4 ms·

You’re presuming I’m not arguing in good faith. I actually do deeply believe that capitalism, being a system where a minority can accrue great wealth and theref

You’re presuming I’m not arguing in good faith. I actually do deeply believe that capitalism, being a system where a minority can accrue great wealth and therefore have significant motivation to do so regardless of the costs, is a system that directly promotes environmental destruction. Anarcho socialism or Anarcho communism are instead systems that have no privileged class willing to destroy for their own benefit. In these systems all the masses of people are deeply democratically organized in the society and would only destroy the environment if they all agreed it was worth it. I believe the masses of people are less willing to destroy the environment (for less benefit to themselves) than a wealthy class which could benefit greatly from that destruction. Perhaps it is easier to assume I am arguing in bad faith, but I think you ought to consider that I know what I’m talking about.

DuskStar 7y ago
And why would the members of such a society not choose to damage the global environment if the local benefits outweighed the losses? That's the carbon emissions problem, after all. Regarding 'good faith' - I think you might be arguing in good faith, but I don't see how you'd think that argument is the best path to take to convince people to either support the environment or to abandon our current economic systems for yours. Personally I think we need major geoengineering to preserve the current temperature range, and that our current economic system tends towards a failure mode with extremely concentrated wealth. I don't think those are connected, though. In fact, an argument can be made that concentrating much of the world's wealth in one person would also be good for the environment, since the required changes would have a smaller impact on their wealth than on their personal wellbeing. Basically, the theory goes that $10T + nice environment to live in > $100T + dead environment, so the hypothetical multitrillionaire would spend $90T to improve things based purely on self interest. This isn't to suggest that giving Jeff Bezos absolutely everything would be a good idea, or that doing such is necessary - just that there might be other routes than 'some flavor of socialism'.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  The people ruining the planet will be dead before they have to live through the consequences of what they’ve done. Good ‘ol self-interest.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    So we should invest more in life extension research - turn that self interest to work for us ;)
    - aalleavitch 7y ago
      Ah, yes, then our immortal god-king can enjoy the perpetual beauty of his vast private estates while the rest of us waste away on the land he destroyed in pursuit of economic aims? The concentration of wealth is the concentration of power, the concentration of power in a single individual has never once been good in the history of the world.

DuskStar 7y ago

And why would the members of such a society not choose to damage the global environment if the local benefits outweighed the losses? That's the carbon emissions problem, after all. Regarding 'good faith' - I think you might be arguing in good faith, but I don't see how you'd think that argument is the best path to take to convince people to either support the environment or to abandon our current economic systems for yours. Personally I think we need major geoengineering to preserve the current temperature range, and that our current economic system tends towards a failure mode with extremely concentrated wealth. I don't think those are connected, though. In fact, an argument can be made that concentrating much of the world's wealth in one person would also be good for the environment, since the required changes would have a smaller impact on their wealth than on their personal wellbeing. Basically, the theory goes that $10T + nice environment to live in > $100T + dead environment, so the hypothetical multitrillionaire would spend $90T to improve things based purely on self interest. This isn't to suggest that giving Jeff Bezos absolutely everything would be a good idea, or that doing such is necessary - just that there might be other routes than 'some flavor of socialism'.

aalleavitch 7y ago
The people ruining the planet will be dead before they have to live through the consequences of what they’ve done. Good ‘ol self-interest.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  So we should invest more in life extension research - turn that self interest to work for us ;)
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    Ah, yes, then our immortal god-king can enjoy the perpetual beauty of his vast private estates while the rest of us waste away on the land he destroyed in pursuit of economic aims? The concentration of wealth is the concentration of power, the concentration of power in a single individual has never once been good in the history of the world.