SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Firefighting instead of fire prevention then? I'm not too satisfied with that system.
At what point did we become "unsustainable?"
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
Firefighting instead of fire prevention then? I'm not too satisfied with that system.
Particularly because the cause and effect are much harder to prove and localize. There are 1000 companies polluting a river, and so a well is ruined. Which company did it?
The burden of proof becomes impossible. Add to that the fact that the court favors the richer party to the suit, and it is a wholly impossible standard of protection for the weaker party.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,427
1960-1970 AD
With the embrace of the Great Society humankind loses it last best hope of sustainability. At that point the idea that we can have our cake and eat it too begins to erode the values that lifted human society out of the jungle and hence guarantees our return to the primative.
Nothing less that a reduction of 80% of human population will result.
Government of the elite for the benefit of the mob is a dead end.
With the embrace of the Great Society humankind loses it last best hope of sustainability. At that point the idea that we can have our cake and eat it too begins to erode the values that lifted human society out of the jungle and hence guarantees our return to the primative.
Nothing less that a reduction of 80% of human population will result.
Government of the elite for the benefit of the mob is a dead end.
Boundless
Deity
Science may yet dig us out. But I consider the era of exploration to be the tipping point. Before the 1600's we hadn't really scratched the planet.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Locally, we definitely did. Even pre-industrial societies can cause extreme environmental damage, if you let them run amok in a relatively localized environment (Maya in Yucatan, etc.) It's interesting because those societies which did exceed the limits of their environment usually collapsed rather spectacularly.
We're not exceeding the limits of our environment globally, so it will be "interesting" what happens to us.
Boundless
Deity
I don't consider a local disturbance beyond the stability of the planet. Thus disregarding such examples.
Indeed, I wish I would be here to experience it. The strife will drive man in a way no other has. The scientific advance at that point will be wowmazin
Indeed, I wish I would be here to experience it. The strife will drive man in a way no other has. The scientific advance at that point will be wowmazin
Murky
Deity
Even though the Mayan Civilization collapsed there are still Mayans around. So even if we continue down this path to our final stupidity, there's still a good chance some humans will survive it.
Boundless
Deity
Well it wouldn't be our "final" stupidity would it!
Murky
Deity
Ours in terms of the Modern Society's final stupidity, not all of humanity or even all of civilization.
So, under this principle, all of society would be entitled to a compensation for air pollution?
Maybe we should found an institution to collect and distribute these compensations
Singularity
Infinite Density
I think sustainable/unsustainable is a very wide term - like responsible/unresponsible. You can't differentiate between local disruption and planetary wide disruption - it still is unsustainable and has real consequenses for the region that's affected.
Besides, if you look at global risruption there really is only our output that's unsustainable. More specifically our waste in the form of CO2 and the planets ability to recycle it into O2. And we're still zeroing in to what extent this is actually true, but acidification of the oceans is a good pointer that we've crossed past the ability of the oceans ability to recycle CO2.
A very good example of clearly defined unsustainable lifestyle can be found on the Eastern Islands. It used to have a rich subtropical/tropical forest up to 400 years ago, the civilization that used to live and thrive there is now gone, and the forest was utterly exterminated due to unsustainable deforestation - to the point where it still isn't back today. In other words it was total unsustainable lifestyle that led to the ultimate doom of the trapped polynesian civilization living there(with the few exceptions like the odd Mayan surviving their own collapse).
Just because we're doing it on a grander scale today doesn't mean we haven't done so in the past with tragic results. I bet it was a cold and hungry hunter/gatherer population that had to survive past the extermination of the mammuths, and that it had a real impact on a population that had gotten used to being sustained on hunting mammuths in a very unsustainable manner.
Tecknojock
Keeping the world running
The biggest problem with Easter Island was likely to be the rats they accidentally brought over on their ships. These rats grew into an unsustainable population and they destroyed the roots of the trees and ate the seeds that the trees would have used to repopulate the island. It probably wasn't the humans who deforested the island so quickly.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/The_Mystery_of_Easter_Island.html
Masada would make this conversation at least nine times better.
Humanity never sustained itself on hunting mammoths.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
You asked me to amplify my position so...
But I don't. Because the purpose of theft is... umm... theft. It is to steal from the productive and give the loot to parasites.
More specifically, the purpose of the state is provide a legal means for the powerful to steal from the powerless. Secondarily, it allows the powerful to control the lives of the powerless.
Back in the days of absolute Monarchs, the state didn't hide its purpose. The thieves styled themselves the "Nobility" and their victims were the Commoners. The Nobility built great mansions on the backs of the people they stole from.
Our modern democratic era hasn't changed the purpose of the state. What it has done is to obfuscate the distinction between the thief and the victim. It is possible to be both at the same time. This is generally true. The state steals my money and uses it to build roads that I travel on.
But never forget that the purpose is theft. The roads are just a facade which justifies the theft. State roads cost far more than private ones and take far longer to build because of all the graft which goes to the thieves.
Road are simple things. You see them or you don't. Much of what the state does it outright theft and it leaves the world worse off after it has finished stealing. The War on Terrah. The War on Drugs. The Wars, period. Billions of stolen dollars down the tubes to make the world yet more horrible. Millions of people die and millions more are sent to state prisons to destroy their souls.
The state is an outrage. Any decent person would reject it out of hand. Unfortunately the vast majority of people seem to want to get their hands on a bit of the loot. Not to mention that bossing other people around is just soooo much of a trip.
Taxation is always theft. This is not a point I really like to dwell on though. Statists argue that theft is justified because of some higher good. I have a lot of sympathy for that position. If I actually thought that state theft could be put to some useful purpose, I might agree.
But I don't. Because the purpose of theft is... umm... theft. It is to steal from the productive and give the loot to parasites.
More specifically, the purpose of the state is provide a legal means for the powerful to steal from the powerless. Secondarily, it allows the powerful to control the lives of the powerless.
Back in the days of absolute Monarchs, the state didn't hide its purpose. The thieves styled themselves the "Nobility" and their victims were the Commoners. The Nobility built great mansions on the backs of the people they stole from.
Our modern democratic era hasn't changed the purpose of the state. What it has done is to obfuscate the distinction between the thief and the victim. It is possible to be both at the same time. This is generally true. The state steals my money and uses it to build roads that I travel on.
But never forget that the purpose is theft. The roads are just a facade which justifies the theft. State roads cost far more than private ones and take far longer to build because of all the graft which goes to the thieves.
Road are simple things. You see them or you don't. Much of what the state does it outright theft and it leaves the world worse off after it has finished stealing. The War on Terrah. The War on Drugs. The Wars, period. Billions of stolen dollars down the tubes to make the world yet more horrible. Millions of people die and millions more are sent to state prisons to destroy their souls.
The state is an outrage. Any decent person would reject it out of hand. Unfortunately the vast majority of people seem to want to get their hands on a bit of the loot. Not to mention that bossing other people around is just soooo much of a trip.
Singularity
Infinite Density
How can you say we didn't sustain ourselves on mammoth? To what level we sustained ourselves would of course be speculation, just like the theory that hunter/gatherers where the main cause of the extinction of the mammoth. But you don't have to speculate too heavily in seeing the population extending up to the receding ice shield left over from the last ice age would have a predictable and important sustenance from hunting Mammoth in the quite cool climate with limited game to hunt for. It is not conclusive, but it is a strong hypothesis that migrating humans is the cause of the decline in in Mammoth numbers following the last ice age. And logic would make it hard to argue that a loss of such a rich source of game would be a hard hit for those societies, particularily during the cold seasons.
Again, there's competing theories on this. There's polynesian rats on most sizeable inhabited pacific islands, and they never had this problem of a collapse of the local fauna. Which would make the Easter Islands pretty unique to be the only one to succumb to rats. I've hardly taken a controversial stand when I say that it was the polynesians themselves that caused the deforestation of the island. But yeah, it's not an unconstested stance on what exactly happened there.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
I'd like to know why lefties have this obsession about pollution. In developed countries, the skies, waters and ground are clean. Why is this? Because pollution is waste. The free market is all about efficiency so it comes up with ways to make waste useful.
The bureaucrats and the rest of the parasites have nothing to do with it. If private industry had not come up with a way to do 'X', the parasites would never have been able to impose 'X' on decent folk. They are utterly useless. They never come up with any innovation themselves.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Can you name a single instance in history of private roads working as you advertise them here? Or at all?
I'd like to hear about how a free market can exist without the "theft" that governs its rules. Then again I'd also like to hear how a society of more than a couple of thousand people can function without "theft" on behalf of the collective.
Such an angry and unhappy view. I can only imagine how enraging and alienating daily life must be. And it obscures criticism of any one individual thing when it's apparent everything comes from the same prima facie place of anger and ideology.
Such an angry and unhappy view. I can only imagine how enraging and alienating daily life must be. And it obscures criticism of any one individual thing when it's apparent everything comes from the same prima facie place of anger and ideology.
Government regulation?
Similar threads
- Poll
