 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 628 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614128 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think that capitalism may be the only hope for the enviroment. When global warming really kicks in, businessmen will be the first people to try and make a buck on green technologies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you guys... i dont know what my info means? am i a terrorist? lol seriously. haha :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right, right. capitalism can sustain itself forever by simply developing new products, never mind the actual effects of climate change and environmental degradation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i disagree. i think that capitalism is as hippocritical and subversive, if not moreso, than communism in practice. but really, this is a question of perception and the viewpoint would surely change from person to person. anyway, i largely agree with deadeight and manicminer. i don't think any system is necessarily that much better than the other. no matter how you look at it, somebody's always getting screwed. that's the nature of all government throughout history. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If there is a demand for something, (In this case greener technology), then business will supply it. The whole point of capitalism is giving individuals the right to make a buck or two. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, you're very moderate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But in developed countries even if the 'on paper' difference in measurable wealth (currency) is getting wider, the actual difference in quality of life between the rich and poor is rapidly narrowing. Even comparatively poor people can afford to run cars, go on holiday on planes, have mobile phones, sky TV, eat out, etc. Sure, richer people have nicer cars, more comfortable plane seats, eat at classier restaurants etc., but the difference isn't so huge any more. Even someone approaching the poverty line today has a better quality of life than royalty of 200 years ago (think medical care, education, life expectancy, safety, transport and communication infrastructres). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right, so let the corporations destroy the earth until they can profit off selling clean water to the dying masses and the working class will work for slave wages producing these products they can't afford themselves. sounds utopian. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm afraid that probably won't work. By the time that happens, the damage will already have been done. Due to mechanisms of positive feedback, man-made global warming is already causing natural carbon sinks to release huge amounts of CO2. For example, marshland in Siberia is starting to release CO2 at an alarming rate, and it is believed that this is being caused by the melting of permafrost in the region. This, in turn, means more CO2 and therefore even faster global warming. Even the soil in England is apparently doing the same thing. By the time people start to react, it'll be too fucking late. And nobody wants to admit it, because it's too depressing. The outlook is completely apocalyptic. And capitalism must bear a huge chunk of the blame. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not in america. we have a rapidly polarizing economy now, thanks to the bush administration. unemployment is climbing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's the nature of humanity, we don't like equalibrium. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But the soviet union was a huge polluter. Why would getting rid of capitalism help the enviroment? Technological progress has damaged the enviroment, regardless of economic systems. A government built car pollutes just as much as a Ford or a Chrystler. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Here in Lithuania, the "poor" are now much worse off than they were under communism, and it's the same in most other former communist countries. Communism promised them a standard of living which, while frugal, was decent. Every day here I see people driving Porsches and people rooting through bins for food. It disgusts me. Under true capitalism, the weak are spat on and trampled under the feet of the rich. There's no democracy - it's plutocracy. OK, in the UK now the poor may enjoy a reasonably comfortable standard of living. But I just don't think other, less-developed countries like Lithuania will ever achieve that. I think the whole system is completely unsustainable and we're headed for environmental disaster. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
CAPITALISM RULES COMMUNISM IS GAY |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree 100% with marx's denotation of a capitalist society however his ideal is somewhat in question |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
communism needs capitalism to exist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Soviet Union might have been a huge polluter, but that's not really what I'm talking about. It is a common mistake to see industrial pollution and the release of greenhouse gases as the same thing. They're not - they're completely different issues. The USSR did, as you say, pollute. They had a fairly appalling environmental record, with factories belching out huge amounts of sulphur dioxide, etc. This is bad for the environment, but the effect is more local than global and just doesn't have the same implications as global warming. The fact is that the Soviet lifestyle was much less energy intensive than a capitalist lifestyle. People consumed less. As a result, the output of greenhouse gases was much smaller. Even today, the average Lithuanian lifestyle uses half the energy and produces half the waste of the average British lifestyle. And Lithuania has had 15 years of capitalism to catch up. During Soviet times, the difference would have been much greater. The fact that the Soviets polluted also had nothing to do with communism. It was simply the governments themselves who put a low priority on the environment. Remember too that we're talking almost 20 years ago, when industrial pollution in the west was pretty bad too. There's also the fact that capitalist countries tend to export their industry to other countries with cheaper labour. It might therefore look like the USA has less industrial pollution than did the old USSR, but that's because a lot of its products are made in the third world where environmental controls are more or less non-existent. Capitalism is hugely greedy and energy-intensive, and year by year this grows and grows because economic growth is its only objective. The result is global warming. This is why communism would have a lesser global effect on the environment. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how do you motivate people to produce in a socialist economy? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've absolutely no idea. That's completely irrelevant to what I've just said. The fact is that the current system can't and won't last, and it will leave us all without a world in which we can exist. It is destroying the planet. And the planet (i.e. somewhere to live), to me, is surely much more important than production. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok then, so the USSR was a worse poluter and had a less sustainable form of gov't, than the usa, but you're defending it why? do you think there is an ideal form of government that humanity is simply ignoring? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, we'll never figure it out. Let's just.... P A R T Y until the end finally comes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think that there probably is an ideal form of government, yes. I don't know what it is though. If you look back I think you'll see that I didn't "defend" the USSR. Firstly I criticised the environmental effect of capitalism, then I responded to swears' argument that the Soviets had a worse environmental record and that communism is therefore more environmentally damaging, something I don't agree with. My whole argument is this: capitalism is so environmentally destructive that the system will eventually be poisoned by its own shit. It will reap what it sows. I didn't say that Soviet communism was the answer. I do think some kind of communism might be the answer, though, and I think the argument that capitalism is the only system we've seen so far that "works" is rubbish, frankly. It's just the system that's lasted longest - it doesn't "work" for the reasons I've now gone over several times. I also didn't say that the USSR was a worse polluter. Again, look back at what I said. The USSR *appeared* to be a worse polluter simply because it didn't export it's industry. The USA and other Western countries export their industry to less-developed countries (or at least import a lot of their products from less-developed countries), so their pollution is, in effect, hidden. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
While I don't know much about this stuff (as I haven't lived on the planet for quite long enough) I'm agreeing with what you are saying. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, i realized that i had put words into your mouth as soon as i hit reply. i'm sorry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sad thing about the current US situation is that the founding fathers had a different vision of the country, one in which the government worked for the people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any gov't is going to degrade until it fails. we make governements and we are flawed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
see, my spelling is funamentally flawed. .... probably do to my socialistic publicly funded schooling. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DUE to ! DUE to goddammit !!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jesus christ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's true. there's no power in voting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're quite concerned with sounding smart, aren't you? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
funny how something always gets fucked up with the voting and Bush ends up winning. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
unfortunately that is the dead on truth. :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
could you please use the follow up, so i can know whether to smugly giggle to myself or be depressed? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sure |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
damn |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
;) just fuckin w ya |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think he legitimately won the second time. i think the majority of voting americans wanted him to be president. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
definately a possibility. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
kerry was the other choice. dude seemed like a villian from comic books. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and bush doesn't? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i often wonder if it would be any different if Kerry had won. i think the whole business is a facade. a charade. bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
.....a plutocracy..... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yep "...A wealthy class that controls a government..." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
