Capitalism is a cancer that is destroying the planet.
Thats because its based on infinite growth.
Not big fan of Marks in this regard...
Tipon, do you really think you're going to get anywhere around here denouncing capitalism? Have you not noticed that capitalism is a popular word on these forums?
Here's my suggestion: come up with some other word for the evil system you're describing. The word "capitalism" has too many meanings. To you, it means greedy unsustainable growth and development, but to a lot of people around here it means something much less sinister: something like "the concept that people should be able to own things freely without someone else violently taking them away."
I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to help you get your point across better. I hate seeing people shooting themselves in the foot through poor choice of words.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
Tipon, do you really think you're going to get anywhere around here denouncing capitalism? Have you not noticed that capitalism is a popular word on these forums?
Here's my suggestion: come up with some other word for the evil system you're describing. The word "capitalism" has too many meanings. To you, it means greedy unsustainable growth and development, but to a lot of people around here it means something much less sinister: something like "the concept that people should be able to own things freely without someone else violently taking them away."
I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to help you get your point across better. I hate seeing people shooting themselves in the foot through poor choice of words.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?
I'm all for cooperation. as long as its the voluntary kind. I think the idea that capitalism requires constant growth stems from two errors. First is an inflationary monetary policy, and second is a confusion about what money is. I would point you to Bastiat's what is money. It was written in 1849 but still holds true to this day. Ultimately value is subjective and the issue with capitalism is that it can lead to the erroneous belief that dollars are a measure of value, or that all value can be measured in dollars. In other words some believe that everything is for sale.
Yes, instead of a capitalist market based on competition what about a post-capitalist market based on cooperation created using blockchain technologies?
As I said before the actual Economic theory decoupled itself from nature ( thermodynamic processes) .
Since second world war there have been a constant growth of productivity in the world.
This growth implied also a growth of use of energetic and natural resources.
An economy that doesnt grow is an economy on crisis.
Capitalism is the only system in all our history that needs to growth for continuing existing.oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?
I'm all for cooperation. as long as its the voluntary kind. I think the idea that capitalism requires constant growth stems from two errors. First is an inflationary monetary policy, and second is a confusion about what money is. I would point you to Bastiat's what is money. It was written in 1849 but still holds true to this day. Ultimately value is subjective and the issue with capitalism is that it can lead to the erroneous belief that dollars are a measure of value, or that all value can be measured in dollars. In other words some believe that everything is for sale.
As I've said on this forum in the past, inflation contributes to the thug mentality.
I define the thug mentality as the same sort of mentality you're talking about where people have to compete to survive, where resources are artificially made scarce to force people to compete using the most ruthless means they can, why does this happen?
People say inflation is a good thing because it causes people to spend money. But using inflation to cause people to spend money means people are going to be on a constant treadmill which requires them to earn money as fast (or faster) than they spend it. It makes it so people can only think about short term profits, it provides an incentive for people (corporations) to act psychopathic.
It's not capitalism which is the problem, it's the form of it that we have. And the reason we have this form of capitalism is because it was forced on us all without the option of letting us choose. People don't choose to be born rich or poor, nor do they choose to be desperate, but when people are both poor and desperate they do anything necessary to resolve their conditions.
Rich people who have property/wealth will do anything necessary to protect it. This is why rich people tend to want strong property rights to protect themselves from the have nots who want to either use the government to tax and redistribute the wealth to themselves, or who want to burglarize them.
The problem isn't the "ism", and it's not the people, it's the culture and the system which shapes the behavior. If you have capitalism but only social corporations are allowed to exist then all of the problems you mentioned wouldn't be problems with capitalism.
So my advice to you is to look at Bitshares as a politically neutral technology (just a tool like a hammer). Next look at how that politically neutral technology can help you solve a social problem. Focus on social enterprises, social capitalism, social entrepreneurship, because the Bitshares community is working hard to help empower people who want to use the tools of capitalism to solve the social ills of the world.
In fact, that is why I'm interested in Bitshares. I want to see a better world, and just going with the program set for us by the system is a path to failure for anyone who wants a better world. The system we have now isn't designed for producing a better world and the ism you use is irrelevant. If we used socialism then the socialism under this culture, using this system we have now, would be just as broken.
The reason I make that strong claim is because I think the source of all of these sorts of problems is that most people still are stuck in the industrial age with their thinking, their culture, their systems, institutions, schools, and until they move into the information age there isn't going to be positive change. Decentralized autonomous cooperatives will force the outdated thinking to adapt to the technological innovation and over time thinking will change just as it has with the Internet.
Shouldn't we all be constantly attempting to grow our true wealth? (that is our subjective value of the things that meet our wants needs and desires) Do you think this type of growth is wrong?
As I've said on this forum in the past, inflation contributes to the thug mentality.
I define the thug mentality as the same sort of mentality you're talking about where people have to compete to survive, where resources are artificially made scarce to force people to compete using the most ruthless means they can, why does this happen?
People say inflation is a good thing because it causes people to spend money. But using inflation to cause people to spend money means people are going to be on a constant treadmill which requires them to earn money as fast (or faster) than they spend it. It makes it so people can only think about short term profits, it provides an incentive for people (corporations) to act psychopathic.
It's not capitalism which is the problem, it's the form of it that we have. And the reason we have this form of capitalism is because it was forced on us all without the option of letting us choose. People don't choose to be born rich or poor, nor do they choose to be desperate, but when people are both poor and desperate they do anything necessary to resolve their conditions.
Rich people who have property/wealth will do anything necessary to protect it. This is why rich people tend to want strong property rights to protect themselves from the have nots who want to either use the government to tax and redistribute the wealth to themselves, or who want to burglarize them.
The problem isn't the "ism", and it's not the people, it's the culture and the system which shapes the behavior. If you have capitalism but only social corporations are allowed to exist then all of the problems you mentioned wouldn't be problems with capitalism.
So my advice to you is to look at Bitshares as a politically neutral technology (just a tool like a hammer). Next look at how that politically neutral technology can help you solve a social problem. Focus on social enterprises, social capitalism, social entrepreneurship, because the Bitshares community is working hard to help empower people who want to use the tools of capitalism to solve the social ills of the world.
In fact, that is why I'm interested in Bitshares. I want to see a better world, and just going with the program set for us by the system is a path to failure for anyone who wants a better world. The system we have now isn't designed for producing a better world and the ism you use is irrelevant. If we used socialism then the socialism under this culture, using this system we have now, would be just as broken.
The reason I make that strong claim is because I think the source of all of these sorts of problems is that most people still are stuck in the industrial age with their thinking, their culture, their systems, institutions, schools, and until they move into the information age there isn't going to be positive change. Decentralized autonomous cooperatives will force the outdated thinking to adapt to the technological innovation and over time thinking will change just as it has with the Internet.
Are you telling me that is possible to have a capitalist system withouth growth?Technology is neutral but you aren't. The hammer doesn't care about any ism. The Internet itself doesn't care what information flows through it, people care. The Internet resulted in economic growth and as a result we are able to communicate right now.
I think you are making a big big big mistake interpreting technologies as political neutral.
Technologies are NOT neutral !!!! Neutrality of technologies is part of the ideology of capitalism.
Are you speaking of growth as in an increase in the number next to a ledger balance, or an increase in the use of natural resources.
Are you telling me that is possible to have a capitalist system withouth growth?Technology is neutral but you aren't. The hammer doesn't care about any ism. The Internet itself doesn't care what information flows through it, people care. The Internet resulted in economic growth and as a result we are able to communicate right now.
I think you are making a big big big mistake interpreting technologies as political neutral.
Technologies are NOT neutral !!!! Neutrality of technologies is part of the ideology of capitalism.
I never said you can have capitalism without growth. I'm saying growth in itself isn't bad. Any social problem you wish to solve requires growth. If you want a better world that also requires growth. You cannot build renewable energy technology, explore space, or do anything without growth.
So growth is important. But it's a matter of whether what is growing at this time is important? Growth in the right areas is what should be encouraged and this is a social decision. If you're advocating an anti-growth stance even if it's positive growth then we are in disagreement. If you're arguing that the current system promotes growth which is counter productive to the future survival of humanity, which is unsustainable, then I will agree and say redirect the growth and make it sustainable.
Are you speaking of growth as in an increase in the number next to a ledger balance, or an increase in the use of natural resources.
This is the most important question asked so far. What kind of growth?
The use of natural resources? Bitshares doesn't have to use any non-renewable resources to grow because it's just information. You need electricity of course, and you need enough resources to transmit data along the electromagnetic spectrum, but this is far more efficient than the way we do businesses today.
We could make the argument that Proof of Work is Proof of Waste but Bitshares does not use Proof of Work.
You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
But take in consideration other types of technologies.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalism is result of a political process of social forces impulsed by big capitals.
Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context and withouth influence of economic powers.
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon.
Technologies are not neutral because it changes the world, it affects individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalist technology from the use we made of it. Capital ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.
Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.
You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .
I would like that our world was infinite and we can have infinite growth, but its not possible.
You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
But take in consideration other types of technologies.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalismQuoteFor me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.is result of a political process of social forces impulsed by big capitals.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growingQuoteFor me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context and withouth influence of economic powers.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon.
Technologies are not neutral because it changes the world, it affects individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalistQuoteFor me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.technology from the use we made of it. Capital
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growingQuoteFor me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.
You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .
I would like that our world was infinite and we can have infinite growth, but its not possible.Are you telling me that is possible to have a capitalist system withouth growth?Technology is neutral but you aren't. The hammer doesn't care about any ism. The Internet itself doesn't care what information flows through it, people care. The Internet resulted in economic growth and as a result we are able to communicate right now.
I think you are making a big big big mistake interpreting technologies as political neutral.
Technologies are NOT neutral !!!! Neutrality of technologies is part of the ideology of capitalism.
I never said you can have capitalism without growth. I'm saying growth in itself isn't bad. Any social problem you wish to solve requires growth. If you want a better world that also requires growth. You cannot build renewable energy technology, explore space, or do anything without growth.
So growth is important. But it's a matter of whether what is growing at this time is important? Growth in the right areas is what should be encouraged and this is a social decision. If you're advocating an anti-growth stance even if it's positive growth then we are in disagreement. If you're arguing that the current system promotes growth which is counter productive to the future survival of humanity, which is unsustainable, then I will agree and say redirect the growth and make it sustainable.
Capitalism is a cancer that is destroying the planet.
Thats because its based on infinite growth.
Growth means increasing productivity and increasing the use of natural resources and energies, it also increment the impacts of these processes in nature . These are in contradiction with the limited existence of natural resurces and the physical limits in our planet.
Capitalism is based on growth and thats why it cannot be sustainable ( in an ecological way).
Unsustainability means that its inevitable the collapse of capitalism. Or at least the structure of the actual world and the actual capitalist system is gonna change into something radically differente ( im not sure if calling this capitalism).
Our economic theory (liberal economics) decoupled energy and natural resources from the function of the economy and this mean all the economic theory and mechanisms are wrong and obsolete and we need to create a new economic system and theory.
I see theres a lot of people with interesting ideas trying to innovate with block chains technologies and crypto stuff.
But they are trying to integrate these technologies into the actual capitalist system.
I think the real potential is the opposite: Using these technologies for creating new kind of infrastructures that would allow communities and society to create a new economic system parallel to capitalism that cannot be integrated to capitalism.
Using these technologies for building alternatives to capitalist system, for example to create a new sustainable world.
what do you think?
tipon, You seem to be thinking of growth in terms of environmental impact, natural resources consumed etc.
Do you think if people were cooperating in a "non capitalist" way that there won't be growth? Would there still be population growth?
Maybe what you mean by capitalism causing growth is how others have mentioned that inflation can cause people to spend more recklessly because their money will be worth less tomorrow than it is today so you basically have to spend it now and this might be wasteful.
I think a lot of growth in terms of natural resources consumed is caused by population growth; perhaps this would happen regardless of capitalism. A lot of other species grow exponentially until they max out their resources, habitat, food sources etc. and then stabilize
You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.And you think money isn't because you were taught some political brainwashing from the 1800s? It's not about money, it's about liberty. It's also about creating value and trading it.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
But take in consideration other types of technologies.Legacy technologies are a problem but growth isn't the root cause of the disaster. The root cause was that they put it on a treadmill and then sped it up so people would have to run faster and faster to keep up with previous generations. This made people consume more, work longer hours. Credit was then given to make people consume even more and work loner than ever to pay off debts.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.Some techniques or policies may not be good ideas. Inflation is not popular around here because we know that inflation does have the disastrous social effects you are talking about.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalism is result of a political process of social forces.
Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context.Some technological tools emerge from stigmergic processes. We will see a lot of that in this space.
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon.This makes no sense. Technology doesn't force you to use it. It doesn't tell you how to use it. Think like a hacker and you'll find that you can use any technology in ways the developers never intended for it to be used. This applies to anything really.
Technologies are not neutral because it changes the world, it affects individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalist technology from the use we made of it.
Capital ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.Give me some examples of this because this is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory.
Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.Where are you getting this from? Social control by who and what? Are you talking about Apple? Microsoft? Closed source technology is about control.
You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.Tell me why you cannot have growth in intelligence for millions of years? Is there a physical limit to computation? I would say perhaps there is one, but it's unlikely we'd ever exhaust that kind of growth.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .
The basic problem the OP is addressing (in my opinion) has to do with the over-exploitation of resources. We need an economic system that succeeds while making more efficient use of resources. Ultimately, it needs to be sustainable where our present system is not. I hope that Bitshares, which does not rely on energy-intensive mining techniques and which strips out the wasteful middleman in a corporate structure, can be a leaner, greener (and at the same time, more equitable) way to run businesses using the blockchain.
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.
The basic problem the OP is addressing (in my opinion) has to do with the over-exploitation of resources. We need an economic system that succeeds while making more efficient use of resources. Ultimately, it needs to be sustainable where our present system is not. I hope that Bitshares, which does not rely on energy-intensive mining techniques and which strips out the wasteful middleman in a corporate structure, can be a leaner, greener (and at the same time, more equitable) way to run businesses using the blockchain.
Of course. Why would anyone assume that we don't want that?
But the reason resources are drained is because of corporations, not capitalism. And the kind of corporations we have are a result of the law calling them persons and giving them special privileges which don't exist in nature, which has nothing to do with capitalism.
This is why I promote the idea of social enterprise, social corporations, because you can put in your charter that the mission and reason for that social corporation to profit is to make and promote the most efficient use of resources. Every ideal you have can be combined with the profit motive to create an self sustaining capitalist machine.
But to get rid of all the tools of capitalism just because some bad people use it? That is a weak argument. Why not get rid of hammers because bad people use them?
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
I think you guys need to understand that is not possible to make a capitalist ecological sustainable system.
Capitalism is inherently insustainable.
You need always more oil.
Can can we change this using block chain technologies?
The first thing you need to answer is , what does it mean being sustainable?
You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?
That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself.
You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?
That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.
You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?
That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.
Energy use is related with specific organizations that adopt societies.
Which kind of social organization would allow a sustainable use of energy?
Capitalism tend to centralism, concentration of power, gigantism, and the creation of megalopolies that are not sustainable.
In which way can block chain technologies made it possible to create new types of social organizations?You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?
That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.
Why Coca-Cola?
:)
Energy use is related with specific organizations that adopt societies.
Which kind of social organization would allow a sustainable use of energy?
Capitalism tend to centralism, concentration of power, gigantism, and the creation of megalopolies that are not sustainable.
In which way can block chain technologies made it possible to create new types of social organizations?You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?
That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.
I am sorry, but your definition of Capitalism is interfering with the ability to reason. You are defining it by 'effects' instead of what it actually is... You then judge the effects as wrong.
Please describe capitalism by the actions that create it rather than by the effects.
See he can only fund them :)You need always more oil.
Can we change this using block chain technologies?
That is a question for Dan.
Dan can you find a way to use blockchains as fuel/and main ingredient for pretty much everything?
...
I do not think the Prophet will be enough here, you will need the God herself, but let’s wait.
I suspect a DAC may be able to help fund these things...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/
Coca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.
Why Coca-Cola?
:)
Coca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.
Why Coca-Cola?
:)
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean - I will take a fishing pole; as books I will take F Nietzsche and… for music I do not know (yet)
" After all, we needn't disregard a statement merely because it expresses something false" NietzscheCoca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.
Why Coca-Cola?
:)
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean - I will take a fishing pole; as books I will take F Nietzsche and… for music I do not know (yet)
Nietzsche should take care of any urge you might have to sustain yourself in this particular situation. So you won't need the fishing pole.
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
tipon, You can't stop people from being competitive or motivated by self interest and you seem to think this is the root problem that leads to "infinite growth" which is your definition of capitalism. I don't think the definition makes much sense. Bytemaster said to define capitalism by the actions that lead to it, so you say the action that leads to it is competition. Well, competition can't be avoided, people are not inherently altruistic otherwise you might just give away all your money.
Theres this old darwinian theory that says that evolution is determined by competition.
This theory is incomplete.
Evolution has always be also determined by cooperation.
Theres this old darwinian theory that says that evolution is determined by competition.On an evolutionary scale, cooperation is often performed in order to better compete for various things. I think you're off-base with your determination that the theory is incomplete. In fact, why would the cooperation be necessary in the first place if there wasn't competition that drives the need for better performance?
This theory is incomplete.
Evolution has always be also determined by cooperation.
This idea that we humans are in escence competitive is wrong .
Classical economists used to think that individuals following individual interests and acting competitive would lead to the satisfaction of the whole society. These theory is wrong.
In humans history there have been a lot of cultures and civilizations that have existed without competition , cultures that have existed in a sustainable way.
I think competition is not something inherent to human nature that cant be changed.
Collaboration on global scale would need a radical change of paradigms, first all those liberal economic theories based on a reductionistic approach should be proscribed as obsolete.
oh sorry , i think i should have started with my definition of capitalism, here we go:
For me capitalism is our actual system based on infinite growth.
Infinite growth is the esence of capitalism and its result from competition.
Competition in the system impose to each capitalist the necessity of growing
Instead of using blockchain technologies for expanding competition , how about using them for expanding cooperation?Tipon, do you really think you're going to get anywhere around here denouncing capitalism? Have you not noticed that capitalism is a popular word on these forums?
Here's my suggestion: come up with some other word for the evil system you're describing. The word "capitalism" has too many meanings. To you, it means greedy unsustainable growth and development, but to a lot of people around here it means something much less sinister: something like "the concept that people should be able to own things freely without someone else violently taking them away."
I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to help you get your point across better. I hate seeing people shooting themselves in the foot through poor choice of words.
Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
...+5%
What we have today is better considered "crony capitalism". Also, the idea of infinite growth is well and good with respect to innovation. Many of the people today sayjng that the earth cannot provide for all of us not only are introducing dangerous strawmen problems, but also implying only one solution--which has actually worked out FAR worse historically for humanity than the initial "perceived" problems. Sustainability will not come from a central authority dictating our lives, but from competition to create systems that benefit the largest number of people with the smallest possible input of resources. Let us try not to unnecessarily attribute the the problems that were a byproduct of an outdated paradigm to our inability to sustain "growth". Rather lets change our conceptualization of what growth is so it does not limit our potential.
The people who drastically change our world for the better are ALWAYS told by the flock that their dreams are impossible. They manufacture reasons why we cant instead of asking "how can we?"
I would argue we have never realy experienced true capitalism and that America was the closest we've ever been to it...and even today I do not see innovators from all over the world fleeing to other countries in the hope of giving their impossible dreams a chance to be realized.Unfortunately at this point many are fleeing the U.S. to pursue their innovative dreams, but I agree that for many years the U.S. was a great environment for innovation. Now I think it's closer to average, depending on the field.
Sustainability is not the problem...our willingness to discount the power of human ingenuity, given proper motivation is our only problem. Anyone who says otherwise wants to enslave you to their own, dangerously narrow perception of reality.I like to say that Prometheus stole fire from the gods for mankind, and carbon taxing is the state-worshipers' attempt to steal it back for their god. :P
People really need to research Enron, "Blood and Gore", and there proposed carbon exchanges...it perfectly sets us up for a better understanding of how Agenda 21 is destroying markets and hurting the world population. From there its just a hop skip and jump to 9/11, the "War on Terror" ( which, ironically only serves to perpetuate it), the 2008 stock market attack (it was economic warfare), the larry summers memos, and the "New World Order".
We have ALL the tools we'll ever need. The question is: will we let those in power let their myopic fears of losing control frame the debate with Warnings of Impossibility...or will we ask forgivness from the scared sheep AFTER proving the nay-sayers wrong?
Coca-Cola is in my top 10 inventions of all time also. Not #1, as this place must be taken by air-conditioning…If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean. And I'd get to take 3 things with me, it would be a can of Coca-Cola, 'Cosmo's Factory' by Creedence Clearwater Revival and the complete works of Martin Luther.
Why Coca-Cola?
:)
If I were to strand on an island in the Caribbean - I will take a fishing pole; as books I will take F Nietzsche and… for music I do not know (yet)