No, Capitalism Doesn’t Threaten Humanity

[Pwns]

Renewables will never be viable until a time when the world population is significantly less than it is now. You can't make a square foot of sunlight or air moving at a certain speed contain more power than it already does, you can't control the weather, and every new acre used is going to have diminishing returns because some place is better than others.

Ultimately the goal should be moving towards something like Thorium which would be a fuel source it would take a very long time to exhaust or maybe towards using fusion power fed by electrolysis of water.

[JohnStOnge]

I am a conservative. But one thing I've always had a problem with pertaining to economic theory is the implied assumption that infinite growth is possible. It is not. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Fossil fuel supplies are indeed finite. A lot of what's been happening over the past 200 years...and really more like just the past 130 years or so...has been fueled by fossil fuels. 130 years is a blink of an eye in the context of the history of our species and much less than that in the context of geologic time. The argument that it's going to be fine indefinitely because it's been fine so far is specious.

The argument incorporating the graph of climate related deaths over time is pretty bad too. Obviously, there are many factors associated with that. It does not at all refute the idea that, for the long term, climate change could be very damaging. There may be other arguments. But the climate related deaths thing is pretty bad.

John, you make good points but your hatred for all things Trump has blinded you and you are far too biased to be considered a conservative.

I know it's rare when we have political discussions nowadays but we were not even talking about Trump. I know I write about Trump a lot and I think that's appropriate because he represents a real problem for our country. But I was not even thinking about Trump in this case.

[JohnStOnge]

No. I think growth (and I’m assuming you mean human population growth) will self-regulate at some point (and somewhat already does)...

No, I meant infinite economic growth. Do you think the idea that the economy can infinitely grow is part of the capitalist model? If so, do you think that infinite economic growth is possible?

[GannonFan]

No. I think growth (and I’m assuming you mean human population growth) will self-regulate at some point (and somewhat already does)...

No, I meant infinite economic growth. Do you think the idea that the economy can infinitely grow is part of the capitalist model? If so, do you think that infinite economic growth is possible?

Of course it is. Pretty big universe out there, and most of it's empty. Plenty of room for what will look like infinite growth.

[UNI88]

John, you make good points but your hatred for all things Trump has blinded you and you are far too biased to be considered a conservative.

I know it's rare when we have political discussions nowadays but we were not even talking about Trump. I know I write about Trump a lot and I think that's appropriate because he represents a real problem for our country. But I was not even thinking about Trump in this case.

John, I brought up Trump because your bias against him colors everything you type and brings into question what kind of conservative you are. You could probably convince me that you are a social conservative and and a chronological conservative (longing for the good old days when African Americans knew their place) but I don't think you qualify as an economic conservative.

I don't like Trump. I think he's an untrustworthy buffoon and if my daughter were an 18+ y/o beauty pageant contestant, I wouldn't let him anywhere near her. But I think he has done some good things as President and I think it is debatable if he is less trustworthy than Hillary, Biden, etc. You refuse to acknowledge the positive things that Trump has done. Any time he or his cronies are accused of something, you take it as a sign of guilt and any time his opponents are accused of something you require a higher standard of evidence. Your bias clouds your judgement.

[Ivytalk]

No, I meant infinite economic growth. Do you think the idea that the economy can infinitely grow is part of the capitalist model? If so, do you think that infinite economic growth is possible?

Of course it is. Pretty big universe out there, and most of it's empty. Plenty of room for what will look like infinite growth.

Don’t go all Carl Sagan on me now!

[CAA Flagship]

Of course it is. Pretty big universe out there, and most of it's empty. Plenty of room for what will look like infinite growth.

Don’t go all Carl Sagan on me now!

Sagan? Is that the guy from NFL Films?

[GannonFan]

Don’t go all Carl Sagan on me now!

Sagan? Is that the guy from NFL Films?

People always bring up the "frozen tundra" line, but for me, I thought the best NFL Films one were the Joe and the magic pea they did with Super Bowl 3 and the one bit they did when they spoofed that the NFL went metric. Quality stuff there.

[AZGrizFan]

No. I think growth (and I’m assuming you mean human population growth) will self-regulate at some point (and somewhat already does)...

No, I meant infinite economic growth. Do you think the idea that the economy can infinitely grow is part of the capitalist model? If so, do you think that infinite economic growth is possible?

The economy doesn't infinitely grow. It grows and shrinks. That's why we have these things called recessions.

[AZGrizFan]

Renewables will never be viable until a time when the world population is significantly less than it is now. You can't make a square foot of sunlight or air moving at a certain speed contain more power than it already does, you can't control the weather, and every new acre used is going to have diminishing returns because some place is better than others.

Ultimately the goal should be moving towards something like Thorium which would be a fuel source it would take a very long time to exhaust or maybe towards using fusion power fed by electrolysis of water.

True, but you CAN increase the efficiency with which you CAPTURE that power. And the efficiency with which you transmit that power. And the efficiency in the machines that USE that power. Things like that.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say we can't control the weather.

[JohnStOnge]

I know it's rare when we have political discussions nowadays but we were not even talking about Trump. I know I write about Trump a lot and I think that's appropriate because he represents a real problem for our country. But I was not even thinking about Trump in this case.

John, I brought up Trump because your bias against him colors everything you type and brings into question what kind of conservative you are.

It's not bias. It's objectivity. That is the problem. People are viewing objectivity as bias with respect to Trump. The objective truth is that Trump is awful. The objective truth is that the fact that we have a critical mass of people within our population that would vote for somebody like Trump is a problem.

I am not biased with respect to Trump. I am accurate.

Bias is accepting and/or making excuses for Trump because one has historically been a conservative and now Trump is a Republican President. Objectivity is saying that, even though one has historically been conservative and voted Republican, the Republican Party went over the line in nominating Trump and has continued to go farther over the line by supporting him in cult-like fashion.

As to the kind of conservative I am: I am the kind of conservative that has principles.

[kalm]

No, I meant infinite economic growth. Do you think the idea that the economy can infinitely grow is part of the capitalist model? If so, do you think that infinite economic growth is possible?

Of course it is. Pretty big universe out there, and most of it's empty. Plenty of room for what will look like infinite growth.

So the universe and its resources are infinite? And they are obtainable to earthlings?

[AZGrizFan]

Of course it is. Pretty big universe out there, and most of it's empty. Plenty of room for what will look like infinite growth.

So the universe and its resources are infinite? And they are obtainable to earthlings?

500 years ago they thought the earth was flat. Fifty years ago we sent men to the moon with less computing power than you now hold in your hand when you open a music-playing birthday card.

You guys keep making these negative assumptions based on what we know TODAY. Something tells me that’ll change over the next couple hundred years...

[GannonFan]

Of course it is. Pretty big universe out there, and most of it's empty. Plenty of room for what will look like infinite growth.

So the universe and its resources are infinite? And they are obtainable to earthlings?

Of course it's not infinite in absolute terms, but relative to us at this point in time, it certainly is infinite. It's like a calculus limit exercise. And yes, at some point in time, it will be available to earthlings. I have faith in the technological progress of humanity. I mean, taken in aggregate, we've always progressed.

[UNI88]

John, I brought up Trump because your bias against him colors everything you type and brings into question what kind of conservative you are.

It's not bias. It's objectivity. That is the problem. People are viewing objectivity as bias with respect to Trump. The objective truth is that Trump is awful. The objective truth is that the fact that we have a critical mass of people within our population that would vote for somebody like Trump is a problem.

I am not biased with respect to Trump. I am accurate.

Bias is accepting and/or making excuses for Trump because one has historically been a conservative and now Trump is a Republican President. Objectivity is saying that, even though one has historically been conservative and voted Republican, the Republican Party went over the line in nominating Trump and has continued to go farther over the line by supporting him in cult-like fashion.

As to the kind of conservative I am: I am the kind of conservative that has principles.

Thank you for expressing your subjective opinion.

[AZGrizFan]

John, I brought up Trump because your bias against him colors everything you type and brings into question what kind of conservative you are.

It's not bias. It's objectivity. That is the problem. People are viewing objectivity as bias with respect to Trump. The objective truth is that Trump is awful. The objective truth is that the fact that we have a critical mass of people within our population that would vote for somebody like Trump is a problem.

I am not biased with respect to Trump. I am accurate.

Bias is accepting and/or making excuses for Trump because one has historically been a conservative and now Trump is a Republican President. Objectivity is saying that, even though one has historically been conservative and voted Republican, the Republican Party went over the line in nominating Trump and has continued to go farther over the line by supporting him in cult-like fashion.

As to the kind of conservative I am: I am the kind of conservative that has principles.

The 'objective' fact is that all the alternatives put forth by the donks are more awfuler.

[JohnStOnge]

Of course it is. Pretty big universe out there, and most of it's empty. Plenty of room for what will look like infinite growth.

So the universe and its resources are infinite? And they are obtainable to earthlings?

The key is the "obtainable to earthlings" part. If our species finds a way to make travel throughout even our within reasonably short time frames feasible AND we find habitable planets the outlook would be different.

But with our current technology it would take us thousands of years. According to the article at https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how ... rest-star/ the theoretical technology (warp drive) that would make the trip to the star nearest to our sun (Proxima Centauri) would get us there in about 4 years. But Proxima Centauri is "only" 4.24 light years away. The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. Also, nobody knows that warp drive is even possible.

I do think that if we want to think in terms of the indefinite persistence of our species we need to think in terms of interstellar travel. But it is a daunting task.

[kalm]

So the universe and its resources are infinite? And they are obtainable to earthlings?

The key is the "obtainable to earthlings" part. If our species finds a way to make travel throughout even our within reasonably short time frames feasible AND we find habitable planets the outlook would be different.

But with our current technology it would take us thousands of years. According to the article at https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how ... rest-star/ the theoretical technology (warp drive) that would make the trip to the star nearest to our sun (Proxima Centauri) would get us there in about 4 years. But Proxima Centauri is "only" 4.24 light years away. The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. Also, nobody knows that warp drive is even possible.

I do think that if we want to think in terms of the indefinite persistence of our species we need to think in terms of interstellar travel. But it is a daunting task.

From what I’ve heard, those rocks flying around carry a shit ton of resources and we might be closer to harvesting them than one might think.

[Ivytalk]

The key is the "obtainable to earthlings" part. If our species finds a way to make travel throughout even our within reasonably short time frames feasible AND we find habitable planets the outlook would be different.

But with our current technology it would take us thousands of years. According to the article at https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how ... rest-star/ the theoretical technology (warp drive) that would make the trip to the star nearest to our sun (Proxima Centauri) would get us there in about 4 years. But Proxima Centauri is "only" 4.24 light years away. The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. Also, nobody knows that warp drive is even possible.

I do think that if we want to think in terms of the indefinite persistence of our species we need to think in terms of interstellar travel. But it is a daunting task.

From what I’ve heard, those rocks flying around carry a shit ton of resources and we might be closer to harvesting them than one might think.

Including the “rare earths” that the evil Red Chunks are now monopolizing.

[kalm]

From what I’ve heard, those rocks flying around carry a shit ton of resources and we might be closer to harvesting them than one might think.

Including the “rare earths” that the evil Red Chunks are now monopolizing.

Elon Musk talked about it on Rogan. The tech is already there, so is private funding, and planning is under way.

[GannonFan]

So the universe and its resources are infinite? And they are obtainable to earthlings?

The key is the "obtainable to earthlings" part. If our species finds a way to make travel throughout even our within reasonably short time frames feasible AND we find habitable planets the outlook would be different.

But with our current technology it would take us thousands of years. According to the article at https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how ... rest-star/ the theoretical technology (warp drive) that would make the trip to the star nearest to our sun (Proxima Centauri) would get us there in about 4 years. But Proxima Centauri is "only" 4.24 light years away. The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. Also, nobody knows that warp drive is even possible.

I do think that if we want to think in terms of the indefinite persistence of our species we need to think in terms of interstellar travel. But it is a daunting task.

We only started flying in the air a little more than 100 years ago. Technological advances happen pretty quickly. People 100 years from now will be amazed how backwards we look by comparison. I have a lot of faith in the innovation of humans.

[Pwns]

Including the “rare earths” that the evil Red Chunks are now monopolizing.

Elon Musk talked about it on Rogan. The tech is already there, so is private funding, and planning is under way.

It's not a question of can get there and get back.

IT's a question of how economical it is. Getting even a small amount of cargo space into space is expensive, and you have to come back with enough precious metals to make it worthwhile.

[Chizzang]

Elon Musk talked about it on Rogan. The tech is already there, so is private funding, and planning is under way.

It's not a question of can get there and get back.

IT's a question of how economical it is. Getting even a small amount of cargo space into space is expensive, and you have to come back with enough precious metals to make it worthwhile.

Well I saw the movie Alien back in 1979
and they were hauling thousands of metric tonnes of ore... So I'm pretty sure you're wrong



capitalism was absolutely a threat to humanity (because they had a little nasty on board)

[UNI88]

The key is the "obtainable to earthlings" part. If our species finds a way to make travel throughout even our within reasonably short time frames feasible AND we find habitable planets the outlook would be different.

But with our current technology it would take us thousands of years. According to the article at https://www.universetoday.com/15403/how ... rest-star/ the theoretical technology (warp drive) that would make the trip to the star nearest to our sun (Proxima Centauri) would get us there in about 4 years. But Proxima Centauri is "only" 4.24 light years away. The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years across. Also, nobody knows that warp drive is even possible.

I do think that if we want to think in terms of the indefinite persistence of our species we need to think in terms of interstellar travel. But it is a daunting task.

We only started flying in the air a little more than 100 years ago. Technological advances happen pretty quickly. People 100 years from now will be amazed how backwards we look by comparison. I have a lot of faith in the innovation of humans.

phpBB [video]