I'm personally rooting for humanity to off itself, and the sooner the better. The planet and most of it's species will get along more than splendidly without us. I'd fell bad for domesticated cats and dogs, but it's in the best interest of anyone else. Whenever I hear about more assholes tearing down more rain forest, or assholes killing Rhinos over some idiotic sexual superstition (It's called Viagra in the 21st century, Bitch!), or assholes dumping waste into lakes, or just some asshole kid dropping his McDonalds bag on the sidewalk, I really just can't wait until Mother Nature unleashes a super bug or a super storm or what have you, and just says "Fuck you!" once and for all. Thanks, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

SUPRMAN said:

No one sane thinks there is such a thing as perpetual non-stop economic growth.

You see evidence to the contrary because, for example, each company wants continued growth for itself, but necessarily for any others. Individuals behave the same way. What we want indivually can't be seen as harming the planet. Collectively, by thinking of ourselves first, we are.

I don't see 'uncritical acceptance' of that dogma. What I see is PEOPLE unwilling to make the sacrifices such as even a carbon tax that would try to correct the damage we are doing. It would take each of us being the 'better man' and making changes. But since it easy to see how one ride free on the efforts of others, some aren't willing to make that free ride available to anyone. So if only some make an effort, that's not incentive for everyone. Even climate change won't do that as those that can adapt will do so.

I have no intention of debating this point because I'd just be planting seeds on barren soil, but I'll say one thing. If you're going to dismiss an argument at least try and understand what it is you're dismissing. Either you deliberately misunderstood my point or you chose to misunderstand it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The point was that our policies are geared towards generating constant economic growth. Growth is always seen as a virtuous thing when in fact it is anything but. It's only virtuous in the context of the pyramid scheme which is our monetary system. Outside that context it becomes clear that economic growth is the enemy of conservation and also the enemy of the people who are bound to keep up that growth, however unnecessary it is. This will be extremely clear to everyone in hindsight, but at the moment most people (including you) can't see the forest for the trees.

Actually, given your boundless ability to misunderstand, I'll give you another little clue as to the meaning... a little thing called GDP. Ever heard of that?

God, I've just wasted 20 minutes typing this out. 20 minutes not devoted to furthering a discussion, but devoted instead to clearing up your deliberate misunderstanding. Well, I've typed it out now, so there's no option but to click the "Post Response" button, knowing in advance that a reply will come back which will simply miss the point in a slightly new way.

midnightmover said:

SUPRMAN said:

No one sane thinks there is such a thing as perpetual non-stop economic growth.

You see evidence to the contrary because, for example, each company wants continued growth for itself, but necessarily for any others. Individuals behave the same way. What we want indivually can't be seen as harming the planet. Collectively, by thinking of ourselves first, we are.

I don't see 'uncritical acceptance' of that dogma. What I see is PEOPLE unwilling to make the sacrifices such as even a carbon tax that would try to correct the damage we are doing. It would take each of us being the 'better man' and making changes. But since it easy to see how one ride free on the efforts of others, some aren't willing to make that free ride available to anyone. So if only some make an effort, that's not incentive for everyone. Even climate change won't do that as those that can adapt will do so.

I have no intention of debating this point because I'd just be planting seeds on barren soil, but I'll say one thing. If you're going to dismiss an argument at least try and understand what it is you're dismissing. Either you deliberately misunderstood my point or you chose to misunderstand it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The point was that our policies are geared towards generating constant economic growth. Growth is always seen as a virtuous thing when in fact it is anything but. It's only virtuous in the context of the pyramid scheme which is our monetary system. Outside that context it becomes clear that economic growth is the enemy of conservation and also the enemy of the people who are bound to keep up that growth, however unnecessary it is. This will be extremely clear to everyone in hindsight, but at the moment most people (including you) can't see the forest for the trees.

Actually, given your boundless ability to misunderstand, I'll give you another little clue as to the meaning... a little thing called GDP. Ever heard of that?

God, I've just wasted 20 minutes typing this out. 20 minutes not devoted to furthering a discussion, but devoted instead to clearing up your deliberate misunderstanding. Well, I've typed it out now, so there's no option but to click the "Post Response" button, knowing in advance that a reply will come back which will simply miss the point in a slightly new way.

All you offer is condescension. Even when I agree with you.

Your generalizations seemed to suite your world view that I guess we should all just fall in line with.

Don't waste anymore time showing how condescending you can be in print.

midnightmover said:

SUPRMAN said:

No one sane thinks there is such a thing as perpetual non-stop economic growth.

You see evidence to the contrary because, for example, each company wants continued growth for itself, but necessarily for any others. Individuals behave the same way. What we want indivually can't be seen as harming the planet. Collectively, by thinking of ourselves first, we are.

I don't see 'uncritical acceptance' of that dogma. What I see is PEOPLE unwilling to make the sacrifices such as even a carbon tax that would try to correct the damage we are doing. It would take each of us being the 'better man' and making changes. But since it easy to see how one ride free on the efforts of others, some aren't willing to make that free ride available to anyone. So if only some make an effort, that's not incentive for everyone. Even climate change won't do that as those that can adapt will do so.

I have no intention of debating this point because I'd just be planting seeds on barren soil, but I'll say one thing. If you're going to dismiss an argument at least try and understand what it is you're dismissing. Either you deliberately misunderstood my point or you chose to misunderstand it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The point was that our policies are geared towards generating constant economic growth. Growth is always seen as a virtuous thing when in fact it is anything but. It's only virtuous in the context of the pyramid scheme which is our monetary system. Outside that context it becomes clear that economic growth is the enemy of conservation and also the enemy of the people who are bound to keep up that growth, however unnecessary it is. This will be extremely clear to everyone in hindsight, but at the moment most people (including you) can't see the forest for the trees.

Actually, given your boundless ability to misunderstand, I'll give you another little clue as to the meaning... a little thing called GDP. Ever heard of that?

God, I've just wasted 20 minutes typing this out. 20 minutes not devoted to furthering a discussion, but devoted instead to clearing up your deliberate misunderstanding. Well, I've typed it out now, so there's no option but to click the "Post Response" button, knowing in advance that a reply will come back which will simply miss the point in a slightly new way.

Let me school you Miss Myopia.

Do you know why economic growth is promoted so heavily? Because it creates jobs. Why are we trying to create more jobs? Because there are more people who need a self sufficient means of survival. What is your argument to college graduates that they've wasted their investment because we need to create fewer jobs, not more?

When people start fighting over resources, how is that going to be good for the environment?

What are all these unemployed people going to do without means to obtain clean food, water and shelter?

You've yet to give us a practical solution despite your high handed indignation as if you are the paragon of saving the environment.

You don't want economic growth but that's how you got that computer and the internet isn't it?

SUPRMAN said:

midnightmover said:

I have no intention of debating this point because I'd just be planting seeds on barren soil, but I'll say one thing. If you're going to dismiss an argument at least try and understand what it is you're dismissing. Either you deliberately misunderstood my point or you chose to misunderstand it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The point was that our policies are geared towards generating constant economic growth. Growth is always seen as a virtuous thing when in fact it is anything but. It's only virtuous in the context of the pyramid scheme which is our monetary system. Outside that context it becomes clear that economic growth is the enemy of conservation and also the enemy of the people who are bound to keep up that growth, however unnecessary it is. This will be extremely clear to everyone in hindsight, but at the moment most people (including you) can't see the forest for the trees.

Actually, given your boundless ability to misunderstand, I'll give you another little clue as to the meaning... a little thing called GDP. Ever heard of that?

God, I've just wasted 20 minutes typing this out. 20 minutes not devoted to furthering a discussion, but devoted instead to clearing up your deliberate misunderstanding. Well, I've typed it out now, so there's no option but to click the "Post Response" button, knowing in advance that a reply will come back which will simply miss the point in a slightly new way.

Let me school you Miss Myopia.

Do you know why economic growth is promoted so heavily? Because it creates jobs. Why are we trying to create more jobs? Because there are more people who need a self sufficient means of survival. What is your argument to college graduates that they've wasted their investment because we need to create fewer jobs, not more?

When people start fighting over resources, how is that going to be good for the environment?

What are all these unemployed people going to do without means to obtain clean food, water and shelter?

You've yet to give us a practical solution despite your high handed indignation as if you are the paragon of saving the environment.

You don't want economic growth but that's how you got that computer and the internet isn't it?

Okay, let's start with the good news. The good news is that you've now given up your insane denial that economic growth is the mantra of our time. I'm glad to see that.

And to reinforce the point of what an unexamined assumption this is based on, you have dutifully parroted out the cliched arguments for why this constant growth is a good thing. It creates jobs!

What are jobs in our society? For most people in our society jobs are very unfulfilling things they do in order to get money to live on. That's it. But the thing is America and Europe are overloaded with money. These countries have had more wealth than they knew what to do with now for at least 50 years and yet over the course of the last 50 years the average citizen has gotten worse off, not better off. That's in spite of constant economic growth.

It's also worth pointing out that most of them are less happy too, largely because they feel trapped in their jobs and are massively in debt. They anaesthetize themselves by buying goods which are designed to be obsolete in a few years (and which are frequently paid for by credit card debt).

Through it all, no-one asks what this thing called money is. Well, here's where I have to hit you with the bombshell. In our system money is debt. Does that sound completely crazy? It should do because it is and yet, sadly, it is true. Every unit of currency in our society originates in the form of debt (apart from physical coins which only make up a fraction of the money supply). The central bank prints the money and lends it to the goverment, expecting it to be paid back with interest. That's one part of the money supply.

The other part is created in the form of ordinary bank loans. When a bank lends you money it's natural to assume they're lending you money they already have, but they're not. They press a button on a keyboard and that money is credited to your account, but it's money that didn't exist until that moment. They have effectively created brand new money. They are allowed to do this because of a scheme called fractional reserve lending which means they can lend out many times more money than they actually have.

But the problem is that all that money they've created has to be paid back with interest. And the problem with that is there isn't enough money out there to ever pay it back. It's a mathematical impossibility since all the money out there comes with an interest bill to be paid to the originator of the money (the banks). This means the money supply has to constantly expand or else those debts can't be paid. Now if you look up the definition of the term "pyramid scheme" you'll see that it perfectly matches what I've just described.

This is all very complicated and it takes time to really get your head around it. Every citizen should know it and yet only about one in five hundred do. There's a reason for that. If the public ever did understand it - and fully grasp it's implications - then it would be over by tomorrow morning. The system is designed to create more and more debt. That is the point.

Now, as long as that post was I haven't even said a fraction of the things I would need to say to adequately answer your question. This is the problem with typing things on internet forums. It takes ten minutes to say things it would only take one minute to say in a spoken conversation. I'll just slip in some final points before I terminate my org session.

In order to sustain this totally unnecessary economic growth we have to encourage as much consumption as possible. This is why household appliances which used to last a lifetime now only last half as long. This is the reason why - in the early '60s - the advertising industry exploded. People already had all they needed so they had to be encouraged to want more. This is the reason why waistlines throughout the western world have been expanding for decades (food is a product to be sold just like any other - the more you sell, the more money you make).

You don't have to be a left-wing radical to see how pernicious all this is. It essentially leads to a candyfloss economy where anything that generates short-term economic growth is encouraged, regardless of how frivolous or destructive it is. It's also unsustainable because it's all based on finite resources stolen from the earth. Eventually you run out of things to pillage. And of course it also guarantees more and more greenhouse gas emissions which cause global warming which could wipe us all out in the next hundred years. What a price to pay for our own lack of imagination.

[Edited 7/31/12 7:25am]

midnightmover said:

morningsong said:

No, I'm not apologizing, because there still is absolutely no proof what is correct, since I also posted facts from legitimate science related sites that say something different, without overdramatizing. I really hope my agenda is clear, it gets ignored and twisted but I'm still going to say what I have to say.

I've already said that we don't know the exact number, so the figure I quoted is quite possibly inaccurate (though that doesn't change the basic point anyway), but you didn't accuse me of giving an inaccurate figure - you pretty much directly accused me of lying. That is a completely different thing. Like I said, you should apologize but you won't.

As for your tone, it's worth pointing out that one of the climate change deniers posted an approving smiley-face in response to one of your posts. Don't you think when you're getting messages of encouragement from the Flat Earth Society it might be an indication that you're batting for the wrong team?

[Edited 7/27/12 4:33am]

Maybe I need to be more specific.

Sheeple (per the wikipedia)

Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a term of disparagement in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. By doing so, they undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the subject is, if you jump on the bandwagon of anything without thought and research then you're a sheeple, hence the importance of having your facts straight.

morningsong said:

midnightmover said:

I've already said that we don't know the exact number, so the figure I quoted is quite possibly inaccurate (though that doesn't change the basic point anyway), but you didn't accuse me of giving an inaccurate figure - you pretty much directly accused me of lying. That is a completely different thing. Like I said, you should apologize but you won't.

As for your tone, it's worth pointing out that one of the climate change deniers posted an approving smiley-face in response to one of your posts. Don't you think when you're getting messages of encouragement from the Flat Earth Society it might be an indication that you're batting for the wrong team?

[Edited 7/27/12 4:33am]

Maybe I need to be more specific.

Sheeple (per the wikipedia)

Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a term of disparagement in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. By doing so, they undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the subject is, if you jump on the bandwagon of anything without thought and research then you're a sheeple, hence the importance of having your facts straight.

That's a stupid post. Pointing out that we are causing mass species extinction is not jumping on a bandwagon. It's pointing out an undeniable fact. The exact number is NOT THE POINT! It's either a thousand times the natural rate or a hundred thousand times the natural rate. Either way it's a scandal. That's. the. point.

All you're doing is looking at a molehill so you can avoid looking at the mountain. No matter how hard you try to make that molehill into a mountain, it will only ever be a molehill.

And how can this be a bandwagon when almost no-one is talking about it?

BombSquad said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

fact 1) more CO2 in the atmosphere increases the green house effect

fact 2) humans/industry/cars all release additional CO2 into the atmosphere

so which one of those two do you doubt? or not understand? or have you been absent on that day in school? if it was taught at all?

no answer? go figure. you fraud

midnightmover said:

Azz said:

Global warming is over-stated.

Mother nature has the last say.

Azz, your screen-name is very appropriate (though slightly misspelt).

The graphs you've posted show that co2 levels are directly correlated with global temperature. The graphs also show that both co2 levels and temperature are now higher than they've been at any point in over 100,000 years.

Well, considering that we are increasing co2 levels at an unprecedented rate every year, what do you think that is likely to do Azz - based on the record of those graphs? Any thoughts?

bullsey. within a few decades we dramatically pump additional CO2 back into the atmosphere, which has been bound and out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. and more CO2 causes global warming. simple. I really wonder what do people not understand about this? where is the debate?? full blown idiots.

and the ignorant fraud didn't reply to your post. with good reason...

BombSquad said:

AND ALL THOSE LONG WORDS AND DISTRACTION JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT POST A SUPPORT FOR YOUR LIE?

OBAMA NEVER SAID WHAT YOU CLAIMED. ONLY REV. WRIGHT DID

YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR

and off topic again...

Only had three weeks to dig up some Obam quotes, but still no backup for his claims. sorry, his LIES.

Obama never said it. end of story. Only is a filthy LIAR.