Capitalism vs. Sustainability

When did man become so egocentric that he began to feel he could control climate? He may affect it but he can't control it.

 

Never heard of it.

So I guess that's a no then.

Every species dies out eventually, it is just the nature of things. This is what appears to happen.

And when that big light in the sky goes out...

But that's a long way off into the future.

 

I agree.

What some humans try to do is profit from any situation with little or no concern as to what their profit inflicts on the world or society as a whole.

But Mother Nature couldn't care less, push her to far and she'll deal with the problem. And those that survive will be those that have learned to work with her instead of against her. And I would bet it's not going to be the Cap and Trade folks.

She's not concerned with preserving man's wealth she's more concerned with preserving a balance with the environment.

 

I think either you are very uninformed or playing naive.

Some species do not die out they adapt. But someday the earth may die. Is that something we should try to stop or is it just part of a greater cycle we should embrace?

 

If you say so.

All species eventually die out. This is a fact. They might adapt, or mutate or whatever throughout their life cycle, but eventually all species cease to exist. Why can you not accept this? It's one of the most fundamental facts of evolutionary theory. Is there a specific reason why you seem to be choosing to be particularly stubborn over this point?

It's not even a point worth arguing!

Very funny.

I'd imagine we have no choice in the matter, and should probably embrace it.

 

And I think we've seen what the power of the atom can do in Hiroshoma and Nagasaki. I think you need to read the articles on sperm from stem cells again. There is no proof they can impregnate anything. Blankets over glaciers, might work for a while but would hate to bet on its efficiency over a decade. As far as leaving our planet what besides a space station have we ever inhabited for any length of time? Look at Katrina what control did we have over it?

 

Actually I wasn't being funny. I was admitting perhaps someday this star/planet will die. It's entirely possible and I don't think if that is the cycle of all planets that any amount of wealth or knowledge can defer it.

 

Exactly. No control. a little influence maybe, but the natural systems are so much greater than humanity, we are only like fleas to a dog. We can egocentrically think we are effecting and "controlling" our environment, and in the shorter scope it could appear so. Like if I toss enough trash in my back yard, eventually my back yard will look like a dump. BUT, if I stop tossing trash, give it a year and nature will be covering it up. Small terrariums will form inside of bottles and cans. Earthworms will gather under the trash. Mice will build homes in bottles out of old rags. Trees will start sprouting among the garbage...

Anyone who thinks humans have the power to "control" nature is giving us GOD status. But if we are as powerful as Gods, why can we not do something as simple as stop shitting in our own swimming pool? We do not collectively understand how nature works. Nature does not give a damn for facts and figures and powerful people. The earth was not made just so we can be satisfied. And nature has ultimate authority, no matter how hard we beat our heads against the wall. No matter how powerful we think we are. Nature exists and nature wins in the end, and no human can do anything about it. We can only do a bit of shaping.

I'm a farmer. Fire is our friend. Most people don't understand just how it works. Simplified, without humans getting in the way, fire purifies, fertilizes, and balances the soil properly for natural healthy growth of plants. One reason so much farm land today is worn out and must be forced to produce by adding chemicals is that the land is no longer allowed to be renewed by fire. Think of just how a wild fire would go in a more natural setting without human intervention. There would be much more forested land with much more underbrush for starters, and no one to stop it. Think about the wildfires that happen now-a-days, and how hard people try to control them and how much land gets burned. In the natural state, many more times the number and intensity of fires would happen, AND THE EARTH WOULD BENEFIT from it, as has happened since time began and the earth came into being.

I think someone's been watching too many of those si-fi movies where they burrow to the center of the earth to set off nuclear bombs to save the planet...

 

Yes, and I refuse to take you seriously if you think otherwise.

You're obfuscating the issue here by making it far too simplistic. Of course man will be burned if he comes into contact with fire - this is not the point, and you know it. It is man's reason that allows him to understand the danger of fire without instinctively fleeing from it like a wild animal, and thus to be able to harness its power. It is through reason that man overcomes his physical limitations, like not being able to jump into a fire without being burned. These limitations imply nothing.

Man is destroying the fire by using his reason to harness the power of another element, water. Man is not, as you seem to think, handicapped by his lack of in-born coping mechanisms; his superiority is born of the fact that he is able to create what he needs for himself, something no other species (with a few minor exceptions) can do.

Man was not born with sharp teeth or claws, as bears are; yet man has created weapons for himself which are far superior to those bears have naturally. If a bear was born without teeth or claws, it would be helpless. If an antelope was born without strong legs for running, it would die. Man was born without any of these, and yet he has flourished.

 

On one hand I agree with you. But on the other I've seen BLM control burns go out of control and decimate areas. So I believe in the power of regeneration through burn, but not necessarily human controlled burns.

And without co2 there would be no plant life.

 

Be fair.
You claimed not to know what the mission was in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Best thing to do is just post what it is.

http://www.epa.gov/captrade/

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html

 

My point exactly. Human "controlled"....

 

The issue here and the point I am trying to make, which you have clearly missed, is that we might have developed the intelligence to use fire for cooking, and creating warmth, but by no means are we it's master.

Perhaps you need to open your mind a little and embrace new epistemological models of life and existence. You seem attached to the idea that life only exists in the form of sentient beings, plants and organisms.

Consider that our preconceptions of matter and existence are founded upon the notion that matter consists of something. All modern scientific advances suggest otherwise, that matter is not an impermeable, objective, static construct that exists in 3 dimensional space and travels through time, but a process, a perpetual cosmic dance, and that the perception of existence, and space and all the bits and pieces that make it up, are nothing more than cognitive illusions that have come about as a result of these processes.

So this tends to suggest that the idea that your are alive, inside your shell, and that the rest of the inanimate universe is dead, nothing more than a series of chemical reactions all happening away according to the fundamental physical laws of the universe, may well be flawed.

Old scientific theories assumed that the brain was like a camera, or a computer, that processes the various stimuli from our surroundings, such as light. But, in fact, modern theories suggest something more profound, that the process of cognition leading to perception is not simply limited to within our brains, but that it involves everything. Everything you see, hear, experience in your "mind" is involved in the process of cognition. We are the manifestation of the universe bringing forth itself.

It is this difference in how we understand ourselves that is at the heart of the current world crisis, through basing our understanding of ourselves and the universe from mechanistic, clockwork principles, we have in a sense separated ourselves from it, and deluded ourselves into believing that we are it's master.

We are our world, the world is us, it is all connected.

 

That was beautifully put.

So I guess the point is, seeing how this is a politics forum and we are putting sustainability against capitalism, That even at this late date, we still can effect some good harmonious changes in how our society is set up. And feed everyone. And cut way down on pollutants. And stop raping the land so horribly. And have healthy and satisfying lives. But, where nature can start making it's changes almost instantly, our changes will take years. Why? Because of our egos and our self-centeredness. The idea that we are "in control", and that human desire is the center of the universe.

 

Capitalism is the enemy of sustainability since there is much ignorance in the world. Maybe when sustainability is always in mind the open market can flourish.

We make fertilizers from fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are highly finite. Yet we've built our whole society around the model that fossil fuels are infinite. Long roads, mass individual transit, consumerism, exotic foods. There is no balance between society's systems and the biosphere's natural systems. This is a fundamental flaw in design of our societies that has ignorantly been ignored.

"Back in the day" when millions of buffalos roamed food was plentiful. All you had to do was put on ur buffalo hide, sneak up to a herd, and shoot a couple. As long as you don't upset the balance (your population rises too fast, buffalo drops too fast, or not enough grass) you are in perfect balance. Yet newcomers who knew nothing about this New World system came and destroyed the old balance. They set up a new system that would ultimately lead to unbalance.... due to not cooperating with the balance of nature (from which we derive all our systems). Whether these "savages" consciously established their societies along this principle balance or not is up to you to decide. To me it is irrelevant, all that I know is that it worked.

We can do anything we want, including seriously affect the environment. We've created dustbowl and deserts unintentionally, and we can do the same intentionally. We can also do the opposite intentionally. It's just a matter of how much time we devote towards understanding something, what the time span in accomplishing our goals, and what's the purpose for these endevours.

We have "deer problems" in Ohio yet I've never seen deer on the supermarket shelf. Not even the backstrap, the tastiest part!! One state below they have wild boar "problems" too. Wild boars are like feral pigs without the hassle of raising them. Yet instead of deeply devoting our time to make adjust society towards these understandings, we just say. "I want cow, destroy that forest and lets raise cow!!". So combined with the infinite no holds-barred capitalism you can see how this can be a problem for sustainability.

 

That is what life is. All your theories of us all being one great organism, of us being no different from inanimate matter, are contradicted by simple logic. It is this kind of philosophy that I can never respect: the kind that seeks to obfuscate obvious facts. Certainly, if one tries hard enough, one can think of a convoluted reason that no one can prove they are different from inanimate matter; no one can prove they exist at all. But the burden of proof does not lie with those espousing logical, rational ideas, but with those espousing irrational paralogisms. These people will use the same methods to undermine the definition of logic and rationality, which makes arguing with them impossible, because they base their arguments on nothing: those who have a standard of judgment can never deal with those who don't and expect to be successful.

I have never heard a credible theory as to why I should consider myself to be the same as an inanimate object, or it the same as me. If you think that any credible science has proven your 'cosmic dance' theory, I suggest you check again. If I'm wrong, please give me some literature on the subject - citing apparently-infallible 'modern theories' will not be enough.

 

That's not what I was saying at all.

Have a look here, and check out some of the references quoted.

http://www.fritjofcapra.net/shiva.html

 

Really we're all made up of inanimate objects. Minerals, proteins, fats, etc. Is a virus alive? Is it conscious of itself in any sort of way or does it simply respond to stimuli? Do you need a brain to be conscious, or does a consciousness allow for better adaptation to the environment? Do cells in ur body robotically react to stimuli or do they act because it is the optimum choice?

Who is "alive" when you say me? Are you talking about the billions of cells that make up your body? The collection of memories and behaviors that make up your ego?

Nobody is trying to devalue you, say its immoral to destroy a rock, or anything like that. It's just a way of explaining life. Hell, maybe it'll even help explain how life came from "non-life". Maybe its all life.....

 

Then maybe you should clarify. It sounds to me like repetition of ideas I've heard a thousand times about there being no individual identity, nothing being real, and everything being one. These theories are always defended with the claim that modern science is coming to the same conclusions, which for one thing is bullshit, and for another, I hardly see how they can respect the findings of science after having devalued the standard it is built on.

What references?

I never denied that subatomic particles exist, nor that they move. The fact that they move in a way which someone thinks is similar to 'Shiva's cosmic dance' doesn't really mean anything.

 

The standard science was "built" on for centuries fell apart about a hundred years ago. As a template for understanding the classical world it is quite adequate, but when we probe deeper into matter, or approach lightspeed, or try to explain what life is, it fails.

So the world of science was forced to embrace radical new theories, many of which to this day are still not very well understood.

Some people are just better are interpreting it than others.

Are you even bothering to read anything I post?

So you don't find it at all interesting that although on the macroscopic level matter appears to be static and solid, on the inside is made of up gazillions of infinitesimally small, barely comprehensible particles that bear little relevance to what we know, all zipping around at light speeds, constantly changing into other particles, inside what is ultimately vacuous space?