is what the time and circumstances call for. We are all in agreement that we are all ed if something doesn't change, but what you're proposing is just not good enough. There needs to be a more radical shift. It's not the time for footing.
Edit: I take that back, we are not ALL in a agreement obviously, but I thought it was understood. |
|
|
| planetaryplayer |
i would force convicted felons to fight in the colosseums and reintroduce slavery
i would enslave the russians and portuguese |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by planetaryplayer
i would force convicted felons to fight in the colosseums and reintroduce slavery
i would enslave the russians and portuguese |
We should just instate you as leader of the free world and all our problems will be dealt with. All hail the Scorpion King. |
|
|
| planetaryplayer |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
We should just instate you as leader of the free world and all our problems will be dealt with. All hail the Scorpion King. |
you can be secretary of the interior with that attitude |
|
|
| djshire |
| This thread is hilarious |
|
|
|
|
