6 ms·

Capitalism will destroy this planet

by ntzm 7y ago

bubblewrap 7y ago
Socialism has destroyed quite a bit of nature. (look at the Aral sea, for example). What exactly would you is it about capitalism that supposedly destroys the planet? And how would you propose to remedy the problem? I mean by starving a couple of million people, as it is wont to do, Socialism could help curb the consumption of resources. I give you that. And again, lols for the downvotes. You are ridiculous.
- titzer 7y ago
  It's people and exponential growth. Doesn't matter what -ism you put on the end of your shovels.
  - novalis78 7y ago
    That’s quite the Malthusian viewpoint. Alternatively: “Malthus theory, which holds that since the world’s resources are more or less fixed, population growth must be restricted or all of us will descend into bottomless misery. Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt — all predictions made upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the development of new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster the rate of innovation. This is why (contrary to Malthus) as the world’s population has increased, the standard of living has increased, and at an accelerating rate.“ https://space.nss.org/the-significance-of-the-martian-frontier-by-robert-zubrin/ https://space.nss.org/the-significance-of-the-martian-fronti...
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      Really the two are in feedback loops that may correlate and require certain strategization and working smarter instead of harder. Improved agricultural yields produce surplus food per person which allows a shift to industrialization which enables more secondary tertiary areas of specialization which can boost yields and give other benefits. This dates back to the bronze age even and technically stone age in mesoamerican and neighboring southern native american cultures.
    - titzer 7y ago
      I'll take your Malthus and raise you a Bartlett. https://bollocks2012.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/the-greatest-shortcoming-of-the-human-race-is-our-inability-to-understand-the-exponential-function/ https://bollocks2012.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/the-greatest-s... Also, from your linked article from random space cadets: "Unless people can see broad vistas of unused resources in front of them, the belief in limited resources tends to follow as a matter of course." Sorry, but O(2^n) is going to grow faster than O(n^3), which is the fundamental limitation of the speed of light for a space-faring civilization expanding in a shell from its origin. Exponential growth just does not scale.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      *At the cost of catastrophic ecological destruction. This specific strawman comes up so often that it ought to have its own name. Just because one guy underestimated the carrying capacity of the Earth a long time ago, and failed to predict farming practices that would eventually wreak havoc on the environment, doesn't make the population variable off-limits for discussion. Is it any more realistic to expect billions of people to voluntarily revert to an ascetic lifestyle?
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Sure - so the problem with capitalism is that it allows populations to grow too much? Or in what sense is capitalism to blame?
- KozmoNau7 7y ago
  ~20 million people die every year, because it is not profitable to feed them, and give them clean water and medicine. So please think about that number. Deaths solely due to a lack of profitability.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Can you give a citation? Where does this happen? Is it really just capitalist unwillingness to deliver food, or are these people in the hands of dictators, and it is capitalist unwillingness to sacrifice soldiers to topple them? And do capitalists start wars, or governments?
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here? They ask you not to use this site for ideological battle, nor to post in the flamewar style. Downvotes of such comments are correct on HN. Yes, someone else started it, but users here are asked to follow the guidelines whether someone else is or not.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Sorry I don't understand your criticism. Is it not allowed to discuss capitalism or socialism, it is automatically an "ideological battle"? That doesn't make sense imo.
    - dang 7y ago
      It's not allowed to foment generic ideological tangents with indignant rhetoric. "Socialism starved a couple million people" is a classic example. All of that has been repeated countless times. It is predictable, therefore it does not gratify curiosity, therefore it's not what HN is for, and that means it's off topic. If you have something genuinely new to say, that might be ok—but then an internet forum is not a good medium for that; you should write a book or a scholarly essay instead, and maybe link to it here.
      - bubblewrap 7y ago
        It seems to be news for the person blaming capitalism for the woes of the world, though. So discussion is not welcome? Why can't people just ignore threads they are not interested in? Afaik a lot of stories repeat on HN, so the "newsworthiness" criterion seems a bit arbitrary. Also, shouldn't it make a difference if it is a top level thread? I wouldn't submit a story about "socialism starving millions of people". I know, your "new" policies have been in place for a while, but I think you really kind of destroyed Hacker News. I don't understand why you worry about curbing discussions in deeply nested threads, as they would be easy to ignore by people who don't care. I don't think you worry about SEO or anything like that, so really, what is your incentive? Also, there are lots of "boring" and repetitive threads on HN (like on global warming), I think you may actually single out "capitalism vs socialism" for ideological reasons. I don't believe you that nobody is curious about capitalism vs socialism anymore. On the contrary, the "battle" is more relevant than ever, with socialist having a real shot at the US elections. It is a question that affects most of us a lot more than most topics would.
Shivetya 7y ago
I am asking for it, I know it. Capitalism saved the planet if not the people on it and has will continue to improve the lives of everyone it touches? why, because it an economic system based on private ownership over means of production and profit. by that reasoning it implies your right to your own person is guaranteed. how is that important, well the easiest way to understand it is that anywhere in the world where private and personal property rights are not respected by the government the people are put at risk. go look where the greatest tragedies of our current world are and you will see that. can capitalism lead to some bad outcomes, yes, but overall it is the basis for many forms of governments with good outcomes. it has reduced death by starvation and disease simply by the abundances created. when you respect the rights of your people it is far easier to respect the rights of the Earth you live on.
Grue3 7y ago
In case of Germany, it's anti-science anti-nuclear "environmentalists" that are destroying it. Energy is needed regardless of the economic structure of society. Now which kind of energy will it be? Germany chose coal and now they're reaping the consequences.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  > Germany chose coal and now they're reaping the consequences. Heh, nope, everyone does reap the consequences... That said, nuclear power is no viable long term solution and if we imported uranium from Russia, everybody would start to cry again. Being anti-nuclear isn't necessarily anti-scientific. It is a risk assessment. While I tend to have favored nuclear power, especially towards the current energy setup, I don't think it was a catastrophic decision.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Nuclear was always less than 15% of Germany's primary power consumption. Renewables something like 5%. We need to get to 100% carbon neutral. Whether we have to replace 80 or 100% with wind and solar shouldn't make that much of a difference.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    Nuclear fission is the only non-carbon technology that could realistically get to 100% supply. Ending its generation in Germany was a mistake.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      I agree that it was a mistake, but there are several studies showing how Germany can switch to ~100% wind+solar.
      - someguydave 7y ago
        What do they propose to deal with massive swings in generation and demand? Hydroelectric pumping? Batteries?
raxxorrax 7y ago
Capitalism is the best solution to manage our greed without killing ourselves while preserving our freedom. I don't like it either, but I never trust anyone who says he had no self-interest. And the current growth fetish isn't innate to capitalism.
dang 7y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments, or flamebait, or take HN threads into ideological battle. Please do review and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Capitalism will destroy this planet

by ntzm 7y ago

Capitalism will destroy this planet

Socialism has destroyed quite a bit of nature. (look at the Aral sea, for example). What exactly would you is it about capitalism that supposedly destroys the planet? And how would you propose to remedy the problem? I mean by starving a couple of million people, as it is wont to do, Socialism could help curb the consumption of resources. I give you that. And again, lols for the downvotes. You are ridiculous.

titzer 7y ago
It's people and exponential growth. Doesn't matter what -ism you put on the end of your shovels.
- novalis78 7y ago
  That’s quite the Malthusian viewpoint. Alternatively: “Malthus theory, which holds that since the world’s resources are more or less fixed, population growth must be restricted or all of us will descend into bottomless misery. Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt — all predictions made upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the development of new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster the rate of innovation. This is why (contrary to Malthus) as the world’s population has increased, the standard of living has increased, and at an accelerating rate.“ https://space.nss.org/the-significance-of-the-martian-frontier-by-robert-zubrin/ https://space.nss.org/the-significance-of-the-martian-fronti...
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Really the two are in feedback loops that may correlate and require certain strategization and working smarter instead of harder. Improved agricultural yields produce surplus food per person which allows a shift to industrialization which enables more secondary tertiary areas of specialization which can boost yields and give other benefits. This dates back to the bronze age even and technically stone age in mesoamerican and neighboring southern native american cultures.
  - titzer 7y ago
    I'll take your Malthus and raise you a Bartlett. https://bollocks2012.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/the-greatest-shortcoming-of-the-human-race-is-our-inability-to-understand-the-exponential-function/ https://bollocks2012.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/the-greatest-s... Also, from your linked article from random space cadets: "Unless people can see broad vistas of unused resources in front of them, the belief in limited resources tends to follow as a matter of course." Sorry, but O(2^n) is going to grow faster than O(n^3), which is the fundamental limitation of the speed of light for a space-faring civilization expanding in a shell from its origin. Exponential growth just does not scale.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    *At the cost of catastrophic ecological destruction. This specific strawman comes up so often that it ought to have its own name. Just because one guy underestimated the carrying capacity of the Earth a long time ago, and failed to predict farming practices that would eventually wreak havoc on the environment, doesn't make the population variable off-limits for discussion. Is it any more realistic to expect billions of people to voluntarily revert to an ascetic lifestyle?
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Sure - so the problem with capitalism is that it allows populations to grow too much? Or in what sense is capitalism to blame?
KozmoNau7 7y ago
~20 million people die every year, because it is not profitable to feed them, and give them clean water and medicine. So please think about that number. Deaths solely due to a lack of profitability.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Can you give a citation? Where does this happen? Is it really just capitalist unwillingness to deliver food, or are these people in the hands of dictators, and it is capitalist unwillingness to sacrifice soldiers to topple them? And do capitalists start wars, or governments?
dang 7y ago
Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here? They ask you not to use this site for ideological battle, nor to post in the flamewar style. Downvotes of such comments are correct on HN. Yes, someone else started it, but users here are asked to follow the guidelines whether someone else is or not.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Sorry I don't understand your criticism. Is it not allowed to discuss capitalism or socialism, it is automatically an "ideological battle"? That doesn't make sense imo.
  - dang 7y ago
    It's not allowed to foment generic ideological tangents with indignant rhetoric. "Socialism starved a couple million people" is a classic example. All of that has been repeated countless times. It is predictable, therefore it does not gratify curiosity, therefore it's not what HN is for, and that means it's off topic. If you have something genuinely new to say, that might be ok—but then an internet forum is not a good medium for that; you should write a book or a scholarly essay instead, and maybe link to it here.
    - bubblewrap 7y ago
      It seems to be news for the person blaming capitalism for the woes of the world, though. So discussion is not welcome? Why can't people just ignore threads they are not interested in? Afaik a lot of stories repeat on HN, so the "newsworthiness" criterion seems a bit arbitrary. Also, shouldn't it make a difference if it is a top level thread? I wouldn't submit a story about "socialism starving millions of people". I know, your "new" policies have been in place for a while, but I think you really kind of destroyed Hacker News. I don't understand why you worry about curbing discussions in deeply nested threads, as they would be easy to ignore by people who don't care. I don't think you worry about SEO or anything like that, so really, what is your incentive? Also, there are lots of "boring" and repetitive threads on HN (like on global warming), I think you may actually single out "capitalism vs socialism" for ideological reasons. I don't believe you that nobody is curious about capitalism vs socialism anymore. On the contrary, the "battle" is more relevant than ever, with socialist having a real shot at the US elections. It is a question that affects most of us a lot more than most topics would.

Shivetya 7y ago

I am asking for it, I know it. Capitalism saved the planet if not the people on it and has will continue to improve the lives of everyone it touches? why, because it an economic system based on private ownership over means of production and profit. by that reasoning it implies your right to your own person is guaranteed. how is that important, well the easiest way to understand it is that anywhere in the world where private and personal property rights are not respected by the government the people are put at risk. go look where the greatest tragedies of our current world are and you will see that. can capitalism lead to some bad outcomes, yes, but overall it is the basis for many forms of governments with good outcomes. it has reduced death by starvation and disease simply by the abundances created. when you respect the rights of your people it is far easier to respect the rights of the Earth you live on.

Grue3 7y ago

In case of Germany, it's anti-science anti-nuclear "environmentalists" that are destroying it. Energy is needed regardless of the economic structure of society. Now which kind of energy will it be? Germany chose coal and now they're reaping the consequences.

raxxorrax 7y ago
> Germany chose coal and now they're reaping the consequences. Heh, nope, everyone does reap the consequences... That said, nuclear power is no viable long term solution and if we imported uranium from Russia, everybody would start to cry again. Being anti-nuclear isn't necessarily anti-scientific. It is a risk assessment. While I tend to have favored nuclear power, especially towards the current energy setup, I don't think it was a catastrophic decision.
adrianN 7y ago
Nuclear was always less than 15% of Germany's primary power consumption. Renewables something like 5%. We need to get to 100% carbon neutral. Whether we have to replace 80 or 100% with wind and solar shouldn't make that much of a difference.
- someguydave 7y ago
  Nuclear fission is the only non-carbon technology that could realistically get to 100% supply. Ending its generation in Germany was a mistake.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    I agree that it was a mistake, but there are several studies showing how Germany can switch to ~100% wind+solar.
    - someguydave 7y ago
      What do they propose to deal with massive swings in generation and demand? Hydroelectric pumping? Batteries?

raxxorrax 7y ago

Capitalism is the best solution to manage our greed without killing ourselves while preserving our freedom. I don't like it either, but I never trust anyone who says he had no self-interest. And the current growth fetish isn't innate to capitalism.

dang 7y ago

Please don't post unsubstantive comments, or flamebait, or take HN threads into ideological battle. Please do review and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.