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

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I am a noble, delicate, oilfield trash snowflake too! And damn proud of it!

James, in the context of this thread, ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.’

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

what is it that you believe is really causing whatever it is that is happening?

Amazing. Now the eco guy doesn't know what's even happening.

Coulda told you that days ago.

Cheers. 

[remake it + 288]

18 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Amazing. Now the eco guy doesn't know what's even happening.

Coulda told you that days ago.

Cheers. 

You just keep diverting the issues, this time turning several questions to you into an apparent statement that is a complete fabrication.

[Guest]

Why are you asking ME anything?? Doug said it was obvious!! 

You don't even know what is happening apparently !!   And not just on this topic I'm guessing. 

Give it a rest. You have no arguments for anything, you answer nothing, so why should anyone else?  Your 'argument' now for 24 hours has been ''but population growth has slowed down for the last 60 years, so it's not the population boom that's caused climate issues.''

Humans have been around a while. Deal with it.  Accuse me of diverting, get that out your system, then deal with it. Jeez. 

Go and ''divert'' your drivel elsewhere. 

[Guest]

ZZZ

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

26 minutes ago, remake it said:

You just keep diverting the issues, this time turning several questions to you into an apparent statement that is a complete fabrication.

remake it, YOU are the one that went off on a tangent from my original premise that the exploding global population is the root cause of ALL environmental evils. Many people have posted information which shows that the global population has grown by roughly a factor or 8 in less than 250 years, are you saying this is incorrect? You then take data from the last 60 years and, assuming you are correct, the RATE of population growth is slowing - but it is still increasing at a prodigious rate. The problem is growing, just at a slightly slower rate.

This is the premise NOW. If you disagree, please state why succinctly. If you have a solution in mind, please present it and we can continue this conversation.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The problem is growing, just at a slightly slower rate.

Hallelujah!!         <atheist version>

[PE Scott + 563]

Industrialization supported the growth of population. As the population continued to grow, industrialization spread as a requisite for survival and development. It wouldn't matter if it was capitalism, communism, tribalism, etc. In order for the population to grow, technology had to support it. So, I guess if you are arguing that industrialization is what enabled the population to grow from 1 billion people to 7 billion people, I can get on board with that. I'll note thay capitalism was the most successful model for developing industrialization, but not the only one.

However, the rate of growth today hardly matters. The point is it is still growing and at some point, between 1 billion in 1806 and 7.x billion today, we tipped the scale with current technology. So growth is irrelevant, there are already too many people here and any growth is going to require a different strategy moving forward if we agree on the doom and gloom forecast.

Here's where capitalism comes to the rescue, again. Capitalism, as you've noted, relies on a growing population. Human drive is to procreate and multiply. There is an incentive there, in a capitalist society, to develop technology to enable the next "explosion" of population. Many people will make a great deal of money. Some of that ultra rich 1% are going to be the largest contributors to these dreams...the ones that can afford to throw a billion dollars at an idea without making money on it. There again, they were able to generate that kind of investment capital because of other wise or lucky business developments previously in their life that relied on a capitalist framework.

I have trouble understanding why this is hard to see. Just look at history, the crazy increase of technology and quality of living in capitalist society's. Contrast that to literally anywhere else and capitalism has obviously been a more successful system. 

 

 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

remake it, YOU are the one that went off on a tangent from my original premise that the exploding global population is the root cause of ALL environmental evils. Many people have posted information which shows that the global population has grown by roughly a factor or 8 in less than 250 years, are you saying this is incorrect? You then take data from the last 60 years and, assuming you are correct, the RATE of population growth is slowing - but it is still increasing at a prodigious rate. The problem is growing, just at a slightly slower rate.

This is the premise NOW. If you disagree, please state why succinctly. If you have a solution in mind, please present it and we can continue this conversation.

You have not shown any causal link between your population explosion and whatever the environmental issues you are alluding to, as those issues should have been more prevalent during your so called explosion rather than after it, given that's supposed to be obvious.

Edited October 9, 2019 by remake it

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I have trouble understanding why this is hard to see.

It isn't, but it distracts from and annoyingly contradicts the agenda

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 minutes ago, remake it said:

You have not shown any causal link between your population explosion and whatever the environmental issues you are alluding to, as those issues should have been more prevalent during your so called explosion rather than after it, given that's supposed to be obvious.

If you cannot make the link yourself, then it is pointless to continue this conversation.

[remake it + 288]

48 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Industrialization supported the growth of population. As the population continued to grow, industrialization spread as a requisite for survival and development. It wouldn't matter if it was capitalism, communism, tribalism, etc. In order for the population to grow, technology had to support it.

Population growth today is greatest amongst the majority of the least developed, least industrialized nations - significantly in Africa - while the birth rate of industrialisized nations has been declining, so while your ideas seem sound they are not supported by the data.

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If you cannot make the link yourself, then it is pointless to continue this conversation.

It was another of your claims, but now you want someone else to join the dots because you are unwilling to substantiate it, which seems to be a habit of yours here.

[remake it + 288]

On 10/8/2019 at 11:37 AM, DayTrader said:

... even if Monbiot’s worries about the climate were correct, capitalism would still be the best social system to deal with the crisis.

Where the question that has gone begging throughout is why capitalism has not dealt with what scientists across many fields regard as critical, and that their concerns are now decades old.

Edited October 9, 2019 by remake it
spelling

[Guest]

Take it up with the journalist.

Why don't YOU deal with it instead of complaining that others don't ? What have you done positively towards any of this?

Get the capitalist scientists to sort it all out. 

Should I change the title to ''capitalism doesn't threaten humanity, but it hasn't done quite enough for certain people either''  ?

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[PE Scott + 563]

4 minutes ago, remake it said:

Population growth today is greatest amongst the majority of the least developed, least industrialized nations - significantly in Africa - while the birth rate of industrialisized nations has been declining, so while your ideas seem sound they are not supported by the data.

Where do those populations get their food? Where do they get their energy? Majority of their products? Medical innovations to avert disease that would wipe those populations out? Any number of other innovations that enable that continued growth? It all comes from industrialized nations. It all comes from the industrialization of those nations.

I'm starting to get a clearer picture of your argument though. You're suggesting that industrialized nations are to blame for the majority of pollution all though the most industrialized nations represent a smaller percentage of the overall population and in fact are growing more slowly than less developed parts of the world. I don't disagree with that, but I still believe industrialized nations support the growth of world population. 

Also, I will agree that before industrialization, there wasn't much of a perceived pollution issue. After industrialization initially started, the impact wasn't readily observable. It wasn't until industrialization was widely adopted by developed countries that it started to become an issue. So we don't see the issue at the offset of either trend, there is going to be an obvious delay while any technology is widely adapted before an impact will be noticeable. Even then, we're working with an absurdly narrow data set.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Okay, let’s give this one more try....

Let us assume that there is a village somewhere with a population of say 1000. This village has been self sufficient for years, they grow enough food for themselves, the creek provides sufficient fresh water for them, there is enough firewood to meet their energy requirements, and so forth.

Then, for whatever reason, their population swells by a factor of eight overnight.

Would you rationally expect that the same exact ecosystem and environment could comfortably accommodate the additional 7000 people thrust on it overnight? Could you rationally expect that the environment is now able to provide food, water, fuel, sanitation, etc....

This is what has happened, on a global scale, in the past 250 years! The ecosystem/environment is Mother Earth. She has not grown any larger and essentially the amount of natural resources has remained the same in the past 250 years while the population has increased by a factor of eight.

The demand for energy, food and freshwater has increased apace. The amount of garbage and pollution has followed suit.

EVERY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN CAN BE TRACED BACK TO EXPLOSIVE POPULATION GROWTH IN THE PAST 250 YEARS!

And before you bring it up, 250 years in the realm of human history would equate to ‘overnight’.

If you can’t see the comparison here, I do not think that it would be constructive to continue this conversation.

[PE Scott + 563]

36 minutes ago, remake it said:

Where the question that has gone begging throughout is why capitalism has not dealt with what scientists across many fields regard as critical, and that their concerns are now decades old.

You must not be paying attention. You fully agree that population growth in industrialized nations is slowing down but you ignore data that shows our air pollutants have declined dramatically since the 80's? 

What about Bill Gate's recent call for the divestment of oil and gas related stocks in favor of investments in "disruptive" technology? Almost every major innovation in any field comes out of capitalist countries, specifically when it isn't a weapon of some sort.

So, where do you think the answers will come from? What do you think will be the economic model that supports those innovations?

 

Some data:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so2-emissions-by-world-region-in-million-tonnes

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by PE Scott
Added a link

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

where do you think the answers will come from?

Exactly

33 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Should I change the title to ''capitalism doesn't threaten humanity, but it hasn't done quite enough for certain people either''  ?

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

You're suggesting that industrialized nations are to blame for the majority of pollution all though the most industrialized nations represent a smaller percentage of the overall population and in fact are growing more slowly than less developed parts of the world. I don't disagree with that, but I still believe industrialized nations support the growth of world population. 

Which is why the Industrial Revolution grew out of England's agrarian revolution and progressively global populations increased until a transition from relatively high to low birth and death rates (largely through improved health - eg vaccinations -  hygiene and infrastructure) occurred leading to the early 20th century population explosion.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

EVERY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN CAN BE TRACED BACK TO EXPLOSIVE POPULATION GROWTH IN THE PAST 250 YEARS!

That's called a trivial argument because it avoids actual causation and the significant dichotomy that has existed since the Industrial Revolution and continues to exist; by way of example Belgium and Philippines had about 7 million people each in 1900 but in 2019 the Philippines has a staggering 100 million more than Belgium today.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Does anybody else feel like they are listening to a broken record?

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Does anybody else feel like they are listening to a broken record?

Thousands of things positively correlate with increasing populations, and that's what makes it "trivial," so rather than manufacture a somewhat weird scenario, why don't you try using actual data given there is a wealth of it.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Zzzzzzzz....

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

Thousands of things positively correlate with increasing populations, and that's what makes it "trivial," so rather than manufacture a somewhat weird scenario, why don't you try using actual data given there is a wealth of it.

Why don’t you pull your head out of your butt and try to make logical connections based on the information provided and common sense instead of expecting other people to force feed you information?

I am not sure that it is a reasonable expectation for you to ‘connect the dots’ with the information and data provided so far as you apparently discard any information which does not fit your narrative or pre-conceived scenario.

Okay, enough said. I am done with this troll.