The hole here is that some people simply are not worth employing at minimum wage. Those people stay unemployed. You can call it a "hole in capitalism", but it wasn't a hole before it got regulated into existence.
There have been such things in the past and they have been very ugly, but there hasn't been a genuine case of unchecked corporate greed since the dissolution of the Congo Free State in 1908. So what's been going on since 1908 is insufficiently checked corporate greed, at least when it's happening and not just completely your imagination.
So what? It remains that even in the complete absence of those regulations, that those businesses are still both the first line of defense against poverty and the primary sources of those taxes either directly or through wages paid. They're the ones paying for those services you claim they use.
Words have the meaning that people give them. You sound like one of those autistic geektards who thinks their own personal definitions are the one and only true definitions. Good luck with that.
And you sound like you're projecting. Yes, words have meanings and they can change over time. But it doesn't take a social outcast to notice that there has been a propaganda effort in recent years to redefine climate change to mean the particular thing of AGW consequences.
No, the term was in use long before him. As I understand it, he proposed use of the term for propaganda purposes. And it looks to me like that term actually is being used for propaganda purposes, just not by the US GOP or the former Bush administration.
People have tried hard to rationalize why using a generic umbrella term for a very specific set of phenomena is scientifically appropriate. But it isn't. Terms are more scientific when they are more descriptive not less.
To further elaborate on my previous question, "wipe our ass" implies to me a gross disregard for the biosphere, not merely doing harm to it. I think this is not borne out by our behavior.
For example, most of the world has to some degree (often a very considerable degree) embraced the conservatism movement and creation of green spaces in urban environments. Similarly, a lot of the world strongly regulates the emission of pollution. That indicates to me that we have a regard for the environment and our biospheres that rises well above the gross disregard claimed by drinkypoo earlier on.
This goes back to my original comment about how some people, like drinkypoo, seem to need to assert that humanity is doing a variety of evil things.
The myth is that we can wipe our ass with the biosphere continually and still live here.
Where's the evidence, scientific or otherwise, that we're doing some sort of metaphorical "wiping of the ass" with the biosphere? There might be a scientific theory that expresses that in quantifiable terms and a large group of people who "commonly accept" that theory. But that doesn't mean anything unless the basis for acceptance is founded on scientific grounds.
For a person who thinks so many moves ahead, you really have a losing style of reasoning and debate.
There is nothing in that paper about increasing geothermal flux. Nothing.
Fortunately, we have other places where we can look. It's well known that volcanoes are not constant in behavior or nature. They have spurts of activity. This is universal behavior for any volcano we can observe, even for relatively well-behaved volcanoes like Mauna Loa or Stromboli.
So for volcanic activity in Antarctica, we would, like any other volcanic activity on the planet, expect it to have periods of greater and lesser activity. So while it hasn't been shown that there is increasing geothermal flux (it may well be ice melting in the face of decreasing geothermal flux), this is something that has a greater effect than previously thought on the current situation in Antarctica.
And how much warming does that "simple" phenomena cause? It's interesting how much effort is devoted to debating the radiative model and how little to whether global warming is a serious threat or not, or if it is, what, if anything we should do about it.
It's just on a bigger scale, and frankly you are doing it slower than Japan did it, which is saying something.
Actually, that feat is rather impressive for both Japan and China. I wouldn't discount it just because you think it could be done a little faster. For example, Japan went from another primitive backwater to a world power in about 60-80 years. It took the US about 120 years from its inception to do the same and they had the advantage of trade and far more resources.
In comparison, China in 1980 was about where it was in 1950 except with more poor people. It got to where it is now inside of 35 years.
You can't claim that an assertion which does not make precise claims makes extreme claims.
Sure, I can. Consider the following counterexample:
"To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."
It's an assertion. It is far from precise since the assertion says nothing about why it is considered true or what is going to be done as a result. But it is an obviously extreme statement since the opinion of destroying people merely because you think their destruction would be no loss is an extreme outlier in human thought.
Why should I ever feel guilt? If my actions are harmful, then I merely need to correct them.
But you aren't.
Well, you are right in that I don't feel guilt. But you have yet to provide evidence for the claim that I'm engaging in harmful behavior.
Others have done. You have presented no counter-evidence. I am merely pointing that out.
Others have merely asserted that. Evidence is still required. It's also worth noting that this crowd doesn't do cost-benefit. Just because there is a cost doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit which makes the activity net-beneficial.
And what sort of counter-evidence should I provide in addition to what is already in the thread? We already have you with your breezy assertions and tunnel-vision morality. What else do I need here?
To use a recent example, 6.6% of the voting-age populace voted for Dave Brat in Virginia's 7th district primary (only 12% of the voting age populace voted at all).
That's a primary for a private political group, not an election. Brat still has to survive the general election in order to become a congressman.
The vast majority of credible scientists are saying that we are.
No, you merely think that. Just because there is general agreement that humanity is increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, doesn't mean that those same scientists agree with your more extreme claims. This is a huge bias on your part and typical of what you've posted over the past few days. The basis premises of the arguments you present throughout the thread are so bad and poorly founded, one can't go beyond them.
It's not guilt given to you for free, it's guilt you've earned.
More of the same. Why should I ever feel guilt? If my actions are harmful, then I merely need to correct them. Problem gets solved without any need for guilt. But you have to show first that my actions are harmful, not merely assume it as you have done here.
Or we could not do that and have a better world instead.
the first steps should include restricting births across the planet
People voluntarily restrict their reproduction when they are wealthy. The developed world demonstrates this readily.
stop building crap houses that last less than 50 years before major repairs
And why should a house last more than 50 years? It's not that much in the way of resources to build a new house every 50 years or merely repair the old one every so often.
shutting down the social model of "work -car - suburb -career" when we already live in a world of automation.
Note this is really a US-centric viewpoint. This social model works great in the US. But if you look at what is proposed you see three things happening. First, end of the ability to provide for oneself ("work" and "career"). Second, end of mobility ("car"). There are important roles (such as running daily errands) where nothing beats a car - not a bike, mass transit, etc. Third, end of personal housing ("suburb") means moving everyone into dense housing. That usually ends up being a mess (just look at any city for example). That's going to result in "better living arrangements"? No way.
So somehow it's better for people to be imprisoned in some shithole, completely dependent on a wowtech (which they will have no control over) for their very survival, rather than living their own lives in freedom?
We must reduce consumption and make better living arrangements for everyone.
Cosumption is not a dirty word. It is half of what we do when we make the world a better place or a worse place. Certain things have to be consumed in order for other things to happen. And we already are making better living arrangements for everyone on the planet through the current approach even if only a portion of the world embraces the particular US approach you are criticizing.
Land and strategic position in the Middle East. If the "Arabs" had won, that would have meant territory for the countries neighboring on Israel and a stronger strategic position for the USSR in the largest oil bearing region in the world.
Last we heard, the Korean peninsula wasn't rich in anything
Except an economy currently sized over a trillion dollars.
The current Syrian Civil War?
Misuse of resources particularly agriculture. There's a lot of starving people out there.
The Afghan Civil War that brought in the Taliban?
The USSR wanted access to a warm water port and of course, those minerals that they supposedly didn't know about.
Support rate is well over 50% of the people who vote. Those congresscritters don't get reelected on only 7% of the populace. I'd say it's more like a third. But of course, all the other congresscritters suck. That's the nature of the game.
Does that link have some relevance to the matter at hand? Or are you volunteering to be example 3?
I'm aware that CO2 levels are increasing, likely due to human activity. I also don't consider that a demonstration that humanity is "wiping its ass" with the biosphere.
Fact C: you ignore all the other ways humanity changes climate. Somehow emitting CO2 is more important than habitat destruction or desertification (both which on their own cause more harm), for example. Or overpopulation which drives all of these problems.
Now, I'm aware that humanity has the capacity to deal with more than one problem at a time. But even so, that doesn't explain why so much of the world chooses to prioritize AGW over more important problems like the ones I mention.
So you know how to cite, maybe. Do you know how to reason or argue coherently too? Else, you're just another example for my little argument. I find it a bit bizarre how people came eagerly jumping into this thread exhibiting exactly the sort of behavior I've been tut-tutting.
And scientists say we aren't too. Not everyone has drunk the kool aid.
Obviously I don't care what you have to say about it, who the fuck are you?
I'm the person for whom you are volunteering to be an example of the psychological phenomenon of original sin or whatever it's morphed into these days. Obviously, I don't care that you don't care. But thanks for the demonstration.
The myth is that we can wipe our ass with the biosphere continually and still live here.
If you need to feel bad to change your habits, then I hope you do. Otherwise, all else equal I would prefer that you feel good about yourself, because hurt people hurt people.
Thank you for providing supporting evidence. We're not actually doing that, but you choose to believe it anyway.
I challenge to find any period in Earth's history outside of something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano eruption where climate changed as fast as it is during the present period.
Well, there we go. Already making exceptions. Recall that the criteria was "This particular change is projected to be more severe than prior changes which these penguins have been through, which is why it's interesting." They've been through a lot including supervolcano eruptions.
As time marches on, more of the days will be like this until the point is reached where power becomes close to free. The US is falling behind with it's stubborn resistance to change and it will end up paying for that stubbornness as her remaining industry flees to the green pastures of cheap energy.
Funny how expensive US power is half the price of "free" German power. I bet that as time marches on and fossil fuels get obsoleted in the US, US power will remain cheaper than German power.
Slashdot Mirror
The hole here is that some people simply are not worth employing at minimum wage. Those people stay unemployed. You can call it a "hole in capitalism", but it wasn't a hole before it got regulated into existence.
the problem is unchecked corporate greed...
There have been such things in the past and they have been very ugly, but there hasn't been a genuine case of unchecked corporate greed since the dissolution of the Congo Free State in 1908. So what's been going on since 1908 is insufficiently checked corporate greed, at least when it's happening and not just completely your imagination.
So what? It remains that even in the complete absence of those regulations, that those businesses are still both the first line of defense against poverty and the primary sources of those taxes either directly or through wages paid. They're the ones paying for those services you claim they use.
Words have the meaning that people give them. You sound like one of those autistic geektards who thinks their own personal definitions are the one and only true definitions. Good luck with that.
And you sound like you're projecting. Yes, words have meanings and they can change over time. But it doesn't take a social outcast to notice that there has been a propaganda effort in recent years to redefine climate change to mean the particular thing of AGW consequences.
No, the term was in use long before him. As I understand it, he proposed use of the term for propaganda purposes. And it looks to me like that term actually is being used for propaganda purposes, just not by the US GOP or the former Bush administration.
People have tried hard to rationalize why using a generic umbrella term for a very specific set of phenomena is scientifically appropriate. But it isn't. Terms are more scientific when they are more descriptive not less.
To further elaborate on my previous question, "wipe our ass" implies to me a gross disregard for the biosphere, not merely doing harm to it. I think this is not borne out by our behavior.
For example, most of the world has to some degree (often a very considerable degree) embraced the conservatism movement and creation of green spaces in urban environments. Similarly, a lot of the world strongly regulates the emission of pollution. That indicates to me that we have a regard for the environment and our biospheres that rises well above the gross disregard claimed by drinkypoo earlier on.
This goes back to my original comment about how some people, like drinkypoo, seem to need to assert that humanity is doing a variety of evil things.
It is, at the moment, commonly accepted scientific theory.
I think you've forgotten what you claimed.
The myth is that we can wipe our ass with the biosphere continually and still live here.
Where's the evidence, scientific or otherwise, that we're doing some sort of metaphorical "wiping of the ass" with the biosphere? There might be a scientific theory that expresses that in quantifiable terms and a large group of people who "commonly accept" that theory. But that doesn't mean anything unless the basis for acceptance is founded on scientific grounds.
For a person who thinks so many moves ahead, you really have a losing style of reasoning and debate.
There is nothing in that paper about increasing geothermal flux. Nothing.
Fortunately, we have other places where we can look. It's well known that volcanoes are not constant in behavior or nature. They have spurts of activity. This is universal behavior for any volcano we can observe, even for relatively well-behaved volcanoes like Mauna Loa or Stromboli.
So for volcanic activity in Antarctica, we would, like any other volcanic activity on the planet, expect it to have periods of greater and lesser activity. So while it hasn't been shown that there is increasing geothermal flux (it may well be ice melting in the face of decreasing geothermal flux), this is something that has a greater effect than previously thought on the current situation in Antarctica.
And how much warming does that "simple" phenomena cause? It's interesting how much effort is devoted to debating the radiative model and how little to whether global warming is a serious threat or not, or if it is, what, if anything we should do about it.
Actually, that feat is rather impressive for both Japan and China. I wouldn't discount it just because you think it could be done a little faster. For example, Japan went from another primitive backwater to a world power in about 60-80 years. It took the US about 120 years from its inception to do the same and they had the advantage of trade and far more resources.
In comparison, China in 1980 was about where it was in 1950 except with more poor people. It got to where it is now inside of 35 years.
You whine about hypocrisy and then this? Where's your extraordinary evidence that supports your opinions?
You can't claim that an assertion which does not make precise claims makes extreme claims.
Sure, I can. Consider the following counterexample:
"To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss."
It's an assertion. It is far from precise since the assertion says nothing about why it is considered true or what is going to be done as a result. But it is an obviously extreme statement since the opinion of destroying people merely because you think their destruction would be no loss is an extreme outlier in human thought.
Well, you are right in that I don't feel guilt. But you have yet to provide evidence for the claim that I'm engaging in harmful behavior.
Others have merely asserted that. Evidence is still required. It's also worth noting that this crowd doesn't do cost-benefit. Just because there is a cost doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit which makes the activity net-beneficial.
And what sort of counter-evidence should I provide in addition to what is already in the thread? We already have you with your breezy assertions and tunnel-vision morality. What else do I need here?
To use a recent example, 6.6% of the voting-age populace voted for Dave Brat in Virginia's 7th district primary (only 12% of the voting age populace voted at all).
That's a primary for a private political group, not an election. Brat still has to survive the general election in order to become a congressman.
The vast majority of credible scientists are saying that we are.
No, you merely think that. Just because there is general agreement that humanity is increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, doesn't mean that those same scientists agree with your more extreme claims. This is a huge bias on your part and typical of what you've posted over the past few days. The basis premises of the arguments you present throughout the thread are so bad and poorly founded, one can't go beyond them.
It's not guilt given to you for free, it's guilt you've earned.
More of the same. Why should I ever feel guilt? If my actions are harmful, then I merely need to correct them. Problem gets solved without any need for guilt. But you have to show first that my actions are harmful, not merely assume it as you have done here.
And your argument is one giant appeal to authority. There is no substance here. Show me the evidence or GTFO.
the first steps should include restricting births across the planet
People voluntarily restrict their reproduction when they are wealthy. The developed world demonstrates this readily.
stop building crap houses that last less than 50 years before major repairs
And why should a house last more than 50 years? It's not that much in the way of resources to build a new house every 50 years or merely repair the old one every so often.
shutting down the social model of "work -car - suburb -career" when we already live in a world of automation.
Note this is really a US-centric viewpoint. This social model works great in the US. But if you look at what is proposed you see three things happening. First, end of the ability to provide for oneself ("work" and "career"). Second, end of mobility ("car"). There are important roles (such as running daily errands) where nothing beats a car - not a bike, mass transit, etc. Third, end of personal housing ("suburb") means moving everyone into dense housing. That usually ends up being a mess (just look at any city for example). That's going to result in "better living arrangements"? No way.
So somehow it's better for people to be imprisoned in some shithole, completely dependent on a wowtech (which they will have no control over) for their very survival, rather than living their own lives in freedom?
We must reduce consumption and make better living arrangements for everyone.
Cosumption is not a dirty word. It is half of what we do when we make the world a better place or a worse place. Certain things have to be consumed in order for other things to happen. And we already are making better living arrangements for everyone on the planet through the current approach even if only a portion of the world embraces the particular US approach you are criticizing.
How about the Israeli-Arab wars?
Land and strategic position in the Middle East. If the "Arabs" had won, that would have meant territory for the countries neighboring on Israel and a stronger strategic position for the USSR in the largest oil bearing region in the world.
Last we heard, the Korean peninsula wasn't rich in anything
Except an economy currently sized over a trillion dollars.
The current Syrian Civil War?
Misuse of resources particularly agriculture. There's a lot of starving people out there.
The Afghan Civil War that brought in the Taliban?
The USSR wanted access to a warm water port and of course, those minerals that they supposedly didn't know about.
Compared to 7% support rate of US congress
Support rate is well over 50% of the people who vote. Those congresscritters don't get reelected on only 7% of the populace. I'd say it's more like a third. But of course, all the other congresscritters suck. That's the nature of the game.
Does that link have some relevance to the matter at hand? Or are you volunteering to be example 3?
I'm aware that CO2 levels are increasing, likely due to human activity. I also don't consider that a demonstration that humanity is "wiping its ass" with the biosphere.
Fact C: you ignore all the other ways humanity changes climate. Somehow emitting CO2 is more important than habitat destruction or desertification (both which on their own cause more harm), for example. Or overpopulation which drives all of these problems.
Now, I'm aware that humanity has the capacity to deal with more than one problem at a time. But even so, that doesn't explain why so much of the world chooses to prioritize AGW over more important problems like the ones I mention.
So you know how to cite, maybe. Do you know how to reason or argue coherently too? Else, you're just another example for my little argument. I find it a bit bizarre how people came eagerly jumping into this thread exhibiting exactly the sort of behavior I've been tut-tutting.
and scientists say we are.
And scientists say we aren't too. Not everyone has drunk the kool aid.
Obviously I don't care what you have to say about it, who the fuck are you?
I'm the person for whom you are volunteering to be an example of the psychological phenomenon of original sin or whatever it's morphed into these days. Obviously, I don't care that you don't care. But thanks for the demonstration.
The myth is that we can wipe our ass with the biosphere continually and still live here.
If you need to feel bad to change your habits, then I hope you do. Otherwise, all else equal I would prefer that you feel good about yourself, because hurt people hurt people.
Thank you for providing supporting evidence. We're not actually doing that, but you choose to believe it anyway.
I challenge to find any period in Earth's history outside of something like an asteroid strike or a supervolcano eruption where climate changed as fast as it is during the present period.
Well, there we go. Already making exceptions. Recall that the criteria was "This particular change is projected to be more severe than prior changes which these penguins have been through, which is why it's interesting." They've been through a lot including supervolcano eruptions.
As time marches on, more of the days will be like this until the point is reached where power becomes close to free. The US is falling behind with it's stubborn resistance to change and it will end up paying for that stubbornness as her remaining industry flees to the green pastures of cheap energy.
Funny how expensive US power is half the price of "free" German power. I bet that as time marches on and fossil fuels get obsoleted in the US, US power will remain cheaper than German power.