ralfy

Again no, I think I've tried to say more than once that what you're appear to be complaining about with capitalism is nothing more than what we probably all do every day. But like the humans we are, when others do it it's wrong. It's only right when we do it. As above: pot and kettles.

Again, you're not challenging my arguments in any way but trying to change the topic by talking about me.

Given that, I see no relevance whatsoever in your posts and will be putting you in my ignore list.

It must come down to what each person wants individually. If this idea can gain popularity, then the heads of military contractors and congress may be influenced by societal pressure and voters respectively. Or, these individuals that can make significant changes may notice that they and their families could be better off with longer and healthier lives rather than wealthy lives that don't necessarily make them happier. So it might actually make sense for them to support and even assist medical research.

From what I gathered, what most people want is the status quo. That is, the use of the petro-dollar for much of world trade, the same petro-dollar backed by a very expensive U.S. military to make sure that various resources, especially oil, are made available for increasing economic growth, oil used to ensure increased production and consumption of goods to maintain the value of that petro-dollar and money in general, and the same money used to fund medical research and to ensure that more people can pay for advanced health care.

You are not the definition of the word Atheist, but you are the Atheist in question. Are YOU religious? Yes. I believe that it's wise to know that Atheists are people, and that people have beliefs. A belief an Atheist has, that is, the man who is the Atheist, is in Atheism. He is not an Atheist because of his character if he discusses his belief, he becomes the man who discusses it. It not the definition of Atheist that were referring to, therefore; again, it's the man or men in question. Are you trying to tell me there aren't a group of Atheists advocating beliefs? I see them everywhere, it speaks for itself. You are religious, but you don't believe in God, and this is your religion, otherwise be incognito and stay away from God--then you are the meaning behind the word Atheist, because your character shows it. Right now you don't possess the self-awareness to know that you're really deluded to think that what you're doing isn't religious.

Your post does not make any sense at all. I am not a "definition," I am not "the atheist in question," and what do I have have to do with this issue?

Look, it's not so hard to understand: read the entries which I shared earlier which define "atheism," "religious," and "religion," and you will see what I mean.

As I said previously:

 

And, the Earth will force us to live within its ability to provide essential resources. What that means is not clear, but it will be different than the way people in the US live today. Nor will people live as they once did, because technology has changed our way of life and will continue to change it further, including 3D printing and robotics. These technologies also promise to change the need for some kinds of factories and in some industries may reduce the economic benefits of huge corporations. If personal tools are capable making anything a person needs, then industry as we know it will be obsolete, along with the capitalist ethos. Though, all we know is that things will change.

In reality, the ave. ecological footprint has been beyond biocapacity for some time. See the links about ecological footprint shared in the other thread for details.

Also, in a "capitalist ethos," technologies do not only make previous ones obsolete they lead to a ramp up of resource use. This was also explained in previous messages and in the other thread.

So we're in agreement, your view is naï[/size]ve.

No, we're not in agreement. Rather, you're not in agreement with your own views. You argue that what I say is naive and yet you support it. That's it.

No, he's saying that a 10% drop in spending by everyone doesn't affect the relative strengths of the armies. Whoever was at the top of teh list would still be at the top.

I cannot imagine military organizations and even defense industries agreeing to cuts. If any, they always want more, especially given military forces used to keep the petro-dollar propped up or to access natural resources in other countries by force.

Was your intention here to support my position (and the position expressed by several others in this thread) that you are merely expanding the definition of religion so profoundly as to render it useless? If so, you've just done that.

 

This thread was absurd when it began. It's only become more so since.

Expanding a definition of religion as to "render it useless"? That point makes no sense at all. What I did is show, correctly, the various definitions of religion, and you did not counter that in any way.

If any, what makes this thread "absurd" isn't the fact that religion has several definitions. It's that you can't accept that.

Your statement only tells that your definition of high standard of living and mine are different. Once a person has food, clothing, shelter, and health care, money is of little consequence IMO. And, using outrageous amounts of energy is unnecessary, and IMO unethical. Wearing a 100 caret diamond or 10 pounds of gold will make you fearful and possibly paranoid. Living alone in a 100,000 sq ft fortress is not a high standard of living. A luxury life style is not really good for your health. What you say you want is IMO the antithesis of living a good life.

As explained to you in the other thread, the type of lifestyle that you envision, i.e., that of Costa Rica, requires an ecological footprint above bio-capacity. And that's assuming that the global population will not increase further and that no more environmental damage will take place.

The type of lifestyle that will fit the current global biocapacity is that of Cuba, but that again assumes that the current global population will not increase further and that no environmental damage or resource shortage will take place.

So, you see, I did not give a "definition of high standard of living." Rather, I used what you proposed.

Finally, what is most ironic about your example is that given its own biocapacity, Costa Rica is already at overshoot. That is, it will require resource inputs from other countries to maintain its current lifestyle.

I also found the following information about energy returns that contradicts your contention that EROI for oil is far better than renewable energy sources.

You missed his point. What Charles Hall said is that we need a certain level of EROEI to maintain a particular lifestyle. You will find more details in the SciAm article linked in the other thread.

The catch is that oil used to have a far better energy return than renewable energy, but now it is almost as low as that of the latter.

Do you understand the argument? We need high energy returns to maintain the current middle class lifestyle and, ironically, the same "capitalist ethos" discussed in this thread. The six decades of economic progress, not to mention meeting the needs of a growing global middle class, required "cheap" oil or oil with high energy returns, something that met an energy increase demand of 2 pct per annum the last three decades, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. If you want more details, then read the IEA Outlook 2010 report which was linked to earlier in the other thread.

Remember, a "capitalist ethos" requires ever-increasing energy and resource use to maintain continuous economic growth. That can't happen if the energy returns for oil are now almost as low as that of renewable energy. What makes matters worse is that even the infrastructure and resources needed to make renewable energy possible still require fossil fuels, especially as petrochemicals. And although theoretically it is possible to transition completely from fossil fuels, it will take decades plus meeting an energy trap to do so. Again, these points were explained carefully to you in the other thread.

Given these, the global middle class will have to lower standards significantly to that of Costa Rica, which you suggested. But as explained to you in the other thread and in my previous message, even the living standards of Costa Rica are above both global biocapacity and even the biocapacity of Costa Rica itself.

The implication is that given that plus increasing population plus the effects of environmental damage and global warming, then the ave. ecological footprint will have to drop even further, even lower than that of Cuba.

Finally, will the capitalist elite, which controls much of the global economy and much of whose wealth consists of numbers in bank hard drives, allow for that? How about military forces that require increasing use of resources to maintain operations? Most of the human population that can barely meet even the living standards of Costa Rica?

But if they allocated the same percentage to medical research, then no country is necessarily any better or worse off militarily.

I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that if all countries spend the same percentage of medical research, then all of their military forces will be of the same strength?

I know that this is what they currently do, the OP asks that we imagine an alternative, for the future. If it were possible to ensure that every participating nation reduces its defence budget to the same degree as fellow participating nations, such that no one nation is left with a 'defensive' disadvantage, then the playing field would remain equal and the nations could focus on improving health innovation without having to worry about their defence capabilities in comparison with their neighbours. It would potentially also reduce the risk of unnecessary War (think, Iraq) because nation leaders would begin to recognise the expense of military intervention and so (hopefully) would intervene only when the human cost of maintaining peace renders intervention imperative (think, WWII).

I don't think countries will lower military spending, as that allows for control of various resources, etc.

What's your point? The existence of different definitions does not alter the broken logic structure you put forth. You misspoke, and I demonstrated that by analogy so it was more clear where, how, and why.

It's the other way round: the "existence of different definitions" alters "the broken logic structure you put forth." I'll demonstrate below.

Either way, no need to perpetuate a petty and silly disagreement like this. This thread is laden with a countless many of them already (seriously, people are arguing that buddhism is not a religion FFS).

No, my argument addresses the question raised in the title thread. It even addresses your last point: based on the various definitions of "religion," Buddhism is and isn't a religion. Apply the same point to the question in the title thread, and read my previous messages for details.

It's pretty clear to me that you intended to convey a message more aligned with the structure put forth by Villain, which is frankly something nobody in this thread has disagreed with anyway.

 

As a reminder, here's how Villain expressed the position:

"because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, atheists are not necessarily irreligious."

 

I agree 100%. Either way, it's a red herring so is moot. Nobody here is saying that atheists are necessarily irreligious. What people ARE saying is that atheism is not a religion, and to suggest otherwise is to expand the definition of religion so profoundly as to render it useless.

No, I didn't, as religion <> religious.

The glut of energy used by people in the US is IMO unethical. While you may have inferred otherwise, I have not implied otherwise. Moreover, using energy indiscriminately is unnecessary to maintain a high standard of living, and the fact that corporations are implementing energy saving measures demonstrates that fact. It is my contention that people walking more and driving less would be better for everyone both ecologically and healthfully. The design of cities to promote driving is absurd. The capitalistic ethos has created a bizarre culture and is overall a disaster; although, there are some benefits.

 

I can accept that capitalism has been necessary in the evolution of human culture, but do not accept that it is the best we can possibly achieve.

A "high standard of living" requires high energy returns. Also, a global capitalist system "energy saving measures" do not lead to more energy or resources used as they are used elsewhere for more profits.

These points were explained in the thread about peak oil.

No, you're missing the point. My initial comment was in reply to your apparent conclusion that land (or whatever) was initially obtained by force, with the inference that in some way it is the underlying foundation with what you seem to conclude is a problem today. I'm agreeing that it did it happen long ago, but arguing it is just as prevalent today. We may not like that thought, but I suggest if we examine events, if not the things we all do to some degree, it's there.

No, that's not what happened. Rather, you acknowledged the presence of violence and then tried to explain it away as part of "human nature." After that, you argued that it had nothing to do with problems today, which negates your claim about violence being "natural." Finally, you started looking at my motives, which not only has nothing to do with the topic but negates your first two points.

In fact, the same errors can even be seen in your paragraph above. See for yourself: in your first sentence, you imply that force used in the past is not "a problem today." And yet you argue the opposite in your next sentence: "it is just as prevalent today." In fact, you even validate your second point by stating that "it's there."

You need to make up your mind on this before we continue the discussion. And I suggest that you don't bring in anything about motives or whether or not anyone who raises these points should "surrender" what they own, etc.

Another coincidence, because to me your view is naï[/size]ve.

My view is naive and yet you acknowledge it!

Naï[/size]ve because you appear to have some sort of idea that there's a system out there that's all peace and love. I'd be interested to know what it is?

No, I didn't say that. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Presumably some sort of system whereby everything considered of value is shared out equally to all. How that would prevent friction, discord and eventual conflict, not to mention getting anything done, I've really no idea. Presumably you'd have a police force to enforce order - oh dear a system supported by force!! And furthermore, who does the sharing - now that's unfair straightaway because someone or a group have power over others. Not to mention the loss of aspiration, desire, progress or even the need to simply do sod all! After all, why should anyone make or do anymore than they really have to, because they aren't going to get anything more than their allotted share if they did? So, one individual doesn't perform quite as much as he is supposed to, his neighbour then sees that in comparison he's now doing more, so he then reduces his output - ditto until collapse. Now that's summing it up too simplistically I know. But in a nutshell that's the philosophy. I think there is a place where they tried a system something like that after the second world war, and in the fullness of time it fell apart in disorder and destitution - if not disorder, destitution and poverty long before it collapsed. Not to mention maintained by oppressive heavy state control.

No, there is no such thing.

And "oppressive heavy state control" will not help as that's based on state capitalism.

Nations in a global capitalist system want longer life spans but also more powerful military forces. To achieve that, they don't cut the military budget but expand extraction of resources to maintain continuous economic growth. In various cases, the same military forces are employed to ensure the latter.

For me, it's localization leading to resilience.

Logic fail. Because hobbies don't necessarily involve the collection of stamps, then that explains why not collecting stamps can also be considered a hobby.

Logic fail. Your analogy is completely wrong because there are different definitions of religion and of atheism. See for yourself.

Some of them are - the Taoist, Buddhist, Animist, trad Navajo, and so forth.

 

Some of them aren't.

 

If you are wondering whether a given atheistic person is religious, ask yourself what religion they belong to. If you can't find one that fits, the first guess is that they aren't religious.

Exactly my point.

I think you mean to say: because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, atheists are not necessarily irreligious.

That's right.

Correction: because some religions don't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why some atheists can also be considered religious.

That's what "not necessarily" means.

They don't My friend, people lived without either coal or oil for millennium, and they didn't have either solar PV or electricity generated by wind. Several civilizations became quite large and powerful, including the Romans. Water is essential for life, oil is a luxury.

 

Although, I think it will be unnecessary, submarine robots could also mine the ocean floor for Thorium and/or Uranium and make nuclear reactors, which provide power with energy returns adequate for your expectations.

The amount of energy needed today, especially by a growing global middle class, exceeds those of "several civilizations" in the past multiple-fold.

For example, the U.S. alone, which has less than 5 pct of the world's population, requires up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain economic growth. For the rest of the world to follow (and it has to given a global capitalist system) we will need several more earths.

Again, these and other points, including bio-capacity, issues concerning phosphorus, petrochemicals, and more were explained to you thoroughly in another thread.

Late middle ages! What went on then is totally irrelevant to anything in today's world.

But you even acknowledged the opposite in your subsequent posts!

As I said, the place where your abode is was doubtless taken, as you call it, long ago by force. You may not like it but that's how things have happened, ownership of just about anything in the world was secured in such a way - it's human nature (which you seem to refute), read your history. In our so called civilized society we do such by asking others to do it for us - like the police and armed forces. We can only operate in a way that we call civilized under the umbrella of the police and armed forces - which apply and use force to maintain law and order.

See what I mean? You're not just contradicting yourself in your posts, you even do it between paragraphs! Your second paragraph, for example, shows the opposite of the first. As I said, you can't even make up your mind about your own arguments.

Also, your second paragraph SUPPORTS arguments, not refutes them.

If you think we don't need such (which is the impression I'm getting), just try to imagine what would happen without a police force, not to mention armed forces.

I never argued that "we don't need such." What I said is that the origins of capitalism is violence, and you just confirmed that. The next thing is for your to figure out whether or not the same police and armed forces will not turn on the same civilians they are supposed to protect. Good luck with that naive fantasy.

Yesterday and Sunday we remembered those who placed and sacrificed their life to maintain and preserve our way of life. And in case you've missed the point, it was the application of force to secure our possessions against someone who wanted to take it from us. Something we doubtless obtained by force a long time ago.

Take it from us? You gotta be kidding me! It's the OTHER WAY round. In fact, it's been the other way round the past six decades!

What are you going to do next? Acknowledge that and argue that it's "natural" or that those who took must now return what they took, else the argument is wrong?

This is what you've been doing in all of your posts: first argue that capitalism is not based on violence, and then argue that it is so because violence is part of human nature, and then imply that capitalism isn't based on violence because those who benefit from capitalism aren't returning what they took.

Please make up your mind on this issue so that we can continue the discussion logically. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time by committing the same mistakes in each post.

Frankly, It seems you don't understand how things operate. Yes, of course things we're secured by force - how else? There's a piece of land over there, the first one to get there stakes his claim, drafts a legal document of ownership and then secures it by force. If one doesn't mark one's plot and protect it by force, someone else would simply come along and push you out of the way - human nature again. You may not like that aspect of human nature (I'm not too keen on it myself), but it happens. Take another example: what happens when we apply for a job? We may not meet or even know who they are, but we doubtless embellish our ability to compete and effectively push aside any other candidates - we may not think that's what we're doing, but we're aggressively pushing aside others. As said previously: why do you lock your from door?

No, you are completely wrong about this. Land enclosed was not secured but taken by force. And the fact that a "legal document" was created after the land was enclosed shows the origins of those legalities.

And the employment of a legal document has absolutely nothing to do human nature. If you study your history carefully, you will see that enclosures and private property based on the law came much later. That derails your argument about it being part of human nature, as your point would imply that private property should have existed from the beginning.

The rest of your post is irrelevant as it merely repeats my argument: the agrarian origins of capitalism (explained in my second post) leading to the current phenomena described in my first post. Your refuted neither.

Yes, strong and weak, either you don't see any evidence for gods or you are sure there are no gods which of course means you need to show evidence, simply not buying what theists are selling is the default position and requires nothing in the way of evidence... BTW i am quite sure that God as described the Holy Bible is not real and i am prepared to back that up...

But because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why atheists can also be considered religious.

I just don't know where you're living, but such doesn't happen anywhere near me. I'm sorry, but it seems you're diving into hyperbole.

Read the article carefully. It is about enclosures that were started during the late Middle Ages in England. It is not about hyperboles but explains the agrarian origins of modern capitalism.

Again, where on earth are you living? Although if you want to go back far enough, and as said previously, all land at some point way back in history was probably secured by force - which means your abode. The trouble is it's a result of human nature being what it is (which you appear to disagree with), some sort of forced security needs to be applied - after all, I presume you find the need to lock your door when leaving your abode like we all do. Not forgetting anything else, which unless chained are bolted down will almost certainly disappear in short order. But if you're are identifying that as some sort of basis for your argument, then I'm sorry, because if so, your argument is just ridiculous.

Land was not "secured" but taken by force, and that did not legitimize ownership. Enclosures did centuries later. Read the article for more details.

It was not "their abode" that armed men enclosed. Rather, it was land commonly used by peasants that they controlled.

Do you understand? They didn't secure land that they owned. Rather, they took away land commonly used by others by force.

That makes the claim of "forced security" based on "human nature" ridiculous, together with the analog of a locked door.

As said, that may well have been the origin long ago, but is hardly relevant today - nay, totally irrelevant today. I'm sorry once more, but you're just going into hyperbole again.

Ridiculous. Let's see you come up with proof showing that the global capitalist economy does not involve private ownership of the means of production!

And as said, your abode, or the area it's standing on, was doubtless originally obtained long ago by the method you indicate, so I presume you'll be surrendering it and handing it over to some better good.

Now, you're acknowledging the argument! You can't even make up your mind on this topic.

Fortunately, sun and wind provide sufficient energy, the ocean is not claimed by anyone, and the ocean and the ocean floor have sufficient resources, regardless of how much land is owned by capitalists. People can live on floating farms near the equator, where there are no violent storms. The potential for livable surface is vast.

They don't due to lower energy returns. This was explained to you in another thread about peak oil.

...

 

so, just as a tomato may blur the lines between fruit and vegetable, Buddhists do the same with Theism and Atheism.

As stated in the article, there are also different forms of atheism.

We need to grow crops so we secure and control some land upon which to grow them. As I was trying to convey, if we didn't take measures to secure whatever, others would take the crops, trash the land or anything else they felt so inclined to do. And if you don't believe such can happen, just recall recent and current events of disorder. I just don't know what you're trying to say, other than confusing or viewing a normal necessary civilised state of affairs to be some sort of Orwellian oppression.

Again, you did not read the article. Enclosures took place during the late Middle Ages not to "secure and control" land to grow crops but to take control of land that was used by peasants to grow crops. The armed men who formed enclosures did not grow crops. Rather, they declared that they now owned the land and that peasants who used to grow in commonly owned land now had to work for them.

That is the origin of "normal, necessary, civilized state of affairs." It's not "Orwellian oppression" but the use of violence to attain ownership followed by legitimizing that ownership.

I'm not going to offer answers to the rest because for me they just seem to keep batting on about how awful and oppressive things are. From which I get the impression that some sort of imposed set of rules to make things fair is required, like the wage business mentioned previously. Even to the point that a business that didn't offer what you deem as a fair wage shouldn't be in operation - how oppressive is that? And doubtless, wages wouldn't be the only item on the agenda. Well, that would require rules, lots of rules. In other words the heavy hand of state control. Or to put not too fine a point on it, bordering on communism.

The "set of rules" were "imposed" not "to make things fair" but to force peasants to work for armed men. That is the origin of private property as part of capitalism.

I never referred to a fair wage, rules, or even state control. What I said is that capitalism, whether state or free market, eventually leads to over-production, over-consumption, greater increase in credit, pollution, and population. And with a twenty-fold increase in armaments production, the development of nuclear weapons, and all sorts of false flags employed to attack other countries over oil and other resources, do not expect the absence of oppression.

In contrast I suggest you're living in a free society, free to do and pursue what path you like within the limits of the necessary rules of consideration for others. I'd go further, it appears there may be a slight titchier of envy for organisations or others that have been, what could be described as, successful.

That freedom takes the form of a middle class lifestyle, in turn made possible through the very conditions that will not allow it to continue. Read my first message in this thread for details.

As time moves on, robots will assure safety and minimize work needed for survival, at least for the wealthy. Eventually, robots will be capable of reproducing themselves using factories and natural resources, and in time some robots will be capable of reproducing themselves without the need for a factory; although, reproducing robots may need to make foundries and machine tools to help with reproduction. The manner of reproduction is less important than the consequences.

I think the second clause, which refers to the wealthy, is critical. The catch is that the wealthy attain their status ironically by more profits or greater returns on investment, and that ultimately involves producing more goods and services and selling them to the non-wealthy.

Also, robots, like human beings and various machines, are affected by physical laws that limit availability of resources and energy. More details can be found in my first message in this thread.

Eventually a wealthy naturalist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for all of nature. Similarly, a wealthy humanist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for everyone. Afterward, the earth will care for nature including humanity.

Unfortunately, this requires extensive availability of resources and energy, and something that cannot be achieved given a "capitalist ethos."

It is good to see you addressing my points. This is much better than referring to a "grudge" or some other off-topic argument.

"enclosed by armed people". Unfortunately we go back to human nature (which I think you refuted), if you've got something, there'll will be someone else that'll want to take it from you - just like all the other creatures experience that inhibiting this world of ours. And you'll end up using force or even bear arms to defend whatever you value, else it will be taken from you - just like the other creatures do that inhabit this world of ours. In a civilized society we solicit the police and armed forces to do all that for us.

The purpose of enclosure was not to protect land but to take control of land owned by no one. I think the problem is that you focused on the idea of "armed people" and not the act of enclosures.

Also, the use of force in this case was employed not to "defend whatever you value" but to take control of what others value.

I think you should read the article carefully before commenting further.

For example: will you be giving up your current pitch on the basis that the land, area, space or whatever it occupies was almost certainly originally obtained by force?

There was no "current pitch." Land was not owned by anyone. Again, read the article carefully and my previous posts.

You then appear to go on and extend it into todays world of technology, big corporations and whatnot. For starters, perhaps you might like to offer a scenario whereby in our high density conglomerations, without some sort of well organised arrangement or conglomeration that you appear to criticise, you can get food on the table. That's not to mention all the other things the populous consider basic requirements.

This is painfully obvious, unless you intend to prove that various means of productions are not private property, or that "democracy" can counter "high density conglomerations." I think one has to be incredibly naive to do both.

I'm just thinking about how many eggs are laid, packed, transported, sold in shops every day here in the UK? Perhaps 60 million? What sort of organisation do we need to achieve that? And that's just eggs.

No questions about that. In fact, the whole system is a gigantic set of machines requiring incredible amounts of energy and resources to keep going. And the amount of credit involved is hundreds of times larger. This explains the current predicaments of a permanent economic crisis, peak oil, and environmental damage coupled with global warming.

It seems to me we have created a requirement for what you seem to infer is something that needs to change or be done away with.

We will not be able to stop it. The three predicaments mentioned will. In fact, we are now seeing the signs of that.

I'm sorry, but an alternative not involving large organisations can only be either absolute state control or chaos. And I think we all know about state control. What do one US president say: the nine most dangerous words in the English language. I'll leave you to Google those. And as for chaos...

I was not offering an alternative, and I don't think there ever will be one.

By the way, state control or state capitalism has the same problems as free market capitalism. The latter, though, leads to more chaos due to deregulation. Hence, we have a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars. Try to figure out how much resources will be needed to back that credit.

You mention other things like profit sometimes driving over production. Well, I agree, it can happen, but you've not mentioned that there is an element of overconsumption to go with it - it's not just one sided. Go down your local authority dump and you'll see the useful things that get thrown away. And as for profit I think you'll find people don't do things for nothing. The complicated parts for this computer I'm typing this on were made for profit (yes, I prefer to assemble with the parts I choose). And to out do the opposition they'll doubtless shortly produce a faster and more complex parts - and so on.

Actually, one feeds on the other. Put simply, "useful things" are thrown away so that consumers will buy new "useful things," and that means more profits for businesses.

Welcome to capitalism.

I'll agree that there are imperfections, and possibly unfairness - there are numerous - nay, countless - things I consider unfair. But it is absolutely clear to me that anything else would be grossly and disastrously unfair. Perhaps it's some sort of altruistic community is viewed as the alternative. Well, it might start off with that ideal, but frictions and disagreements will very soon surface - if not after the first ten minutes! And as for who does what, in the fullness of time that may well end up in armed conflict!

I wasn't referring to imperfections, unfairness, or even alternatives, but to internal flaws in capitalism. As I have shown in my posts, capitalism originated from violence and employs it through the law, leads to over-production, over-consumption, and environmental damage, and creates benefits that lead to more problems (e.g., increased food production through the Green Revolution and manufacture of medicine, etc., leading to significant improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality drops, but also a population boom and a bio-capacity that can now barely sustain not just a growing human population but a growing global middle class, with resource and energy requirements that are much higher).

I think you mistakenly thought that I was an anti-capitalist and that I want the system removed. Actually, I am not anti-capitalist, and I did not propose such. My argument is that because of internal flaws in capitalism and its effects, the global capitalist economy will not last. I gave an explanation in my first post in this thread, which you will find here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/#entry773781

All I did after that was give the origins of such a system, which you will find here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775466

 

Right.

 

Actually, the full quote isn't "Honey, half the jews I know are atheists."

 

It's...

 

"Honey, half the jews I know are atheists. It’s about community”

 

That's what she said on the show. You hit that nail right on the head. Religion has been reduced to community. It used to be about truth and power, and any more it's about holding on to the things that bind us. I'd personally rather be bound by other things... and religion just needs to dry up in the desert sun and die already! We don't need it for culture. We can find culture all on our own, thanks.

Actually, it takes on one form or another, based on various circumstances.

In general, your answers seem to infer, or in fact state, that I've not read your previous comments; well, that's a coincidence because from my perspective it seems you've not read mine! So were quits on that point. Anyway, other that simply saying I disagree with all your answers, I'm not going through them individually - or any one of them.

 

It's clear to me there is some sort of grudge against what you call capitalism. But this system you call capitalism gives you the absolute freedom to pursue any work, job, profession, business or virtually any activity you wish. Within the limits of necessary fiscal rules to prevent inflicting harm to others, you can choose to take, refuse or do just about anything you like.

 

You speak of some sort of rule about wages, you even mention slavery! I'm sorry, but you are perfectly free and able to refuse or accept to what you refer. And what you call a capitalist system is so far from slavery as to be billions of miles out of range of a space telescope. You clearly don't like what you seem to imply as those nasty employers and what they are offering. If so, then experience it from the other side and start your own business - you are perfectly free to do that and to experience it from the contrary position. You can start small, say, open a market stall. Or start a photography business from your bedroom, as I believe a well known multimillionaire did - think he's now been ennobled.

 

I'm sorry, I'll be perfectly frank, I feel very sad for you that you take such a derogatory view about a free society. The conclusion being that the 'system' has 'got it in' for society or particular members of society. To repeat, you are free to associate and pursue whatever path you wish (within the limits of not harming others I mentioned above). The world is your lobster, as someone once said, what more could you ask for?

My points have nothing to do with a grudge but with simple facts about the matter. You will find them in my first post:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775466

and my counter to your arguments:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775607

Yes, as religion can generally refer to a cultural system.

I think you need to look at the amps indicated in the blender specs.

So what's new? Go down to your local pond and I think it's right to say just about every animal floating, swimming or walking on land does something similar - if not exactly the same. Securing an area or territory and consequently securing sufficient food for them and any siblings. The swan on my local river spent nearly all day chasing off others when he and the pen were nesting. He patrols what must be about 3/4 of a mile of river - it appears he considers he owns it.

No, that's not the same, unless "every animal" you are referring to has a deed or similar document and courts to back legal claims.

You're dealing with basic human nature - and doubtless the nature of just about every other creature. That is, securing protection, availability of food and shelter.

No, that's not "basic human nature," as enclosures, the use of scrip, etc., appeared later. Also, "every other creature" does not employ processes such as wages and exchange markets. And the purpose is not to secure "protection, availability of food and shelter." Read my previous message carefully.

You pitch you tent and will doubtless forcibly prevent others from either occupying it or pulling it down so they can pitch theirs on your patch.

No, it's not the same as pitching a tent for painfully obvious reasons, unless you are referring to tents that have areas that take up several hectares.

Where do we start?

 

Workers receiving less? That's an opinion - we always think we're worth more. Although in contrast, some say we rise to our own level of incompetence, which is probably nearer the truth!

No, it's not a matter of workers receiving less or more, or even incompetence. Read my previous post carefully.

More goods? That's counter to profit, too much of something lowers the price.

No, it's the opposite. Fixed costs are spread across more goods produced, leading to lower cost per unit.

Lenders charging interest? Would you lend money for nothing?

That's not the point. Read my previous message carefully.

Over consumption? Now that's a strange one; to the best of my knowledge people aren't forced to consume, buy or do any such thing.

Actually, they are, and have been for decades. Terms such as "fads," "planned obsolescence," and "advertising" come into play.

And it works both ways: given competition companies have to sell more each time. Hence, lots of calls from people offering more credit cards, investments in real estate, etc.

Frankly, I just don't understand this subject at all. If one doesn't like something then don't do it, buy it or get involved with it at all. If one doesn't like one's job or the wages it pays, then politely inform your employer that you're leaving. If one doesn't like the government in power then vote accordingly next time.

Your point isn't helpful, because you will end up buying something else, taking on another job and receiving wages, looking for another employer, or replacing one government with another. You are still in the same capitalism system.

Are you talking about another system?

The message I get from this subject is state control. Mainly the state control of wages, forcing employers to pay what others consider 'right'. Unfortunately that appears contrary to democracy. Contrary because of the simple fact that following an election another party may well decide to throw all said wonderful 'rights' out of the window! But if one takes the view such things should be inviolate, then that is hogtieing future governments and nothing more than a masked unelected dictatorship.

Actually, no, because the system is still the same, whether it's state or free market capitalism.

Also, not just state control but control by capitalists runs "contrary to democracy," unless you actually believe the majority of people can force a financial elite to work in its favor.

Finally, government likely works for Big Business and not the other way round, especially given control of the global economy by a financial elite:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html