Capitalism vs. Sustainability

The standard science is built on is reason. If reason fell apart about a hundred years ago, I guess we're fucked. But considering the rate of scientific advancement, I'm pretty sure it didn't.

Yes, I am. The link you posted made reference to one book, written by the author whose website the writeup was on. Where are these references you refer to?

Of course I do: I find it very interesting. However, I fail to see how this fact supports your point. It seems your point is, at best, that because animate and inanimate objects are made up of the same building blocks, they must all be the same. I don't find this very convincing. Believe me, I've heard New Age theories very tenuously extrapolated from science which really has nothing to do with them many, many times. I fail to see how this is any different.

 

I doubt very much the scientific discourse would have gotten this far if scientists were all as closed minded as you seem to be.

What the fuck do you think a book is!

And there was more than one reference in there.

Essentially they are the same at the most fundamental level. But my argument is a lot more complex than that.

I really can't do any more to convince you of this knowledge, you clearly lack any form of scientific grounding advanced enough for you to comprehend it, so all I can suggest is that we just agree to disagree, and if you like maybe you can go away and read up on some of the material I refered you to, as a starting point.

http://www.haven.net/patterns/capra.html

 

Leaving the rest of your argument for later: how do you consider adherence to reason to be closed-minded?

 

Okay, let's do this.

For posterity, I will restate my question: what is closed-minded about adherence to reason? Unless you consider it closed-minded to dismiss ideas that don't make sense, I fail to see any answer.

There were two references, both to books written by Fritjof Capra, whose site the writeup is on. Having done a bit of reading on Capra, I see that his views are well outside the mainstream, and are, regardless, nothing I would give much credit to. These ideas are speculation at best, which is fine: speculation is healthy in the scientific community; presenting it as credible fact is not.

I do have an interest in continuing the debate. I think the issue here is that neither of us has actually stated what we're trying to prove. I can't refute anything you say, because you haven't made any concrete statements; neither have I. I'd appreciate it if you would do so; perhaps we don't disagree as much as it seems.

 

Pass.

Here's how the debate has gone so far. I say something, and you reply by dismissing it is as hocus pocus, so I try to explain myself further, and then you reply saying it lacks reason or evidence or references, so then I give you some references and again you reply with more negativity. Yet you have not really provided anything of any substance to the debate yourself, other than to tell me that what I just said lacks reason, or clarity, or whatever.

How the fuck would you know if it's "speculation", or credible fact, have you bothered to read any of it?

I can't be bothered. It's a highly complex subject, and difficult to put into language. If you don't get it you don't get it.

 

I don't think it's necessary to state what a complete cop-out that is, but I guess I just did.

 

I don't think it is necessary to state that you are a troll, but evidently it seems that you are.

 

A troll? Hardly. People on forums used to understand what a troll was, and that it's not a catch-all term for people you don't like. I guess times have changed.

My point is just that it's a bad tactic to leave a debate, citing your opponent's ignorance as your reason, despite never have made an actual statement that can be argued. That's poor form, but implying that doing so means you have won the debate is just laughable.

 

Oh is that right.

Do you remember me saying this?

You can think what you like mate. I'm done debating the finer points of this thread with you, because you don't appear to want to open your mind to new concepts.

If you think my logic is bullshit then we obviously don't speak the same language.

Have fun in your own little factually correct universe.

 

Wow.

 

I dont get what this thread is about.

Capitalism vs. sustainability?

Does is have to be one or the other?

In the last 70 years the world has seen neither or. Thats the only way i can answer the question.

 

Ask Capitalism. He started it.

I'm sure sustainability would be more than happy live along side money and corruption, it's just capitalism is hell bent on destruction, and destruction only fits into the definition of sustainability when it is immediately proceded by rebirth, which isn't in capitalism's definition of destruction.

There are nearly 7 billion people in the world. There are always going to be people who don't want to earn the food on their plate by putting in a hard days graft.

Fools who would rather sit in the warm and comfort of an office building all day, sipping coffee and tossing figures around.

These people are a big problem.

 

You realize that capitalism is the only system that actually allows people to 'earn the food on their plate by putting in a hard day's graft?' It is the only system that allows people to work for their own benefit without depending on others, and without being obligated to work for anyone else (I don't mean this in the sense of being employed).

I agree that there is a lot of dead wood in the management of business concerns: the vast majority of people at the top are incompetent. This does not, however, mean that there should be no one running businesses; just that it would be nice if they were there because of ability, not personal connections and manipulation of others. This is not though, I think, something that we should allow the government to regulate, not least because it is possibly the best example of the kind of poor management I have just described; but above and beyond that, because it would be a violation of personal freedoms.

 

What planet are you living on?

 

Obviously,to me anyway,if capitalism is continued ,the world of sentient beings will come to a sorry end through chaos.Might take 100 years,maybe 1000---but humans can only TAKE for so long.We have all we get here on the earth and no one in charge will do anything about the unchecked overuse untill severe crisis becomes the norm.What else can happen,especially with no population control and the continued industrialisation to create "jobs"?

 

It is possible to be both pro free market and pro Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism Would it work? Who knows, but it's philosophical beliefs and origins are sound

 

Free market my backside.

It's all owned by the multinationals. The WTO decide what can be traded and what cannot.

That's the problem.

 

Furthermore, speculators define the price of what can be traded, which doesn't necessarily fall within the realm of what an economic model of supply and demand would dictate.

 

You forget capitalism can lead to colonialism. Hugely unfair distribution of resources. Poor peasant S. Africans or S.E. Asians may never own a car within generations. The rich probably use their money to get richer, and the poor get poorer.

Of course capitalism doesn't HAVE to be like this, but with the current world mentality this how profit is typically gained and used.

 

The problem is it's founded on an abstract value system, called money.