1. A slave to two rhythms, the 22nd Terraining Contest is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. The heavens smile on the old faithful. The 16th Techtree Contest has begun.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. The die is cast - the 6th Melee Mapping Contest results have been announced. Onward to the Hive Cup!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. The glory of the 20th Icon Contest is yours for the taking!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Shoot to thrill, play to kill. Sate your hunger with the 33rd Modeling Contest!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Do you hear boss music? It's the 17th Mini Mapping Contest!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Life without capitalism? Possible?

Discussion in 'Medivh's Tower' started by CMarket, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Through the use of automation and application of technology, it is totally possible to create a society without money, with little to no human labor, and no contracts. Currently, our system encourages corruption and greed and doesn't give a shit about the planet. How can you support a system where 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth? How can you support a system that doesn't encourage ethical behavior because it's unprofitable? How can you support a system that cannot account for technological unemployment? What will happen when 50% of jobs are automated. Will the 50% without work starve to death? We cannot fix capitalism, because it only works on the idea that people sell their labor for money. People eventually won't be able to compete with machines and then capitalism is really doomed, assuming the earth hasn't already been made uninhabitable by our wasteful ways.

    We need a new system like a Resource Based Economy.
     
  2. Gespenst

    Gespenst

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Restating my previous argument, People are competitive in nature. Because of the finite nature of earth's resources, not everyone can be supported at the same comfortable level. There will inevitably be shortages due to the virulent nature of mankind. Humans have become the masters of the natural world but not of their consumptive reality. These shortages may inevitably cause a group of individuals to expire. How, then, can we decide who lives and dies? Capitalism is one of the most agreeable methods of measuring success and determining quality of lifestyle. Everyone has the opportunity to suceed, although granted not all situations are "fair", But in any system people risk failure and possibly death caused by poverty. Capitalism is superior in that it attempts to be objective in its selection, theoretically relying solely on individual effort/choices. In your proposed solution of machinizing the unskilled labor pool, you are essentially proposing the phasing-out of humans from the economical system, killing the purpose of an economical system in the first place. You cannot half-remove humanity, even removing a part of society is admitting to the weakness of consumptive organic life in favor of self-sufficient synthetic life which would inevitably replace the then obsolete humanity, if such a thing were the least possible.

    It is true that you cannot "fix" capitalism, but that is only because you cannot "fix" humanity. Not in any forseeable future.
     
  3. CMarket

    CMarket

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,233
    Resources:
    12
    Maps:
    12
    Resources:
    12
    Perhaps you just might, although it would be costly.

    If we root out greed, pride, envy and sloth out of humans (although, preferably all seven would bi nice) through generations we just might be able to create a planet, somewhat communistic, but less strict, a utopia.

    Of course, which crime lord, politician and corporate head would volunteer, especially being spoiled by so much wealth for too long, to sacrifice it all for the greater good. But, if, somehow, you were to appeal to humanity now and make them teach their children about real values, objective and true, and then let them teach their children and so on, for maybe five generations, you just might be able to create utopia, free of the oppression and tyranny of cash.

    But, as I said, this is a theory and it will 99.99% just stay a theory, never being put into practice.
     
  4. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    That's completely false. The world has more than enough resources to support everyone. The only reason we can't right now is because it's not profitable yet to deal with waste and recycling.

    Humans ARE NOT NATURALLY COMPETITIVE. If people were competitive, then why would we need capitalism? Isn't capitalism supposed to encourage competitive behavior? We don't have to compete for resources anymore. We can "CREATE" abundance for everyone. Look at all the fucking money and resources we spend on war. You don't think there is plenty to go around? Before WW2 the US was in the worst depression ever. The stores and shops were full of goods, but nobody had purchasing power. As soon as the war started, we went from creating almost no goods to making hundreds of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, guns, and ships. How could we do that if we had no money and we were in a terrible depression? Because we had the resources.

    If you can't see that there is plenty of resources to go around (except Oil but who gives a shit about that) then you must be blind. Farmers get paid not to grow crops. Most of our farmland isn't being used. It just sits there doing nothing.

    You're right, not everyone can own a fucking mile long house and live like bill gates. Not everyone can own 20 sports cars and live like a fucking celebrity. But nobody needs to live like that. We could all live better than kings if we apply technology and let science loose.

    Your other statement about humans becoming outdated is foolish in my opinion. You've already been replaced by machines, but I don't think you're going to kill yourself. Technology is improving our lifestyles, so without humans, there would be no point for technology to exist. So essentially your argument would devolve into, "there's no point in anything existing" Tell me if I'm wrong.
     
  5. Gespenst

    Gespenst

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    How can you be so naive to say that there are enough resources for everyone? If that is true, why isn't everyone well fed/housed? What, do you think we have some sort of magical abundance? That if you plant seeds, full and nutritious crops will grow every time for the rest of eternity? Even if every bit of available cropland were used, risk of overfarming is still a restricting factor. You cannot create more than there is, no matter how technology and science advances.

    The USA currently has 3 times as much population than it did during the WW2 Era(132,164,569, 309,449,000), China(1,337,960,000) and India(1,181,660,000), the worlds 2 most populated countries, have nearly 3 times the current population than that of the USA. When an issue in the contemporary world is overpopulation(and linked resource strain), do not cite outdated evidence to support yourself. The depresion was the direct result of economic failure, and not of anything logistical.

    Humans ARE naturally competetive. Competition in order to sate basic personal needs. Capitalism is a method of chanelling that competitive nature into a civilized world. Why else do some people feel such a monentary greed? Wealth is equated to success, and people compete for success. Thus, People compete for Wealth in a capitalistic society; that is the basis of captalism. Simply by holding a job you are competing and partaking of capitalism. While it may not seem like blatent competition in the moment, you compete against your neighbor for a position vital to your livelihood.

    I wasn't stating that humans would be(or even could be) replaced by machines, and as you said, machines have replaced certain human jobs, usually in mundane, repetitive, and ungratifying positions that have a psychologically negative effect on humans anyways. I was only arguing that if machines were sophisticated and prevalent enough as to be able to replace the complete labor pool, Skilled and Unskilled, that they would be independent enough to exist without human overlords. That such complex machines would not need to support consumptive humans. If something replaces your position in nature, it is not because you "killed yourself", but because it killed you, or otherwise bested your position in the natural heirarchy(food chain). This discusses the AI dilemma, but only in response to what you brought up about machines replacing the entire labor pool(a category of which an absolute majority of people belong in, if you lump in unemployed).
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2010
  6. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    The reason everyone isn't housed and fed is because a lot of people don't have the purchasing power to own homes. Why are there thousands of homes that have become toxic assets when there are still needy people? Also, in a resource based economy, your home wouldn't need to be that large, and in fact you might not even have a home. The whole world becomes your home! All you really need is a dry and warm place to sleep. You don't think we could provide a warm and dry place to sleep for everyone. I think it's extremely arrogant to think that this system does a good job of allocating resources. That's like saying certain people deserve to die because they don't have the same opportunities you do.

    I know the depression was economic failure. THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT. Our current economic system can fail even though there's no shortage of resources or demand. Also I never said overpopulation wasn't or won't be a problem. Yes it would be good if we reduced the population, but we can still support the current population. We do have the resources, we just don't have the incentive. When the only incentive is money, that's all people will strive for. I think history has proven that our government and corporations don't give a shit about people. They just want your money.

    I understand what competition is. Humans are not naturally competitive. You are only competitive because you have been raised in a competitive environment. Humans aren't born with greed and a propensity to hoard. We learn that along the way when you see advertisements and other people bragging about what they own. Also people want to be accepted by society and one way of doing that is becoming wealthy because like you said, people do equate wealth with success, BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF THIS SYSTEM. In a resource based economy, nobody would give a shit if you had a trillion dollars.

    When I meant labor force, I was talking about boring repetitive tasks. Why would we replace tasks people want to do? The whole point of these machines is to improve peoples lives. If people like doing certain tasks, then why would we take that from them? Now you may say that some people like gardening. Well they can do that alongside the robots if they wish.

    Why do you think machines would transcend us? If anything, we are going to make our bodies transcend their current forms. AI is still a very long way from surpassing human intellect and even if it does, we'll put it to good use improving people's lives. Machines would only want to transcend us if we programmed them to do that, in which case we would sort of be "replacing" ourselves. Humans control machines. Machines only do what we make them do. Please remember that. Machines exist to improve HUMANS lives, not to replace us as organisms (unless we make them do that in which case we can't complain).


    I would like to add, that if you removed all social stratification, crime goes byebye. There would be virtually no crime except MAYBE (and I doubt this) crimes of passion.
     
  7. Gespenst

    Gespenst

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Capitalism is far from perfect, but it is overall effective and desireable by the majority(as evidenced by its persistence). You have to realize that people will die no matter the situation. Capitalism isn't out to kill those downtrodden by misfortune, but to provide the opportunity for economic success.

    You seem to think that sleeping on the streets seems to be an acceptable alternative to owning a home who's uses persist even if it loses market value. A simple hovel can function as a home, and this kind of sub-standard housing is common in third world countries.

    Due to the inherent wastefulness of complex organic life, and the ever-growing human populations, there will always be shortages that prevent humanity from growing into infinity. It is these shortages that drive competition and thus capitalism. If businessmen were to simply keep said resources from circulation, they would not make a profit, and thus would be unable to compete.

    You clearly do not understand the position competition holds in captialism. If humans, generally speaking, were not naturally competitve, as you claim, then how is it that in all the history of mankind that competition is a concurrent factor? Even in times when people did not have to compete against other people, they would have to compete against nature and other animals for resources. Why is it that you think a hunter kills for food? Can you not call that competitive? If there were no system, I can say with certainty that violence would be more prevalent, as in any system without an available diplomatic solution. A raw resource-based economy, being difficult to regulate, threatens disorder and the dissolution of civlization as we know it.

    Your orginal argument was that automation would replace humans in certain postions in order to alleviate overpopulation. And how is it here that you suppose that machines will better humans lives, or even solve any problems? Do you believe that in automated manufactorums that anything manufactured is resourced by some miracle draught?

    Synthetic life is superior life, machines can transcend the inherent wastefulness of organic life. If mankind were to create machines sophisticated enough with intent to replace humans in certain positions in order to downsize needed populations, then in this scenario the machines should be sophisticated enough to abandon humanity altogether.

    You'd be in denial if you think that crime would ever be completely removed. Just as competition is an integral part of human nature, crime is a method of competing. While in a utopic society, where all needs and desires are satiated, there is still an aspect that is induplicable. This is off topic, though, but interesting. I'd encourage you to start a new thread.

    With that said I'd like to restate my thesis.

    Capitalism is far from faultless, with all its evils captialism is a functioning system of economic distribution that serves to garuntee certain rights to the apparant majority of the people, a system that relies on individual sucess rather than dictatorial arbitration.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2010
  8. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    In an attempt to avoid going back and forth saying the same things in different ways I want to ask you a question.

    If I were to post links to videos supporting my claims (they are professional videos btw, not just random youtubers) would you watch them? I guess I'm asking how serious you are about discussing this or if you even have the time. I'd have to do quite a bit of searching for all the videos and I don't want to do that unless somebody here would be interested in seeing evidence to support my claims.

    My claims are:
    Humans are not naturally competitive

    Monetary incentive only works for mundane tasks, hence why capitalism has worked so long. (Note: I do think capitalism used to work, but with certain scientific advances, it won't anymore).

    We have the capability and resources to take care of all people (this one will be difficult to prove, and I can understand why you wouldn't agree, especially since we are surrounded by so much waste).

    Crime would almost completely disappear except for the occasional crime of passion (murdering a girlfriend for cheating etc.)

    Capitalism does not guarantee rights of any kind. At any moment the government could take you away without question. Not saying they would do that, but they could, and they have before. *points to Guantanamo & Japanese internments camps after Pearl Harbor attack*

    It also is not a good distributor of resources. 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth. That's not even close to good. Don't tell me somebody can work 287 times harder than another person, because that's how much CEO's make compared to your average Joe. Capitalism has exponential factors where the more wealth you have, the more you can accumulate. Unless you were to take drastic measures like restrict everyone from ever having more than $10,000,000 in assets, this ugly divide between the rich and the poor will continue to happen.

    I suggest you read up on sociology and criminology (lots of good sources if you look). The science backs up my claims on crime disappearing as long as people aren't socially stratified. There is a direct correlation between wealth divides and crime.

    Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Afghan war?
     
  9. Gespenst

    Gespenst

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Though some of your claims carry weight, a dividend of what you claim is simply idealistic nonsense. If you posted videos that spew similar nonsense, I fail to see how such would support your claims.

    It is true that a majority of crime is driven by personal greed(which supports my claim of competive nature). To solve this, however, would be virtually impossible. Even without a currentcy based economy, which would be horribly unstructured, currentcy is replaced by value of resources. Crime would still be committed in the name of greed, only not for currentcy, though without the drive of desperation I'll give crime would be reduced.

    Although I agree people waste too much, changing this would be a monumental task, if everything consumed were recycled with 100% efficientcy(virtually impossible), there will still be shortages due to overpopulation. Population is not a stable factor, It threatens ecologic stability and it is something contributed to by natural instinct and personal desire. Unless something miraculous is discovered, or if some catastrophe fractionalizes the human population, shortages will always be present.

    Capitalism works by making the hardworking joe aspire to become that sort of rich ceo. Because captilism capitalizes on the power of opportunity, captialism pacifies those that can simply support themselves. Redistributing wealth is something uncaptialistic in that it removes wealth from those who have (presumably) fairly earned it. Would you say that Bill Gates(for example) is undeserved of his billions?

    Captialism isnt a form of general civil governance. I think here you are equating the famous American Democracy to general capitalism. While it is true the two are usually concurrent, and that the internment of naturalized japanese citizens and japanese descendents was uncapitalistic in that it deprived them of their property.

    You have ideas, I am only pointing out realistic issues with them. I would like to see our problems dissolved as well.

    And of the Afghan war... It is an example of bad national chemistry. The middle east is dominated by a historically violent relgion that has deep roots in the legislation of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc... Foriegn invaders meet opposition not simply driven by unfounded mistrust of outsiders, but of religious friction between the heterogenus U.S.(and assorted UN) residing forces, A sort of religious friction that would blow itself up as well as you. Would blow its children up as well as you.
     
  10. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I'm really sad to see you even thought of asking this. In our current system, you're valued based on how much money (and assets) you have. Do you think Bill Gates is worth a 100,000 times more than another person? Do you think he has worked 100,000 times harder than your average Joe?

    I'm going to post one video, and you'll see it doesn't spew my nonsense. It talks about motivation. It's also fun to watch so here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=player_embedded

    This sentence sickens me on a several levels. It's like dangling a carrot on a stick. George Carlin had something to say about it. "It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it"

    As you can see, Capitalism is failing all around the world. Countries are falling like dominoes.

    I know that it would be nearly impossible to achieve 100% recycling, but we aren't even reaching 20% in our current state. Anything below 50% is unacceptable in my opinion. We'll never reach 50% recycling in a capitalist society until it is profitable.

    Just for the hell of it here's another video. It's somewhat similar, but it talks about empathy and how humans relate to each other.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=channel

    Also, I'd like to know you think we could solve problems. And don't just say population control.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2010
  11. Gespenst

    Gespenst

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Regardless of the physical labor or time Bill Gates spent in doing rumidial tasks, which is the work that the average Joe has agreed to do, Bill Gates invented something unique that provided his business corporation, microsoft, with a definite advantage. Capitalism rewards such initiative with finantial success; people are willing to pay in their hard-earned cash for such innovation. While it is hard to say with definity, Bill Gates was not solely motivated by a drive for profit, as contemporary microsoft employees are, but by an inventive drive that granted us access to virtual power through home computers. Bill Gates is but a man, but his finantial success grants him the power of wealth, which you seem to despise.

    Makes an argument and is not unentertaining. A talented artist.

    The video takes evidence and pulls it out of context, out of the surrounding factors that characterize the meaning of the evidence in ordert to retell it in a condemning way. Without pressing needs, that people have satiated through involvement in a capitalistic society, Individuals have the privillege of free creative voliton. Basics of Psychology show that voluntary work is more effective than obligatory work. Increasing the cash incentive only increases the obligation to suceed, which has a negative effect on the processes of the psyche. Thus, is it only logical to hypothesize that mental tasks suffer by the increased stress, while mechanically simple tasks suffer little, and the cash incentive is allowed to be unobstructed in its mission.

    I'll admit my wording served the meaning somewhat poorly. The Average Joe is given the opportunity to accumulate wealth, but the chances of "The Average Joe" ever reaching a high position against the competion of his peers are relatively low. The dangling of a stick analogy seems to state that people work because of a misguided desire for money. I'd say a more accurate would be a trail of treats that entices the participant to follow the path and recieve said treats, even in a circular path if need be. I will point out to you several major differences included in this and several others not: First of all, the participating individual is not solely driven by an illusion but a readily achievable reward, that of monetary value given through the next paycheck. Another thing to call attention to is that while people are quite forcefully driven to partake of the poison of Capitalism, people are somewhat free to negotiate their conditions of partaking. Noone directly forces you to accept a sub-standard position, where your toil and sweat is undervalued in captialism, but corrupt business practice often attempts to exploit the labor pool in order to maximize the favorable terms of the managers, who are also victim to captialism.

    Too many contributing factors to single out capitalism as the sole cause of what you claim to be a fall of Countries, which seems to me to be overexaggerated, unless you've some evidence to cite.

    While a lower overall percentage of waste is of value that is desireable and accumulative, simply postulating an issue is only the barest beginnings of the invention of a solution. The need exists, there is yet to be a solution. Increasing the effectiveness and proclivity of recycling is a step progressing towards abating resource shortages.

    Simply by cause of the biological makeup of human physiology, that consume resources and retain them under the illusory guard of a human life, people are physically wasteful. While nothing is truly lost, the decomposition of the body and related, extraphysiological possesions occurs at such a rate that the consumed resources are put out of circulation for enough time to be discounted by now-living people.

    A single individual or even a group of individuals cannot legislate some sort of policy that can fix our kinds of problems, the problems of the developed world. I believe that some sort of external catastrophe must occur in order to bring about a need of change, some sort of undeniable evidence that blares the dire situation in a way that can garner majority support for a civilizational change. While it may not be so cataclysmic as to bring populations down to more comfortable levels, a population downsize can only contribute to the solution, that is unless expertise and genetic sustainability were expunged or made inviable. Short of that, or some kind of technological miracle, I see no achievable solution.

    Besides that, I'm glad to see that some people put their Medivh's tower membership to good use ;).
     
  12. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Sorry, I'm going to be a little lazy with this post and not quote you.

    I think you don't understand some of the things Bill Gates has done. He is not the peachy fellow that the media likes to portray him as. When you have as much money as he does it's relatively easy to give away. Don't tell me paying $50,000 for an operating system isn't so he can have a nice hobby. He expected monetary gain and he got it. He was at the right place at the right time with the right amount of money.

    You sort of contradict yourself. First you say "Joe" has agreed to do work, and then you say people are forced to work to survive.

    About the video, I don't see how it takes information out of context, and it isn't really condemning anything. It simply puts forth interesting finds.

    You must not read a lot of news (I can't blame you since half of it is bullshit), because there's an economic crisis happening. Anybody who says otherwise is a millionaire or owns a news network, in which case they want you to think everything is fine so you will invest in their stocks. Greece is failing, and other countries are on the verge of declaring bankruptcy. The whole world is running out of money. All money comes from banks, and banks demand interest. How can you owe more money than you took out? The whole world owes more money to itself than it has. This is why they have to keep printing more money. They have to keep devaluing the currency so it's easier to pay the interest back. Defaults on loans are inevitable because like musical chairs, eventually somebody is left out dry.

    There are solutions for recycling and we have barely implemented them. We can easily recycle 50% of our waste right now, but it's more profitable to just create more waste.

    Capitalism is not sustainable because it requires cyclical consumption and it doesn't give a damn about the environment. With our current trends we are going to hit natures thresholds and then we're fucked. I never said it would be easy to get to a RBE (resource based economy), but we have to do it.

    I really reccomend you go to the Venus Project and take a look around. It explains all of this in great detail.
     
  13. Gespenst

    Gespenst

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    You condemn Bill Gates for being a valid businessman? Capitalism doesn't force you to spend your money on luxuries such as computers, Bill Gates has indisputably earned his fortune, as according to the fundamentals of Capitalism.

    Capitalism coerces people to participate in that it provides a living. While people could deny themselves a living and refrain from captialism, the sensibility of a living provided by Capitalism often outweighs the secondary guilt that follows supporting such a system with major deficits. I thought I had made this clear, but It seems I had not.

    I can observe that you percieve what seems to be a good idea and you are too taken away by it to see its faults, the kind of gravity it must defy to be realized. It is certainly possible, but on a such a level that if it truly merited its marginalized but fervent following it would have established itself as widely accepted long ago, though I do give that change is gradual, the precarious situation of the current economical and ecological aspects demand more sudden and wholesome legislation in order to avoid catastrophe.

    When people are constantly added into the game of musical chairs, all the while chairs are being removed, there certainly will be those left out. It is Naive to think that this could ever be changed; that is that people will never be left out. There is certainly room for improvement; chairs should not be removed in a sustainable system.

    While it is true that the world does not recycle as much as it should, even modern recylcing technology has its deficits. Percentages are lost to efficientcy shortcomings in the recylcing process itself in many non-metallic recycling methods.

    Ignorance of the constant and ongoing degredation of the ecological situation is indeed a fatal shortcoming that will forseeably bring captialism to a grinding halt, a shortcoming that is shared by most of the governmental world. Eventually, when captialism as we know it inevitably fails because of its consuming nature, pandemonium will envelop civilizations worldwide and bring about an era of forced change, forced by the circumstances, and Idealists such as yourself will have an opportunity for yet another social experiment.

    The Venus Project is simply another Idea. If it is indeed a possibility then we've to wait for its opportunity of realization.

    I'm not arguing that Capitalism is great and infalliable, I'm arguing that Capitalism is accepted. Public opinion is of such mass that it take a phenomenal quantity of force to shift it, such force hardly achievable without the leverage of a desperate need for change brought out by social disaster, not some theatrical cataclysm, but the slow suffering of the masses through starvation and the wars sparked by such unrest.
     
  14. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    No, I'm saying some of his methods weren't valid and they violated the law.

    Coercion is almost never seen as a good thing. Forcing people into guilt is also not a good thing. You've made it clear, but I'm asking if you think that's right or wrong.

    Could you please point out some of the flaws with perhaps some scientific evidence of your own? Relying on legislation to avoid catastrophe is a catastrophe in and of itself. Don't you see governments work slower than slugs? Look at disasters around the world and tell me if governments have responded in a timely manner.

    Why is it naive to think that through the use of technology we can provide a sustainable system that will accommodate our current population and potentially many more.

    I understand this. This is another fault of capitalism. Companies would rather use cheap non-recyclable materials.

    Actually I see capitalism failing before there even is an ecological disaster that starts wiping out humanity. As I mentioned, debt is ever mounting, and the world will eventually owe itself more money than it can print without causing hyperinflation.

    Japanese Debt Crisis I can't believe I just linked to BBC.

    You may say it's blind bias, but I think TVP is more than just another idea. It is the best idea I've ever heard. The only thing that comes somewhat close is extreme socialism. Why not just take it one step further though and remove money?

    I'm relieved that you don't hold Capitalism up on a pedestal and worship it like so many do. The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement both agree that it will most likely take much human suffering before people see the error of their ways. Even if you don't think TVP is the greatest idea, you can still help spread the word that we need some serious alterations to our social and economic system.

    I think you and I have both been making too many assumptions about one another. Instead of stating that I have bias towards something, point out what is wrong with it and how I failed to see that. I will try to extend the same courtesy to you.