Well now they have written a report on the security of open source software. I welcome their input In fact I wish more organizations would chime in with their opinions about open source and security. For example the American Association of Massage Therapists probably knows just much about open source and security as a republican think tank. What do they think? Let's not forget the union of organic yam growers and the actors guild too. They know just as much about computer security as republican thinktanks.
What a silly thing to say. If what yousaid was true there would be no need to teach anything except the dictionary. Sure words have meanings but those meanings are hotly debated all the time. I think I received a pretty well rounded education and took my share of philosphy and comparitive religion courses. I am not making up these things. You don't want to accept them that's up to you. There is a reason why we have different words for ethics, mores, and morals it's because they mean different things. I am telling you that the word morals are used to indicate religous concepts and the word ethics or mores are used to indicate secular concepts. This is a pretty well accepted terminology and is taught in most 100 level philosophy courses in the nation. Perhaps you could pick up an ethics textbook and confirm it yourself.
I sit in a room and do one of three possible things. Act one generates no wealth, act two generates some wealth, act three generates lots of wealth. My point is that the amount of wealth generated is irrelevant. No wealth could have been generated if I was not born, was fed, was clothed, sheltered and transported all my life. Trees were cut to make the room I am sitting in, to make the paper and pencil. Fuel was burned to process and transport all those things. Not only that but all the other people who are going to buy or sell the end result consumed immense amounts of natural resouces as well.
As long as the usage of those natural resources outstrips the rate of replenishment then the act of generating wealth harmed the environment. Yes some acts are more efficient (generate more wealth per resources consumed) but practically every single act of generating wealth consumes more resources then the earth can replenish.
It's indisputable. Wealth gets generated by consuming natural resources and no matter how hard people try to deny it it's a zero sum game. Eventually the resources will run out. Maybe by then we will move on to plunder another planet but that does not change the nature of the equation.
"When it comes to the middle east, nothing is simple, and everything is about history"
That is precicely the problem (that and religion). The palestenians and the israelis are too busy looking backwards and spend no time looking at the future. I don't want to spend too much countering your points one by one but suffice it to say you seem to be spreading the standard Israeli propaganda line. I personally don't like it when the israelis try to justify their vile actions by comparing themselves to us. The US is going to compensate every single civilians unjustly harmed in Afghanistan and will spend billions rebuilding that country. When is Israel going to compensate the civilians it killed unjustly? At least it could make an effort for god's sake, it's not like they will pay for it, the US taxpayers will get stuck with that bill just like they pay for all the weapons used to kill palestenians.
The problem is this. Both people believe that they have a god given right to live in the same plot of land. Both of them believe that the other are invaders and evil. Cloaked in their righteousness they can rationalize the most despicable, inhuman, evil and vile acts. And both of them have chosen to elect bloodthirsty men who apparently take great joy in killing the opposition.
You list off the vile acts done by palestenians while finding excuses for state sponsored massacres, torture, and yes terrorism of civilian populations when it's done by the israelis. It's easy isn't it? One side says we commit inhuman acts because we are defending ourselves the other side says we commit inhuman acts becasue we are being occupied and humiliated and denied basic human rights. Both are wrong and neither party is willing to live side by side with the other.
Unless the world steps in (it won't becasue the US won't let it happen) this will end in genocide. The palestenians will never enjoy living under israeli occupation, the israelis will never lift the occupation, it will instead kill every palestenian who will not be subjigated.
"Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap."
No I can't give you a reference off the of my head. It's just what I was thought in school. Morality is a religious term, ethics is a secular term. Even terms like good and evil are religous terms.
"Hmm, you seem to be arguing that capitalism is "wrong" yet is the only workable system due to human nature."
I don't say capitalism is wrong (that's a secular term) only immoral, specifically against the teachings of christianity which teaches that things like accumulating wealth and usury are immoral sins and are not condusive to spiritual enlightment.
"I would contend that capitalism is the only workable solution due to human nature, and therefor is the right way to go."
Well that certianly is a utilitarian view and the philosophical war between the the utilitarians and the religous have been fought for centuries now.
As I said. Capitalism works because people are selfish and greedy (evil in religous terms). If people ever achieve enlightenment capitalism will collapse. It exists only as long as people are evil.
When evaluating whether to invest in a company you are not limited to investing only in the same sector. I don't think anybody will dispute the fact the MS is the strongest player in the tech industry. The question is can my money better elsewhere? And in the case of MS the answer is yes. MS is too big to keep growing at the rate they are now. In fact since so much of the money they make comes from buying and selling it's own stock I'd say it was a pretty risky buy. you money is better off out of the tech sector for a while anyways.
"Moral - don't trust an analyst. Do your own research. And hope you don't get screwed anyway in the end."
A sincere question for you.
What if I don't have the five hours per day it will take to thoroughly understand the very complex financial system of stocks and bonds? What is I am unable to understand it even if I do have the time? It takes a lifetime of study to understand just bonds for example.
What is your advice to the average Joe on the street. It sounds like you are saying "stay out unless you understand fully" knowing full well that the average Joe can't ever understand and do their own research. Are we headed for a future in which the individual investor should stay out of the market altogether?
"It creates wealth where there was no wealth before, and as a general rule everyone benefits from this."
Why otherwise rational people keep repeating this is beyond me. Where does all this extra wealth come from? Does it come from the ninth dimension? From inside of a black hole? from God? No of course not it comes from the earth and the sky. Economies grow because natural resources are used up and turned into products and services. There is more money in the world and as a result there is less oil in the ground, less fish in the sea, less trees on the planet, less minerals in the ground, less coal, less clean air, less clean water.
Some people claim that wealth comes from "productivity" as if productivity was not a factor of machinery, energy usage and human effort all of which impact the environment.
Even a "low impact" products like software production require human beings who have to eat, shit, be moved around, heated, and sheltered.
Unfortunately our society has come to this. Nobody can be trusted to their job with integrity. The concept of "buyer beware" has been taken to such extreme that every person in this country has to know the intracasies of investing, insurance, medicine and law just to be able function in this society.
These so called professions have complicated the matters by purposfully obfuscating the laws and regulations so that an average person is unable to understand the subleties. All this in order to rip off the consumer who needs insurance, health care, or to try and invest their money somehow.
Your advice should be broadcast far and wide. You can not trust the professionals and you must not get involved in fields you yourself can not understand. Pull your money out of the market and only invest in safe and guaranteed investments. Those who are intimate with the details of a complex market are waiting to rip you off the minute you enter.
Hasn't big business already destroyed almost all the environment we have? Preserving nature is not profitable and even costs money. The very act of growing the economy involved taking natural resources and turning them into products and services. As business grows nature will shrink. One is simply an outcome of the other.
"Bottom line. It's not a simple situation, it can't be explained while standing on one foot. It takes weeks worth of research just to get a fledgling idea of what this conflict is about. "
You have certainly laid out the israeli justification for occupying palestenians and many people disagree with the "facts" as you see them. I suppose that is to be expected.
personally I think the problem is much simpler then trying to dig throughout history and simply point to the present facts.
1) The israeli people are conducting a military occupation of the palestenian people. 2) The palestenian people do not enjoy being occupied by the israelis. 3) The israeli people are building settlements on land that palestenians consider their own (the israelis claim it's land). The palestenians don't enjoy this fact. 4) The nation of israel reserves the right to kill, invade, bulldoze, arrest, detain, torture, place under curfew, assinate, or otherwise do anything it wants to any palestenian it wants. The palestenians don't enjoy this very much either.
The palestenians don't enjoy the treatment they get at the hands of the israelis and they fight back any way they can. They are outgunned, out numbered, out financed, out organized yet they persist.
I know that if I was living under military occupation by a country I would fight back with any means I could so I can definately see their point of view.
Of course, what I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was:"
What a moron. What you said is a matter of public record. Hit the parent button a few times go re-read what you wrote. You indeed said that engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil. Don't you read your own posts?
"It is my opinion that the accumulation of wealth is unrelated to being a moral or ethical person."
Intersting opinion and I suppose you are entitled to it. However Jesus and Budha disagree with you as they have both stated unequavically that accumulation of wealth is detrimental to moral life. Mohammed had less problems with wealth or at least he didn't speak much about it.
"First off, your definition of morality is out of line with commonly accepted definitions"
Morality is a religious concept. Mores (or ethics) are a secular concept. Although we can argue about the definition of ethics there is less wiggle room with morality. Morality is very much what your religion commands you to do. Since America is a christian nation (by and large) I am using the christian definition of morality. Which definition of morality are you using?
"Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings.""
You are wrong about that I am afraid. Morality is exactly about making a better human being (actually it's more about trying to attain spiritual purity but it's presumed to be the same thing). You once again have confused ethics and morality.
"Adhering to a code of ethics might be a competitive disadvantage, but it is certainly not contrary to capitalism."
Since capitism is about accumulating wealth and since there is no moral (or ethical) imperitive to accumulate wealth they are indeed opposites. Certainly no religious text ever said "path to god is through accumulating wealth" in fact the opposite is usually true "it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then a camel to go though the eye of a needle" and all that.
"So, capitalism is the optimal system, given the conditions of the planet and the nature of man, that is known at this time."
An odd thing to say. Man is by nature greedy and selfish that is why capitalism works. Capitalism recognized the inherent greed of humans, resigns to it, and attempts to build a system within that framework. Morality on the other hand tries to make people not greedy and selfish. All moral and ethical frameworks exhort people to set aside their greed and think of the greater good while capitalism encourages people to be as selfish as possible. That is why they are opposing forces.
"Hopefully one of these factors will change, or a new system will be devised that is closer to ideal than capitalism."
Capitalism will crumble only when people are not greedy and selfish. That will never come (says me anyway). All religious and spiritual people (not me) believe in their hearts that people can change, can become better then their animal selves and evolve to be a enlightened human being. Once enlightened people will stop thinking of themselves and dedicate themselves to god and serving the rest of humanity. If they are right AND if that ever happens capitalism will crumble. At that point morality will win it's war with capitalism. Until then capitalism will kick moralities ass like a left handed stepchild.
"Until such a time the only "moral" course of action is to operate under the best system available to us."
Morality is not about "making the best of it". It's about absolutes. You are talking about moral relativism which most religious people reject. Morality is to struggle against the material world and not be tempted by it's lures but to continue to seek enlightenment.
and is self-serving. Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings." My following argument, however, will stand using either definition."
It's apparent to me that you have given this matter no thought whatsoever.
First of all making a better human being is not the same thing as bettering humanity. So your whole argument is moot because you could not even read my post correctly and form a response to it.
And before you go on about how accumulating wealth makes one a more moral or ethical person you should pick up the religious text of your choice and try and find where your god tells you to go forth and be rich.
"Holy lack of logic Batman! Since when does "There is a lot not known" = "We don't know a lot"? "
Since you used the word "imply" you fuckwad.
"Why, because it shows that petroleum engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known? Then this guy must be full of it as well."
Go back and re-read the original document. Now tell me where it proves that "engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known?". What kind of a fucking idiot are you for christ sake. Name one petrolium engineer in the world who thinks that the "origins of petroleum are not known". You keep making these idiotic statements and you expect people to take you seriously. If you want to push your agenda then at least make an attempt to sound smarter then two dead flies.
Oh one more tip for you. Don't point to some obscure document written in 1996 to re-enforce an obscure document written in 1997 especially if your argument is that we...
a) Don't know anything about the origins of oil. b) Engieers are taught in schools that we don't know where oil comes from. c) We don't know a whole lot about the origins of oil. d) There is a lot we don't know about where oil comes from (as if that was even provable).
So pick an argument from the above and then find some recent knowledge to back it up. Otherwise you are just another dumb idiological fuck who is unable to process information which goes against your beliefs.
BTW. My father worked for Mobil Oil all his life as a chemical engineer (he is now retired). Through him I have met countless engineers and scientists in the oil industry and not one of them would claim that we don't know how oil is made or that we don't know a lot about how oil gets made. The percentage of uncertainlty is probably less then 5%. Go ask them yourself.
"It would only be a choice if we had an alternative. To stop importing oil would destroy the US economy. However, more proven oil reserves would give us added leverage when negotiating with the OPEC states."
We could stop importing oil without ruining the economy if we simply stopped exporting the oil we harvest domestically. Maybe the oil companies would lose a little bit of money but it would not ruin the economy. Small price to pay to be free of middle east oil.
"Why call a bunch of rocks tundra, rocks, plants, and animals have inherent value even when you can't buy it and sell it. Your ethical value system ought to trancend economics.
"Also, making cars more efficient would mean more expensive, smaller, lighter, & therefore less safe cars."
This is patently false. Smaller cars are not more expensive then bigger cars. More fuel efficient cars are not more expensive then less fuel efficient cars, smaller cars routinely test safer in crash tests then bigger cars. especially considering the higher risk of rollover in larger trucks and SUVs.
There is no scientific correlation between fuel efficiency and price or safety.
"It's an easy decision for Iceland. They're a tiny nation with abundant geothermal resources."
It's not an easy decision anywhere. Maybe it's easier over there I don't know but they ought to be lauded for it anyway because it's the right decision for themselves, for their progeny and for the world.
"when did I imply that we didn't know a lot about petroleum? "
Mmmm let's see perhaps when you said "The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts."
Oh yea one more thing your link is just about useless. Class notes from a 1997 lecture? Give me a break. Even if we don't know everything about how oil gets made nobody in right mind is claiming that it is being made faster then it's being used (which is your original thesis). Or maybe your original thesis was that it may be being made faster then it is used.
If that is the case then why does Gale Norton keep insisting that it's possible to drill in ANWR and not cause any harm. Why do they keep talking about how much there is under ANWR if they have no intention of drilling. Why are you talking as if there is not only oil there but that we should be drilling it right away. Nobody is fooled by this "we are only exploring" bullshit. Even you don't believe it as evidenced by the rest of your post.
"Failing to explore and find new sources of oil (until we eliminate the demand for it) would be gross negligence. This has the potential to help supply our needs and reduce our dependence on imported oil. "
you are presuming that there is not enough oil to meet our future demands so therefore we should be looking for more oil. This is patently not true. You would not need to drill for oil in alaska if you passed a law saying "all oil extracted from US territories can only be sold in the US". Right now it's cheaper to sell alaskan oil to japan and buy saudi oil. Any new oil drilled in alaska will continue to be sold to other countries and will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Our dependency on foreign oil is a choice not a matter of supply and demand. Combine the law I stated above with one saying all cars and trucks must get five more miles to the gallon and you can be free of foreign oil in fact you could probably sell off the excess.
"Finding oil in ANWR will increase the amount of oil available. Now somehow according to your logic, you conclude we shouldn't drill there?"
It's not that we should never drill in ANWR it's that we should not do it until we have to. Why ruin a pristine landscape when you don't have to especially when the alternatives are cheaper and easier to achieve. Even if you started drilling now you would not be able to pull out significant amount of oil for antoher 10 years. We can make more efficient cars NOW, we can conserve NOW, we can stop exporting oil NOW. We can save that oil in Alaska for our grandchildren to use if they need it. When the oil wells elsewhere dry up that oil will be worth thousand times more. It's money in the bank and spending it now would be "gross negligence" and "backwards". Unfortunately the president, the vice president and hundreds of their puppet masters stand to make billions of dollars right now if they drill and stand to lose billions if they encourage efficiency, conservation, and stopping of oil exports. Apparently the selfish profit motive of our top elected officials and their benefactors outweigh the greater good and long term planning.
Iceland is doing the right thing. Stating as a matter of national priority to be free from their oil addiction. Something no president of the US or a congressman would be brave enough to say out loud. More power to them I congratulate them on having enlightened politicians who look out for the welfare of their citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Well now they have written a report on the security of open source software. I welcome their input In fact I wish more organizations would chime in with their opinions about open source and security. For example the American Association of Massage Therapists probably knows just much about open source and security as a republican think tank. What do they think? Let's not forget the union of organic yam growers and the actors guild too. They know just as much about computer security as republican thinktanks.
What a silly thing to say. If what yousaid was true there would be no need to teach anything except the dictionary. Sure words have meanings but those meanings are hotly debated all the time. I think I received a pretty well rounded education and took my share of philosphy and comparitive religion courses. I am not making up these things. You don't want to accept them that's up to you. There is a reason why we have different words for ethics, mores, and morals it's because they mean different things. I am telling you that the word morals are used to indicate religous concepts and the word ethics or mores are used to indicate secular concepts. This is a pretty well accepted terminology and is taught in most 100 level philosophy courses in the nation. Perhaps you could pick up an ethics textbook and confirm it yourself.
Let's take your example.
I sit in a room and do one of three possible things. Act one generates no wealth, act two generates some wealth, act three generates lots of wealth. My point is that the amount of wealth generated is irrelevant. No wealth could have been generated if I was not born, was fed, was clothed, sheltered and transported all my life. Trees were cut to make the room I am sitting in, to make the paper and pencil. Fuel was burned to process and transport all those things. Not only that but all the other people who are going to buy or sell the end result consumed immense amounts of natural resouces as well.
As long as the usage of those natural resources outstrips the rate of replenishment then the act of generating wealth harmed the environment. Yes some acts are more efficient (generate more wealth per resources consumed) but practically every single act of generating wealth consumes more resources then the earth can replenish.
It's indisputable. Wealth gets generated by consuming natural resources and no matter how hard people try to deny it it's a zero sum game. Eventually the resources will run out. Maybe by then we will move on to plunder another planet but that does not change the nature of the equation.
"When it comes to the middle east, nothing is simple, and everything is about history"
That is precicely the problem (that and religion). The palestenians and the israelis are too busy looking backwards and spend no time looking at the future. I don't want to spend too much countering your points one by one but suffice it to say you seem to be spreading the standard Israeli propaganda line. I personally don't like it when the israelis try to justify their vile actions by comparing themselves to us. The US is going to compensate every single civilians unjustly harmed in Afghanistan and will spend billions rebuilding that country. When is Israel going to compensate the civilians it killed unjustly? At least it could make an effort for god's sake, it's not like they will pay for it, the US taxpayers will get stuck with that bill just like they pay for all the weapons used to kill palestenians.
The problem is this. Both people believe that they have a god given right to live in the same plot of land. Both of them believe that the other are invaders and evil. Cloaked in their righteousness they can rationalize the most despicable, inhuman, evil and vile acts. And both of them have chosen to elect bloodthirsty men who apparently take great joy in killing the opposition.
You list off the vile acts done by palestenians while finding excuses for state sponsored massacres, torture, and yes terrorism of civilian populations when it's done by the israelis. It's easy isn't it? One side says we commit inhuman acts because we are defending ourselves the other side says we commit inhuman acts becasue we are being occupied and humiliated and denied basic human rights. Both are wrong and neither party is willing to live side by side with the other.
Unless the world steps in (it won't becasue the US won't let it happen) this will end in genocide. The palestenians will never enjoy living under israeli occupation, the israelis will never lift the occupation, it will instead kill every palestenian who will not be subjigated.
Go read this post. See the last sentence of that post? What does it say?
Fucking idiot! You don't even know what you said.
"Can you give me any reference that morality specifically denotes the religious? Clearly Christianity is the basis for the Western take on morality, but I think you are making an unwarranted linguistic leap."
No I can't give you a reference off the of my head. It's just what I was thought in school. Morality is a religious term, ethics is a secular term. Even terms like good and evil are religous terms.
"Hmm, you seem to be arguing that capitalism is "wrong" yet is the only workable system due to human nature."
I don't say capitalism is wrong (that's a secular term) only immoral, specifically against the teachings of christianity which teaches that things like accumulating wealth and usury are immoral sins and are not condusive to spiritual enlightment.
"I would contend that capitalism is the only workable solution due to human nature, and therefor is the right way to go."
Well that certianly is a utilitarian view and the philosophical war between the the utilitarians and the religous have been fought for centuries now.
As I said. Capitalism works because people are selfish and greedy (evil in religous terms). If people ever achieve enlightenment capitalism will collapse. It exists only as long as people are evil.
In our country we almost never prosecute rich people let alone corporations.
When evaluating whether to invest in a company you are not limited to investing only in the same sector. I don't think anybody will dispute the fact the MS is the strongest player in the tech industry. The question is can my money better elsewhere? And in the case of MS the answer is yes. MS is too big to keep growing at the rate they are now. In fact since so much of the money they make comes from buying and selling it's own stock I'd say it was a pretty risky buy. you money is better off out of the tech sector for a while anyways.
"Moral - don't trust an analyst. Do your own research. And hope you don't get screwed anyway in the end."
A sincere question for you.
What if I don't have the five hours per day it will take to thoroughly understand the very complex financial system of stocks and bonds? What is I am unable to understand it even if I do have the time? It takes a lifetime of study to understand just bonds for example.
What is your advice to the average Joe on the street. It sounds like you are saying "stay out unless you understand fully" knowing full well that the average Joe can't ever understand and do their own research. Are we headed for a future in which the individual investor should stay out of the market altogether?
"It creates wealth where there was no wealth before, and as a general rule everyone benefits from this."
Why otherwise rational people keep repeating this is beyond me. Where does all this extra wealth come from? Does it come from the ninth dimension? From inside of a black hole? from God? No of course not it comes from the earth and the sky. Economies grow because natural resources are used up and turned into products and services. There is more money in the world and as a result there is less oil in the ground, less fish in the sea, less trees on the planet, less minerals in the ground, less coal, less clean air, less clean water.
Some people claim that wealth comes from "productivity" as if productivity was not a factor of machinery, energy usage and human effort all of which impact the environment.
Even a "low impact" products like software production require human beings who have to eat, shit, be moved around, heated, and sheltered.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Unfortunately our society has come to this. Nobody can be trusted to their job with integrity. The concept of "buyer beware" has been taken to such extreme that every person in this country has to know the intracasies of investing, insurance, medicine and law just to be able function in this society.
These so called professions have complicated the matters by purposfully obfuscating the laws and regulations so that an average person is unable to understand the subleties. All this in order to rip off the consumer who needs insurance, health care, or to try and invest their money somehow.
Your advice should be broadcast far and wide. You can not trust the professionals and you must not get involved in fields you yourself can not understand. Pull your money out of the market and only invest in safe and guaranteed investments. Those who are intimate with the details of a complex market are waiting to rip you off the minute you enter.
Hasn't big business already destroyed almost all the environment we have? Preserving nature is not profitable and even costs money. The very act of growing the economy involved taking natural resources and turning them into products and services. As business grows nature will shrink. One is simply an outcome of the other.
Why the liberterian kind of course!
"Bottom line. It's not a simple situation, it can't be explained while standing on one foot. It takes weeks worth of research just to get a fledgling idea of what this conflict is about. "
You have certainly laid out the israeli justification for occupying palestenians and many people disagree with the "facts" as you see them. I suppose that is to be expected.
personally I think the problem is much simpler then trying to dig throughout history and simply point to the present facts.
1) The israeli people are conducting a military occupation of the palestenian people.
2) The palestenian people do not enjoy being occupied by the israelis.
3) The israeli people are building settlements on land that palestenians consider their own (the israelis claim it's land). The palestenians don't enjoy this fact.
4) The nation of israel reserves the right to kill, invade, bulldoze, arrest, detain, torture, place under curfew, assinate, or otherwise do anything it wants to any palestenian it wants. The palestenians don't enjoy this very much either.
The palestenians don't enjoy the treatment they get at the hands of the israelis and they fight back any way they can. They are outgunned, out numbered, out financed, out organized yet they persist.
I know that if I was living under military occupation by a country I would fight back with any means I could so I can definately see their point of view.
"a) Don't know anything about the origins of oil.
Of course, what I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was:"
What a moron. What you said is a matter of public record. Hit the parent button a few times go re-read what you wrote. You indeed said that engineers are being taught that we know nothing about oil. Don't you read your own posts?
"It is my opinion that the accumulation of wealth is unrelated to being a moral or ethical person."
Intersting opinion and I suppose you are entitled to it. However Jesus and Budha disagree with you as they have both stated unequavically that accumulation of wealth is detrimental to moral life. Mohammed had less problems with wealth or at least he didn't speak much about it.
Once again how is not stealing the same as accumulating wealth?
"First off, your definition of morality is out of line with commonly accepted definitions"
Morality is a religious concept. Mores (or ethics) are a secular concept. Although we can argue about the definition of ethics there is less wiggle room with morality. Morality is very much what your religion commands you to do. Since America is a christian nation (by and large) I am using the christian definition of morality. Which definition of morality are you using?
"Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings.""
You are wrong about that I am afraid. Morality is exactly about making a better human being (actually it's more about trying to attain spiritual purity but it's presumed to be the same thing). You once again have confused ethics and morality.
"Adhering to a code of ethics might be a competitive disadvantage, but it is certainly not contrary to capitalism."
Since capitism is about accumulating wealth and since there is no moral (or ethical) imperitive to accumulate wealth they are indeed opposites. Certainly no religious text ever said "path to god is through accumulating wealth" in fact the opposite is usually true "it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then a camel to go though the eye of a needle" and all that.
"So, capitalism is the optimal system, given the conditions of the planet and the nature of man, that is known at this time."
An odd thing to say. Man is by nature greedy and selfish that is why capitalism works. Capitalism recognized the inherent greed of humans, resigns to it, and attempts to build a system within that framework. Morality on the other hand tries to make people not greedy and selfish. All moral and ethical frameworks exhort people to set aside their greed and think of the greater good while capitalism encourages people to be as selfish as possible. That is why they are opposing forces.
"Hopefully one of these factors will change, or a new system will be devised that is closer to ideal than capitalism."
Capitalism will crumble only when people are not greedy and selfish. That will never come (says me anyway). All religious and spiritual people (not me) believe in their hearts that people can change, can become better then their animal selves and evolve to be a enlightened human being. Once enlightened people will stop thinking of themselves and dedicate themselves to god and serving the rest of humanity. If they are right AND if that ever happens capitalism will crumble. At that point morality will win it's war with capitalism. Until then capitalism will kick moralities ass like a left handed stepchild.
"Until such a time the only "moral" course of action is to operate under the best system available to us."
Morality is not about "making the best of it". It's about absolutes. You are talking about moral relativism which most religious people reject. Morality is to struggle against the material world and not be tempted by it's lures but to continue to seek enlightenment.
and is self-serving. Morality is about behaving in a way that is "right," not about "making better human beings." My following argument, however, will stand using either definition."
It's apparent to me that you have given this matter no thought whatsoever.
First of all making a better human being is not the same thing as bettering humanity. So your whole argument is moot because you could not even read my post correctly and form a response to it.
And before you go on about how accumulating wealth makes one a more moral or ethical person you should pick up the religious text of your choice and try and find where your god tells you to go forth and be rich.
I have said this before on slashdot (and got moderated down for it) but this post says it much better then I have in the past.
Capitalism and ethics (or morality) are mutually exclusive concepts. Capitalism is about making money morality is about making better human beings.
Man are you dense or what?
"Holy lack of logic Batman! Since when does "There is a lot not known" = "We don't know a lot"? "
Since you used the word "imply" you fuckwad.
"Why, because it shows that petroleum engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known? Then this guy must be full of it as well."
Go back and re-read the original document. Now tell me where it proves that "engineers are taught that the origins of petroleum aren't known?". What kind of a fucking idiot are you for christ sake. Name one petrolium engineer in the world who thinks that the "origins of petroleum are not known". You keep making these idiotic statements and you expect people to take you seriously. If you want to push your agenda then at least make an attempt to sound smarter then two dead flies.
Oh one more tip for you. Don't point to some obscure document written in 1996 to re-enforce an obscure document written in 1997 especially if your argument is that we...
a) Don't know anything about the origins of oil.
b) Engieers are taught in schools that we don't know where oil comes from.
c) We don't know a whole lot about the origins of oil.
d) There is a lot we don't know about where oil comes from (as if that was even provable).
So pick an argument from the above and then find some recent knowledge to back it up. Otherwise you are just another dumb idiological fuck who is unable to process information which goes against your beliefs.
BTW. My father worked for Mobil Oil all his life as a chemical engineer (he is now retired). Through him I have met countless engineers and scientists in the oil industry and not one of them would claim that we don't know how oil is made or that we don't know a lot about how oil gets made. The percentage of uncertainlty is probably less then 5%. Go ask them yourself.
"It would only be a choice if we had an alternative. To stop importing oil would destroy the US economy. However, more proven oil reserves would give us added leverage when negotiating with the OPEC states."
We could stop importing oil without ruining the economy if we simply stopped exporting the oil we harvest domestically. Maybe the oil companies would lose a little bit of money but it would not ruin the economy. Small price to pay to be free of middle east oil.
"Why call a bunch of rocks tundra, rocks, plants, and animals have inherent value even when you can't buy it and sell it. Your ethical value system ought to trancend economics.
"Also, making cars more efficient would mean more expensive, smaller, lighter, & therefore less safe cars."
This is patently false.
Smaller cars are not more expensive then bigger cars. More fuel efficient cars are not more expensive then less fuel efficient cars, smaller cars routinely test safer in crash tests then bigger cars. especially considering the higher risk of rollover in larger trucks and SUVs.
There is no scientific correlation between fuel efficiency and price or safety.
"It's an easy decision for Iceland. They're a tiny nation with abundant geothermal resources."
It's not an easy decision anywhere. Maybe it's easier over there I don't know but they ought to be lauded for it anyway because it's the right decision for themselves, for their progeny and for the world.
"when did I imply that we didn't know a lot about petroleum? "
Mmmm let's see perhaps when you said
"The fact is there's still a lot *not* known about petroleum (how its made, how to find it, how to extract it), even by the experts."
Oh yea one more thing your link is just about useless. Class notes from a 1997 lecture? Give me a break. Even if we don't know everything about how oil gets made nobody in right mind is claiming that it is being made faster then it's being used (which is your original thesis). Or maybe your original thesis was that it may be being made faster then it is used.
"Bush's plan doesn't include drilling in ANWR."
If that is the case then why does Gale Norton keep insisting that it's possible to drill in ANWR and not cause any harm. Why do they keep talking about how much there is under ANWR if they have no intention of drilling. Why are you talking as if there is not only oil there but that we should be drilling it right away. Nobody is fooled by this "we are only exploring" bullshit. Even you don't believe it as evidenced by the rest of your post.
"Failing to explore and find new sources of oil (until we eliminate the demand for it) would be gross negligence. This has the potential to help supply our needs and reduce our dependence on imported oil. "
you are presuming that there is not enough oil to meet our future demands so therefore we should be looking for more oil. This is patently not true. You would not need to drill for oil in alaska if you passed a law saying "all oil extracted from US territories can only be sold in the US". Right now it's cheaper to sell alaskan oil to japan and buy saudi oil. Any new oil drilled in alaska will continue to be sold to other countries and will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Our dependency on foreign oil is a choice not a matter of supply and demand. Combine the law I stated above with one saying all cars and trucks must get five more miles to the gallon and you can be free of foreign oil in fact you could probably sell off the excess.
"Finding oil in ANWR will increase the amount of oil available. Now somehow according to your logic, you conclude we shouldn't drill there?"
It's not that we should never drill in ANWR it's that we should not do it until we have to. Why ruin a pristine landscape when you don't have to especially when the alternatives are cheaper and easier to achieve. Even if you started drilling now you would not be able to pull out significant amount of oil for antoher 10 years. We can make more efficient cars NOW, we can conserve NOW, we can stop exporting oil NOW. We can save that oil in Alaska for our grandchildren to use if they need it. When the oil wells elsewhere dry up that oil will be worth thousand times more. It's money in the bank and spending it now would be "gross negligence" and "backwards". Unfortunately the president, the vice president and hundreds of their puppet masters stand to make billions of dollars right now if they drill and stand to lose billions if they encourage efficiency, conservation, and stopping of oil exports. Apparently the selfish profit motive of our top elected officials and their benefactors outweigh the greater good and long term planning.
Iceland is doing the right thing. Stating as a matter of national priority to be free from their oil addiction. Something no president of the US or a congressman would be brave enough to say out loud. More power to them I congratulate them on having enlightened politicians who look out for the welfare of their citizens.
IIRC things like RPM and Webmin were written by Caldera and given away. I am sure there are more.