3 ms·

Capitalism is the problem.

emmelaich 9y ago
the problem is the distance in time between cause and effect and how much motivation those in the current time have. Capitalism* may be a problem, but a brief bit of reading will tell you that Communism is a far far worse problem when it comes to pollution. * whatever you mean by that.
- yummybits 9y ago
  > Capitalism may be a problem Capitalism is 1000% is the problem. No ifs, ends or buts. Specially, unrestricted, unlimited, mindless consumption of resources (which is at the core of capitalism) is the problem. > brief bit of reading will tell you that Communism is a far far worse problem when it comes to pollution Please do tell me what "reading" you're referring to. And no, China is not communist. China is capitalist. In fact, there are no countries that communist any more (maybe with the exception of NK).
  - emmelaich 9y ago
    You're not helping your argument with the hyperbole. 1000% ? "unrestricted, unlimited, mindless" ?
  - emmelaich 9y ago
    Oh, here's some "reading" (what's with the quotes?) Recent Venezualan Oil Tankers banned from many harbours. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-tankers-insight-idUSKBN17K0CE http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-tankers-insi... Less Recent (Soviet Era) https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-causes-pollution/ https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-causes-pollution/ You might not like fee.org so here's a Wikipedia quote. "Kraków, Poland was covered by smog 135 days per year, while Wrocław was covered by a fog of chrome gas" (from the Eastern Bloc article on Wikipedia) There is a common cause of neglect of the environment in both so-called Communist and Capitalist countries. I urge you to discover what that is for yourself.
    - NoGravitas 9y ago
      > There is a common cause of neglect of the environment in both so-called Communist and Capitalist countries. Rapid industrialization? That would explain worse pollution in Soviet-bloc countries: they industrialized faster than capitalist western Europe/USA because they were playing catch-up.
hyperdunc 9y ago
You could be a bit more specific. The way I see it, the problem is: 1) Profit incentives that don't align with long-term environmental improvement, in part due to ineffective regulations. 2) Incomplete corporate accounting that doesn't factor in environmental costs such as pollution. 3) Apathy and/or lack of awareness of environmental consequences by consumers - a state which is encouraged by advertising and corporate mechanisms such as planned obsolescence.
alkonaut 9y ago
It's not the fault of capitalism but our oversimplified version of it. Externalities such as pollution are not properly included into the price of things. Plastic trash in the water should have been a tiny cost on every bottle and plastic bag. That money could go to whatever resolves the problem (authorities chasing polluters, cleanup/recycling, ...). In the end, a transaction should leave everything balanced i.e. the buyer gets his soda and the seller gets his money AND (this is the part we are currently missing) every party not involved in the transaction is unaffected, so the environment can't be worse because A bought soda from B. What we try to do now is regulate capitalism by e.g environmental reuglations and so on - but far from enough, and it doesn't stand a chance of becoming enough as long as it's local efforts in different countries. Large international organizations (OECD, WTO, EU, UN, ...) really need to get this into agreements. It IS my business if free flimsy plastic bags are allowed in supermarkets in China, whether antibiotics are given to healthy animals in the US or Denmark, or what fertilizer Polish farmers use. The question is what I can do about it? In some cases I can just not sponsor it (e.g. not buy Danish pork) but what do I do about plastic bags in China?

the problem is the distance in time between cause and effect and how much motivation those in the current time have. Capitalism* may be a problem, but a brief bit of reading will tell you that Communism is a far far worse problem when it comes to pollution. * whatever you mean by that.

yummybits 9y ago
> Capitalism may be a problem Capitalism is 1000% is the problem. No ifs, ends or buts. Specially, unrestricted, unlimited, mindless consumption of resources (which is at the core of capitalism) is the problem. > brief bit of reading will tell you that Communism is a far far worse problem when it comes to pollution Please do tell me what "reading" you're referring to. And no, China is not communist. China is capitalist. In fact, there are no countries that communist any more (maybe with the exception of NK).
- emmelaich 9y ago
  You're not helping your argument with the hyperbole. 1000% ? "unrestricted, unlimited, mindless" ?
- emmelaich 9y ago
  Oh, here's some "reading" (what's with the quotes?) Recent Venezualan Oil Tankers banned from many harbours. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-tankers-insight-idUSKBN17K0CE http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-tankers-insi... Less Recent (Soviet Era) https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-causes-pollution/ https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-causes-pollution/ You might not like fee.org so here's a Wikipedia quote. "Kraków, Poland was covered by smog 135 days per year, while Wrocław was covered by a fog of chrome gas" (from the Eastern Bloc article on Wikipedia) There is a common cause of neglect of the environment in both so-called Communist and Capitalist countries. I urge you to discover what that is for yourself.
  - NoGravitas 9y ago
    > There is a common cause of neglect of the environment in both so-called Communist and Capitalist countries. Rapid industrialization? That would explain worse pollution in Soviet-bloc countries: they industrialized faster than capitalist western Europe/USA because they were playing catch-up.

hyperdunc 9y ago

You could be a bit more specific. The way I see it, the problem is: 1) Profit incentives that don't align with long-term environmental improvement, in part due to ineffective regulations. 2) Incomplete corporate accounting that doesn't factor in environmental costs such as pollution. 3) Apathy and/or lack of awareness of environmental consequences by consumers - a state which is encouraged by advertising and corporate mechanisms such as planned obsolescence.

alkonaut 9y ago

It's not the fault of capitalism but our oversimplified version of it. Externalities such as pollution are not properly included into the price of things. Plastic trash in the water should have been a tiny cost on every bottle and plastic bag. That money could go to whatever resolves the problem (authorities chasing polluters, cleanup/recycling, ...). In the end, a transaction should leave everything balanced i.e. the buyer gets his soda and the seller gets his money AND (this is the part we are currently missing) every party not involved in the transaction is unaffected, so the environment can't be worse because A bought soda from B. What we try to do now is regulate capitalism by e.g environmental reuglations and so on - but far from enough, and it doesn't stand a chance of becoming enough as long as it's local efforts in different countries. Large international organizations (OECD, WTO, EU, UN, ...) really need to get this into agreements. It IS my business if free flimsy plastic bags are allowed in supermarkets in China, whether antibiotics are given to healthy animals in the US or Denmark, or what fertilizer Polish farmers use. The question is what I can do about it? In some cases I can just not sponsor it (e.g. not buy Danish pork) but what do I do about plastic bags in China?