Climate Week / + ''Capitalism Doesn't Threaten Humanity''

[Guest]

Presumably bolstered by the fiery claims of Greta Thunberg and the general theme of Climate Week, people on Twitter have been declaring that capitalism threatens humanity. This angst rekindled interest in a Guardian article that ran a few months ago, in which author George Monbiot argued that the very nature of capitalism is “incompatible with the survival of life on Earth.” 

Not only do such claims ignore the obvious progress of humanity staring us in the face—and the environmental activists are supposed to be the empirical ones in this debate—but even if Monbiot’s worries about the climate were correct, capitalism would still be the best social system to deal with the crisis.

FULL ARTICLE  -  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-capitalism-doesnt-threaten-humanity

The following excerpt summarizes Monbiot’s two-pronged argument for why capitalism threatens our entire species:

Capitalism’s failures arise from two of its defining elements. The first is perpetual growth. Economic growth is the aggregate effect of the quest to accumulate capital and extract profit. Capitalism collapses without growth, yet perpetual growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity.

The absolute decoupling needed to avert environmental catastrophe (a reduction in material resource use) has never been achieved, and appears impossible while economic growth continues. Green growth is an illusion.

A system based on perpetual growth cannot function without peripheries and externalities. There must always be an extraction zone – from which materials are taken without full payment – and a disposal zone, where costs are dumped in the form of waste and pollution. As the scale of economic activity increases until capitalism affects everything, from the atmosphere to the deep ocean floor, the entire planet becomes a sacrifice zone: we all inhabit the periphery of the profit-making machine.

The second defining element is the bizarre assumption that a person is entitled to as great a share of the world’s natural wealth as their money can buy. This seizure of common goods causes three further dislocations. First, the scramble for exclusive control of non-reproducible assets, which implies either violence or legislative truncations of other people’s rights. Second, the immiseration of other people by an economy based on looting across both space and time. Third, the translation of economic power into political power, as control over essential resources leads to control over the social relations that surround them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Monbiot’s critique of capitalism is entirely unfounded. In the first place, it defies all empirical grounding, which is ironic because it’s my side of this debate that’s allegedly composed of unscientific “deniers.” Especially as formerly communist countries move towards freer markets, the world has seen dramatic improvements in living standards, while the relevant availability of “depletable” resources has increased; even climate-related deaths have plummeted over time.

But it gets even worse for Monbiot’s thesis. Even if we imagine a scenario—contrary to reality—where humanity did run into a crisis because of natural resource crunch, the best way to deal with the situation would be reliance on private property and market prices. To blame capitalism for the potential problems of a finite world is like blaming thermometers for the flu. 

Just the Facts: It’s Getting So Much Better All the Time

In this section I’ll illustrate some of the basic facts, documenting that human welfare has drastically improved during the same period that we have ostensibly seen the ravages of human-induced climate change. . . (chart at top of thread).

It’s hard to see evidence of impending disaster in the above chart. Next, because Monbiot is worried about the “finite” planet, let’s look at U.S. “proved reserves” of crude oil, from the Energy Information Administration (EIA):

 

U.S. Crude Oil Proved Reserves

As the chart shows, U.S. “proved reserves” of crude are at an all-time high at some 39.2 billion barrels (as of 2017), up from 13.6 billion barrels in 1930. The increase in crude reserves has occurred despite the fact that the U.S. has produced an enormous amount of crude oil over this period.

Indeed, as the separate EIA chart shows below, since 1950 U.S. crude production has rarely fallen below 5 million barrels per day, and it’s currently (as of June 2019) at a record high of some 12.1 million barrels per day.

 

Even in a Collapsing World, Capitalism Would Be Our Best Defence

As I illustrated in the previous section, Monbiot’s hysterical warnings are utterly divorced from reality. At most, he has to argue that the future will be radically different from the past. In other words, Monbiot must argue, “Capitalism is going to start killing us, starting…NOW.”

Yet even the more dire forecasts in the UN IPCC’s latest summary of the climate science and impact analyses come nowhere close to threatening humanity itself. It’s still the case, even in the worst-case scenarios examined, that per capita global GDP is much higher in (say) the year 2100 than now. In an excellent article for CEI, Marlo Lewis gives the details, along with other lines of evidence to show that climate change, though possibly a serious challenge, is hardly an “existential threat” as Monbiot and several Democratic presidential candidates are matter-of-factly claiming.

But it gets even worse. Even if it were the case that the natural environment were such that humanity really did have to settle for constant (or even declining) living standards, private property and market prices—i.e., capitalism—would still be vital for helping humans organize their activities in the best way ...

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

la la la la la la 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I am continually amazed at how supposedly educated and logical people will try to blame ANY environmental issue on anything and everything except the obvious root cause:

An exploding global population!

Perhaps eating babies IS the solution! That’s an AOC slag folks....

More people require more resources...it is really as simple as that.

When you add more people rapidly, you need more resources rapidly...

[Guest]

Asia bad ... 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

An exploding global population!

DING

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Alot of truth is said in jest...

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Alot of truth is said in jest...

Maybe ''stop having children you didn't plan for in the first place''. Just an idea ...

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

26 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

An exploding global population!

Perhaps eating babies IS the solution! That’s an AOC slag folks....

More people require more resources...it is really as simple as that.

When you add more people rapidly, you need more resources rapidly...

 

5 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

DING

 

Maybe Thanos was right.  But we can't just snap our fingers and make a random half of the global population instantly disappear into dust.

Should we start a new Church of Eating Babies to Halt Climate Apocalypse? 

 

Go ahead, downvote me all you want.  Humor is so politically correct these days.  Monty Python used to gently poke fun of anything and everything.  They wouldn't be allowed on a TV comedy show these days. 

 

Or maybe this, which is actually a fairly accurate portrayal of the Globalist mindset fed incessantly by the media:

 

And this seems pretty accurate as well:

 

 

The culture of constantly being offended by anyone who disagrees is tiresome.

 

 

[Guest]

Where's this eating them stuff come from lol?  Have I missed some mental US news?

Downvotes? It's bang on.

LOL ''disarm ourselves''

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

53 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am continually amazed at how supposedly educated and logical people will try to blame ANY environmental issue on anything and everything except the obvious root cause:

An exploding global population!

And you can support this claim with what, exactly?

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

An exploding global population!

60 years of declining trend in population growth suggest otherwise:

[Guest]

@Douglas Buckland   TOLD YA  😂😂

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

15 minutes ago, remake it said:

And you can support this claim with what, exactly?

Common sense is the first thing that comes to mind!

[Guest]

I didn't realise human history was a whopping 60 years.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

8 minutes ago, remake it said:

60 years of declining trend in population growth suggest otherwise:

Okay genius...the global population in 1800 was roughly 1 billion (you’ll need to fact check me here), this year we are projected to reach 7.7-7.9 billion. Think this may have contributed to the problem in the past 220 years?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

29 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Where's this eating them stuff come from lol?  Have I missed some mental US news?

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/7564-swedish-behavioral-scientist-suggests-eating-humans-to-‘save-the-planet’-from-climate-change-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/?page=2#comment-69930

Clearly, people aren't panicking enough.   Time to up the ante.  Eating dead bodies simply isn't fast enough to stop the world from ending in 12 years.  Time to start eating babies.  No really...

AOC Supporter wants to EAT BABIES

 

 

 

[Guest]

Those 0.02% changes are making the world of difference I'm sure of it.

We need like 50% LOL.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Eating dead bodies simply isn't fast enough to stop the world from ending in 12 years.

Haha oh I remember this of course, didn't remember any of it being specifically about babies, thought it was just eating the dead.

That's way more normal. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

@Douglas Buckland   TOLD YA  😂😂

F’ing brain dead muppets...😂

[Guest]

haha he replied on wrong thread but meh

60 years ....  it's verging on saying you and Tom are like the first men on Earth

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay genius...the global population in 1800 was roughly 1 billion

It was 1B in 1804 according to chart I just saw. Gold star for Doug, despite not knowing human history is his whole lifetime.

[remake it + 288]

11 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay genius...the global population in 1800 was roughly 1 billion (you’ll need to fact check me here), this year we are projected to reach 7.7-7.9 billion. Think this may have contributed to the problem in the past 220 years?

Given the "explosion" ceased over 2 generations ago it is not obvious, as you originally claimed, especially as you have again failed to align cause and effect.

[Guest]

 

Phew Doug, it's slowing by 0.02% ...  I thought there was an issue on the planet but no.

YAY!! 

#Gold star

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guest

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Presumably bolstered by the fiery claims of Greta Thunberg and the general theme of Climate Week, people on Twitter have been declaring that capitalism threatens humanity. This angst rekindled interest in a Guardian article that ran a few months ago, in which author George Monbiot argued that the very nature of capitalism is “incompatible with the survival of life on Earth.” 

Not only do such claims ignore the obvious progress of humanity staring us in the face—and the environmental activists are supposed to be the empirical ones in this debate—but even if Monbiot’s worries about the climate were correct, capitalism would still be the best social system to deal with the crisis.

FULL ARTICLE  -  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-capitalism-doesnt-threaten-humanity

The following excerpt summarizes Monbiot’s two-pronged argument for why capitalism threatens our entire species:

Capitalism’s failures arise from two of its defining elements. The first is perpetual growth. Economic growth is the aggregate effect of the quest to accumulate capital and extract profit. Capitalism collapses without growth, yet perpetual growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity.

The absolute decoupling needed to avert environmental catastrophe (a reduction in material resource use) has never been achieved, and appears impossible while economic growth continues. Green growth is an illusion.

A system based on perpetual growth cannot function without peripheries and externalities. There must always be an extraction zone – from which materials are taken without full payment – and a disposal zone, where costs are dumped in the form of waste and pollution. As the scale of economic activity increases until capitalism affects everything, from the atmosphere to the deep ocean floor, the entire planet becomes a sacrifice zone: we all inhabit the periphery of the profit-making machine.

The second defining element is the bizarre assumption that a person is entitled to as great a share of the world’s natural wealth as their money can buy. This seizure of common goods causes three further dislocations. First, the scramble for exclusive control of non-reproducible assets, which implies either violence or legislative truncations of other people’s rights. Second, the immiseration of other people by an economy based on looting across both space and time. Third, the translation of economic power into political power, as control over essential resources leads to control over the social relations that surround them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Monbiot’s critique of capitalism is entirely unfounded. In the first place, it defies all empirical grounding, which is ironic because it’s my side of this debate that’s allegedly composed of unscientific “deniers.” Especially as formerly communist countries move towards freer markets, the world has seen dramatic improvements in living standards, while the relevant availability of “depletable” resources has increased; even climate-related deaths have plummeted over time.

But it gets even worse for Monbiot’s thesis. Even if we imagine a scenario—contrary to reality—where humanity did run into a crisis because of natural resource crunch, the best way to deal with the situation would be reliance on private property and market prices. To blame capitalism for the potential problems of a finite world is like blaming thermometers for the flu. 

Just the Facts: It’s Getting So Much Better All the Time

In this section I’ll illustrate some of the basic facts, documenting that human welfare has drastically improved during the same period that we have ostensibly seen the ravages of human-induced climate change. . . (chart at top of thread).

It’s hard to see evidence of impending disaster in the above chart. Next, because Monbiot is worried about the “finite” planet, let’s look at U.S. “proved reserves” of crude oil, from the Energy Information Administration (EIA):

 

U.S. Crude Oil Proved Reserves

As the chart shows, U.S. “proved reserves” of crude are at an all-time high at some 39.2 billion barrels (as of 2017), up from 13.6 billion barrels in 1930. The increase in crude reserves has occurred despite the fact that the U.S. has produced an enormous amount of crude oil over this period.

Indeed, as the separate EIA chart shows below, since 1950 U.S. crude production has rarely fallen below 5 million barrels per day, and it’s currently (as of June 2019) at a record high of some 12.1 million barrels per day.

 

Even in a Collapsing World, Capitalism Would Be Our Best Defence

As I illustrated in the previous section, Monbiot’s hysterical warnings are utterly divorced from reality. At most, he has to argue that the future will be radically different from the past. In other words, Monbiot must argue, “Capitalism is going to start killing us, starting…NOW.”

Yet even the more dire forecasts in the UN IPCC’s latest summary of the climate science and impact analyses come nowhere close to threatening humanity itself. It’s still the case, even in the worst-case scenarios examined, that per capita global GDP is much higher in (say) the year 2100 than now. In an excellent article for CEI, Marlo Lewis gives the details, along with other lines of evidence to show that climate change, though possibly a serious challenge, is hardly an “existential threat” as Monbiot and several Democratic presidential candidates are matter-of-factly claiming.

But it gets even worse. Even if it were the case that the natural environment were such that humanity really did have to settle for constant (or even declining) living standards, private property and market prices—i.e., capitalism—would still be vital for helping humans organize their activities in the best way ...

An interesting related article on the failed hockey stick premise losing in court https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html?fbclid=IwAR0exTAlh6vDik-weQaFS71ogm-YwgPD2_mBfQJ7kPW1lyJOntCtzqphnb8

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

on the failed hockey stick premise losing in court 

WOW nice