3 ms·

No. There is absolutely no evidence that switching economic systems will magically solve global warming. Out of all economic systems capable of industrializatio

by Aunche 3y ago

No. There is absolutely no evidence that switching economic systems will magically solve global warming. Out of all economic systems capable of industrialization, capitalist mix economies are the only ones that expressed any interest in caring about the environment at all. Communist China was willing to destroy forests to make charcoal to make little bits of low-quality steel and decimate its bird population because they were eating a little bit of grain. The Soviet Union nearly drained the entire Aral Sea to grow cotton. The fact that Communism didn't pollute more was only because they were very bad at industrializing. And before you motte and bailey your way into saying you're not promoting communism, any proposed economic system is going to have the same problem. Even if you distribute Jeff Bezos wealth in a way that he has to give up his megayacht, then you're going to give 10,000 people a means to buy F-150 Raptors.

avgcorrection 3y ago
What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist.
- Aunche 3y ago
  > What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. "Capitalist" has a definition that does not mean "something I don't like." Capitalism specifically refers to where trade is controlled by private owners for profit. This does not match either the Soviet Union or Communist China at all, where profits were distributed to the state, which was nominally for the benefit of the people. > I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist. But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > "Capitalist" has a definition that does not mean "something I don't like." “Something I don't like”? Don't be a child. Capitalism is a mode of production. According to Marxism it could be state-lead, which the Soviet Union pursued because they wanted to move through capitalism into socialism (and then communism). Of course one can disagree with Marxism. Go grind your axe somewhere else. The topic is climate change. > But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever. Have you heard of the phrase “e.g.“? And also, not really. I could be an anarcho-primitivist who claims that industrial society has made such opt-in lifestyles impossible. For one, someone who happened to be born into industrial society might not have the skills to live in the wilds since they weren't embedded in that kind of environment from birth. Second of all, maybe industrial society has already forced former hunter-gatherers into society as wage workers and whatnot. Then what chance does an “Internet Contrarian” stand? Third of all: the goal for someone of that ideological bent might not be to convince some Internet Contrarian of some opposite persuasion. In fact, it is mind-boggling how arrogant it is to claim that such a person would first have to prove something to you, who—considering how most Internet Contrarians are like—is likely to be so ideologically possessed that any evidence contrary to your own beliefs is likely to make you dig in your heels further (backfire effect or something...?).
    - Aunche 3y ago
      > According to Marxism it could be state-lead If you're using a nonstandard Marxist definition of capitalism, then you should point that out because that is not the definition that people typically use. You know full on well that you're calling them capitalist to make capitalism sound worse and communism better. This reminds me of another Marxist motte and bailey where when you call out their use of "exploit" they retreat and claim that "exploit" is a neutral word, knowing full well they used that word to illicit negative emotions. Also, no. The Soviet Union never considered themselves state capitalists. That was a label that certain leftist critics used. > Go grind your axe somewhere else. The topic is climate change. Says the person who brought up their personal economic grievances to this discussion in the first place. I'm not making an attack on communism. I used it as an example of how economic system has zero correlation to climate change. > Have you heard of the phrase “e.g.“? Yes. Have you heard of giving a counterexample to an example? > And also, not really. I could be an anarcho-primitivist who claims that industrial society has made such opt-in lifestyles impossible. For one, someone who happened to be born into industrial society might not have the skills to live in the wilds since they weren't embedded in that kind of environment from birth. Second of all, maybe industrial society has already forced former hunter-gatherers into society as wage workers and whatnot. Then what chance does an “Internet Contrarian” stand? That's why I said "minimal assistance." The important part is making a good faith attempt to imagine how you would fare in such a lifestyle. If you were to do so, I'd expect that you at least be as committed as the Youtube channel Primitive Technology in learning this primitive skills. If you don't make such an attempt, I'll think that you're an contrarian. > Third of all: the goal for someone of that ideological bent might not be to convince some Internet Contrarian of some opposite persuasion. In fact, it is mind-boggling how arrogant it is to claim that such a person would first have to prove something to you A contrarian also isn't just "thing you don't like." I believe in mixed market capitalism, and my actions are consistent with that of a mixed market capitalist. If you attack my brand of mixed market capitalism, I'll give you a defense of such beliefs. I won't make up a hypothetical of something that I may or may not believe in and defend that instead.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> No. There is absolutely no evidence that switching economic systems will magically solve global warming. The thing about being the most successful at something is that you both get all the praise for the results and all the criticism for the “externalities“. Welcome to the real world. I mean you could inject any other real-world-existing thing instead of the economic system, like industrialization. It doesn't change what I said by one iota.

by Aunche 3y ago

avgcorrection 3y ago

What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist.

Aunche 3y ago
> What are you on about? Both of the Communist superpowers are/were state capitalists. "Capitalist" has a definition that does not mean "something I don't like." Capitalism specifically refers to where trade is controlled by private owners for profit. This does not match either the Soviet Union or Communist China at all, where profits were distributed to the state, which was nominally for the benefit of the people. > I don't know what the fuck LessWrong lingo “motte and bailey” really means but it's not like I have stated my pro-ideology. For all you know I could be an anarcho-primitivist. But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > "Capitalist" has a definition that does not mean "something I don't like." “Something I don't like”? Don't be a child. Capitalism is a mode of production. According to Marxism it could be state-lead, which the Soviet Union pursued because they wanted to move through capitalism into socialism (and then communism). Of course one can disagree with Marxism. Go grind your axe somewhere else. The topic is climate change. > But you aren't, are you? I don't expect people to completely detatch themselves from society, but you at least need to commit yourself to that lifestyle of a certain extent if you want me to consider you a real anarcho-primitivist as opposed to simply a contrarian. At the very least, you should be able to survive with minimal support for a year before you make the conclusion that this is the way you want all of humanity to live forever. Have you heard of the phrase “e.g.“? And also, not really. I could be an anarcho-primitivist who claims that industrial society has made such opt-in lifestyles impossible. For one, someone who happened to be born into industrial society might not have the skills to live in the wilds since they weren't embedded in that kind of environment from birth. Second of all, maybe industrial society has already forced former hunter-gatherers into society as wage workers and whatnot. Then what chance does an “Internet Contrarian” stand? Third of all: the goal for someone of that ideological bent might not be to convince some Internet Contrarian of some opposite persuasion. In fact, it is mind-boggling how arrogant it is to claim that such a person would first have to prove something to you, who—considering how most Internet Contrarians are like—is likely to be so ideologically possessed that any evidence contrary to your own beliefs is likely to make you dig in your heels further (backfire effect or something...?).
  - Aunche 3y ago
    > According to Marxism it could be state-lead If you're using a nonstandard Marxist definition of capitalism, then you should point that out because that is not the definition that people typically use. You know full on well that you're calling them capitalist to make capitalism sound worse and communism better. This reminds me of another Marxist motte and bailey where when you call out their use of "exploit" they retreat and claim that "exploit" is a neutral word, knowing full well they used that word to illicit negative emotions. Also, no. The Soviet Union never considered themselves state capitalists. That was a label that certain leftist critics used. > Go grind your axe somewhere else. The topic is climate change. Says the person who brought up their personal economic grievances to this discussion in the first place. I'm not making an attack on communism. I used it as an example of how economic system has zero correlation to climate change. > Have you heard of the phrase “e.g.“? Yes. Have you heard of giving a counterexample to an example? > And also, not really. I could be an anarcho-primitivist who claims that industrial society has made such opt-in lifestyles impossible. For one, someone who happened to be born into industrial society might not have the skills to live in the wilds since they weren't embedded in that kind of environment from birth. Second of all, maybe industrial society has already forced former hunter-gatherers into society as wage workers and whatnot. Then what chance does an “Internet Contrarian” stand? That's why I said "minimal assistance." The important part is making a good faith attempt to imagine how you would fare in such a lifestyle. If you were to do so, I'd expect that you at least be as committed as the Youtube channel Primitive Technology in learning this primitive skills. If you don't make such an attempt, I'll think that you're an contrarian. > Third of all: the goal for someone of that ideological bent might not be to convince some Internet Contrarian of some opposite persuasion. In fact, it is mind-boggling how arrogant it is to claim that such a person would first have to prove something to you A contrarian also isn't just "thing you don't like." I believe in mixed market capitalism, and my actions are consistent with that of a mixed market capitalist. If you attack my brand of mixed market capitalism, I'll give you a defense of such beliefs. I won't make up a hypothetical of something that I may or may not believe in and defend that instead.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> No. There is absolutely no evidence that switching economic systems will magically solve global warming. The thing about being the most successful at something is that you both get all the praise for the results and all the criticism for the “externalities“. Welcome to the real world. I mean you could inject any other real-world-existing thing instead of the economic system, like industrialization. It doesn't change what I said by one iota.