3 ms·

I totally get the ecological argument but how would changing to a socialist system (which is what we're talking about here without saying the word) fix it? The

I totally get the ecological argument but how would changing to a socialist system (which is what we're talking about here without saying the word) fix it? The planet's woes are caused by bad human behavior. There's no rule that says one must be inherently bad in order to have a capitalist business, just like there's no rule that would make a socialist economy naturally non-polluting. Governments and militaries are terrible polluters and they don't have a profit motive. People are people and collectivism won't change that. Hitler, too, wanted the "New Man." It's dangerous to suggest that letting others decide for us (statism) would be capable of bringing that about.

marccarre 8y ago
I don't understand this article as being about changing to a socialist system. AFAIU, it is about better taking Life & Nature into account in our current economic system & models. We do to some extent, but they are massively undervalued, and economy & ecology aren't current aligned (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion in first place), hence our current economy is unsustainable. I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain, and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the "goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?
- mimixco 8y ago
  If the price is determined by anything other than the market, that's socialism/collectivism/statism. The idea that someone could do a better job of pricing than the market (with whatever definition of "better" appeals to you) has been disproved again and again. A person doesn't become an expert in what's "better" just because they work for the government. Thinking that it would amounts to worship of the state as an entity.

marccarre 8y ago

I don't understand this article as being about changing to a socialist system. AFAIU, it is about better taking Life & Nature into account in our current economic system & models. We do to some extent, but they are massively undervalued, and economy & ecology aren't current aligned (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion in first place), hence our current economy is unsustainable. I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain, and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the "goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?

mimixco 8y ago
If the price is determined by anything other than the market, that's socialism/collectivism/statism. The idea that someone could do a better job of pricing than the market (with whatever definition of "better" appeals to you) has been disproved again and again. A person doesn't become an expert in what's "better" just because they work for the government. Thinking that it would amounts to worship of the state as an entity.