4 ms·

The slow, halting pace at which we are addressing climate change is the product of human stupidity and selfishness, as well as the immense difficulty of rebuild

The slow, halting pace at which we are addressing climate change is the product of human stupidity and selfishness, as well as the immense difficulty of rebuilding our energy infrastructure from scratch. None of that is inherent to capitalism. Show me a non-capitalist country that is combatting climate change better than a capitalist country. Countries that don't emit because they're poor don't count. The closest thing to an example is France. And France does relatively well among developed countries because it has nuclear power, not because it is non-capitalist.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
There are no capitalist nuclear reactors. They're all funded through government intervention for non-market reasons. The general trend is for more private intervention leading to them being less successful and more likely not to even be built. The EDF was a public entity when they built most of their reactors, and Flamanville was an absolute debacle. Capitalism is fundamentally incapable of building for the future and paying for its externalities in the way required to build safe nuclear power. This is exactly the same problem that leads to climate change. Thankfully we have solar panels which are compatable with capitalism.
- civilized 4y ago
  I agree that government is needed for the biggest "capital" expenditures. Separate point from the article, which is just more cliche "once we somehow stop believing in the capitalism ideology (and believe in my preferred ideology instead) people will stop being bad and there will be sunshine and rainbows"
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    No. It's the same point. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatable with the commons, long term good, managing externalities, or wellbeing for all. If we don't control capital it will continue exactly the same destruction it always has. How we do that and to what extent is an open question, but first we have to acknowledge the reality of problems that markets are the wrong tool for.
    - civilized 4y ago
      The mainstream developed country view is to regulate capitalism and have government fund big bets and basic research, not dismiss capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with everything we're supposed to value.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        This is a motte and bailey argument. "Only capatalist countries can stop climate change and they can do it by being not-capitalist just long enough to stem the bleeding" The solution by your own words is to have less capitalism. Which is what everyone else is arguing for.
        civilized 4y ago
        If anything, the motte-and-bailey shoe seems to be on the other foot from my end. You claim capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with many aspects of human flourishing, then provide as evidence countries which are widely thought to be capitalist (and think of themselves as capitalist), but regulate the capitalism. I don't know if there's a meaningful, concrete difference of views worth discussing here anymore. We both agree capitalism should be regulated and can't make the biggest, riskiest investments society needs. Maybe we could put it this way - is capitalism like arsenic, a useless toxin that the human body shouldn't be exposed to, or is it like iron, something that can be poisonous in excess but also serves a critical function?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        That would be a valid analogy if it wasn't self-reenforcing to the point where it destroys whatever mechanism of regulation you have, and if any limitations on it weren't attacked by comparing them to failed state capitalist or fascist states and attributing everything good that happend under or in spite of it to capitalism. The broken part is assigning power to power. This has an identical outcome whether you call the nexus of power money or favour of the people's party. Sufficiently regulated capitalism is less like a modern neoliberal system than the USSR or a totalitarian regime. There's no evidence it has done any good that doesn't follow from any other type of industrialisation or access to the fruits of science (it may), but there are a great number of problems it does cause and a number of problems it is fundamentally unsuited for. So more like ethanol -- might do some good, but definitely does a lot of harm if you have too much.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

There are no capitalist nuclear reactors. They're all funded through government intervention for non-market reasons. The general trend is for more private intervention leading to them being less successful and more likely not to even be built. The EDF was a public entity when they built most of their reactors, and Flamanville was an absolute debacle. Capitalism is fundamentally incapable of building for the future and paying for its externalities in the way required to build safe nuclear power. This is exactly the same problem that leads to climate change. Thankfully we have solar panels which are compatable with capitalism.

civilized 4y ago
I agree that government is needed for the biggest "capital" expenditures. Separate point from the article, which is just more cliche "once we somehow stop believing in the capitalism ideology (and believe in my preferred ideology instead) people will stop being bad and there will be sunshine and rainbows"
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  No. It's the same point. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatable with the commons, long term good, managing externalities, or wellbeing for all. If we don't control capital it will continue exactly the same destruction it always has. How we do that and to what extent is an open question, but first we have to acknowledge the reality of problems that markets are the wrong tool for.
  - civilized 4y ago
    The mainstream developed country view is to regulate capitalism and have government fund big bets and basic research, not dismiss capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with everything we're supposed to value.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      This is a motte and bailey argument. "Only capatalist countries can stop climate change and they can do it by being not-capitalist just long enough to stem the bleeding" The solution by your own words is to have less capitalism. Which is what everyone else is arguing for.
      - civilized 4y ago
        If anything, the motte-and-bailey shoe seems to be on the other foot from my end. You claim capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with many aspects of human flourishing, then provide as evidence countries which are widely thought to be capitalist (and think of themselves as capitalist), but regulate the capitalism. I don't know if there's a meaningful, concrete difference of views worth discussing here anymore. We both agree capitalism should be regulated and can't make the biggest, riskiest investments society needs. Maybe we could put it this way - is capitalism like arsenic, a useless toxin that the human body shouldn't be exposed to, or is it like iron, something that can be poisonous in excess but also serves a critical function?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        That would be a valid analogy if it wasn't self-reenforcing to the point where it destroys whatever mechanism of regulation you have, and if any limitations on it weren't attacked by comparing them to failed state capitalist or fascist states and attributing everything good that happend under or in spite of it to capitalism. The broken part is assigning power to power. This has an identical outcome whether you call the nexus of power money or favour of the people's party. Sufficiently regulated capitalism is less like a modern neoliberal system than the USSR or a totalitarian regime. There's no evidence it has done any good that doesn't follow from any other type of industrialisation or access to the fruits of science (it may), but there are a great number of problems it does cause and a number of problems it is fundamentally unsuited for. So more like ethanol -- might do some good, but definitely does a lot of harm if you have too much.