The Republicans are doomed!!

[pc313]

See, how the john Birchers like your failed logic, bradleym. I have said many times that I was for a mixed economy.

 

I'm not concerned about the john birchers--they can cherry pick to their hearts content. It changes nothing--their dreamworld has gone to the wall. they can talk about guns and liberty and communists all they like, for all i care.

 

ok fine, a mixed economy. what is that?

 

open your eyes and smell the shit. the infrastructure is falling apart. we have bridges on freeways collapsing! if you haven't noticed there is a deepest economic crisis since 30's! what else will it take for you to see that things can't go in the same direction. united states is 10 trillion dollars in a hole, 3 trillion in the past 8 years. to put it in the perspective it would cost you and i (and every person in this country) over 31k to pay it off. this country had 4 years of balanced budget since the 60's! are you that stupid not to see it?

not mixed economy, fixed economy, we need system that works!

 

4.5 trillion and counting in the last 8 years!

[glassgowkiss]

See, how the john Birchers like your failed logic, bradleym. I have said many times that I was for a mixed economy.

 

I'm not concerned about the john birchers--they can cherry pick to their hearts content. It changes nothing--their dreamworld has gone to the wall. they can talk about guns and liberty and communists all they like, for all i care.

 

ok fine, a mixed economy. what is that?

 

open your eyes and smell the shit. the infrastructure is falling apart. we have bridges on freeways collapsing! if you haven't noticed there is a deepest economic crisis since 30's! what else will it take for you to see that things can't go in the same direction. united states is 10 trillion dollars in a hole, 3 trillion in the past 8 years. to put it in the perspective it would cost you and i (and every person in this country) over 31k to pay it off. this country had 4 years of balanced budget since the 60's! are you that stupid not to see it?

it's not mixed economy, it's fixed economy, system that works!

 

don't worry, my eyes are wide open. i agree that things cannot continue in the same direction, but you appear to be arguing for contradictory things. you say that the bridges are falling down, implying a call for government spending (a stimulus package, say) to fix the bridges (and maybe jump-start the economy?). but then you rant about the deficit, and the fact that we've had only four balanced budgets since 1960.

 

so, which is it? more deficit spending or less? and how do we get from shitty economy to fixed economy?

 

you sound exactly like dough boy rush, who has many things to say, but nothing to offer. and balanced budget and fixed roads don't contradict themselves. fact of the matter is you need good infrastructure to have good economy. and how do you get there? for starters spend money on important things- like infrastructure and education, not on no-bid contracts for haliburton. in the defense department- stop paying for system that don't work and cost trillions of dollars (like F22, which is bugged with so many problems that will never see a combat situation). start regulating financial sector: banks, insurance and brokerages, as yet again (remember S&L failure late 80's?) convinced executive and legislative branches (and who are we talking about if not republicans here?), that lack of regulation is good for everyone.

fixing infrastructure has nothing to do with stimulus package. it should be part of a budget all along.

[bradleym]

I'm just checking in to see if anyone here has solved the great debate yet.

 

Would someone let me know?

 

TIA!

 

leave us alone! we're 'batin.

[prole]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

I think you absorbed too much Star Trek idealism as a boy.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2008 by prole

[glassgowkiss]

on the other hand looks like FW absorbed too much cock at some point in life.

[glassgowkiss]

I'm just checking in to see if anyone here has solved the great debate yet.

 

Would someone let me know?

 

TIA!

 

the issues were solved on nov 4th. it's just some morons, who didn't hear the news yet.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm the love child of William Shatner and Yeoman Rand.

 

You gonna eat that drumstick?

[Mr. Spock]

Most illuminating.

[JayB]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

No abundant source of energy has the energy density of oil. Productivism and over the top consumerism needs an unlimited supply of cheap oil. It isn't replaceable. Neither are fresh water, soils, and ecosystem services that are being destroyed at unprecedented rates. To keep pretending our ways are sustainable is dangerous religion.

 

If technology were static, and scarcity relative to demand didn't drive conservation, substitution, and innovation then Malthus would have been vindicated long before we got to the point where mankind used very much oil at all, much less had occasion to predict catastrophe and gleefully ponder the consumer's final comeuppance when it "runs out" and the final day of reckoning arrives.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

Sorry, I just sprayed coffee all over the keyboard trying to stifle my laughter. Good luck in your new 'no resources required' universe.

 

Once you've cleaned off the keyboard, can you show me an example of a critical resource that was completely depleted before substitution, conservation, and innovation made the problems presented by the scarcity of the said resource manageable - if not null and void?

[j_b]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

No abundant source of energy has the energy density of oil. Productivism and over the top consumerism needs an unlimited supply of cheap oil. It isn't replaceable. Neither are fresh water, soils, and ecosystem services that are being destroyed at unprecedented rates. To keep pretending our ways are sustainable is dangerous religion.

 

If technology were static, and scarcity relative to demand didn't drive conservation, substitution, and innovation then Malthus would have been vindicated long before we got to the point where mankind used very much oil at all, much less had occasion to predict catastrophe and gleefully ponder the consumer's final comeuppance when it "runs out" and the final day of reckoning arrives.

 

Malthus? You've got to be kidding! Malthus wrote before the industrial revolution and way before the great acceleration of the last 50 years. You could at least update your references a little. But, of course, then you couldn't derisively dismiss what we know about resource use and environmental impact today.

 

The business-as-usual approach appears, on the surface, to

be a safe and conservative way forward. However, it entails

considerable risks. As the Earth System changes in response to

human activities, it operates at a time scale that is mismatched

with human decision-making or with the workings of the

economic system. The long-term momentum built into the

Earth System means that by the time humans realize that a

business-as-usual approach may not work, the world will be

committed to further decades or even centuries of environmental

change. Collapse of modern, globalized society under

uncontrollable environmental change is one possible outcome.

 

...

 

Although improved technology is essential for mitigating

global change, it may not be enough on its own. Changes in

societal values and individual behaviour will likely be necessary

(50). Some signs of these changes are now evident, but the Great

Acceleration has considerable momentum and appears to be

intensifying (51). The critical question is whether the trends of

dematerialization and shifting societal values become strong

enough to trigger a transition of our globalizing society towards

a much more sustainable one.

 

The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now

Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?

Will Steffen, Paul J. Crutzen and John R. McNeill

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2007

Ambio Vol. 36, No. 8, December 2007

[Hugh Conway]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

Sorry, I just sprayed coffee all over the keyboard trying to stifle my laughter. Good luck in your new 'no resources required' universe.

 

Once you've cleaned off the keyboard, can you show me an example of a critical resource that was completely depleted before substitution, conservation, and innovation made the problems presented by the scarcity of the said resource manageable - if not null and void?

 

The entire ecosystem of Easter Island

What will be our Moai?

[j_b]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

Sorry, I just sprayed coffee all over the keyboard trying to stifle my laughter. Good luck in your new 'no resources required' universe.

 

Once you've cleaned off the keyboard, can you show me an example of a critical resource that was completely depleted before substitution, conservation, and innovation made the problems presented by the scarcity of the said resource manageable - if not null and void?

 

Easy: the northern cod fisheries collapse.

[JayB]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

Sorry, I just sprayed coffee all over the keyboard trying to stifle my laughter. Good luck in your new 'no resources required' universe.

 

Once you've cleaned off the keyboard, can you show me an example of a critical resource that was completely depleted before substitution, conservation, and innovation made the problems presented by the scarcity of the said resource manageable - if not null and void?

 

The entire ecosystem of Easter Island

What will be our Moai?

 

What critical resource does the world no longer have due to the recklessness of the Easter Islanders? Had the folks who discovered Easter Island known that the folks that they were visiting had completely exhausted the world's supply of timber prior to the outset of their voyage, they would have thought twice before building their ships out of it....

[JayB]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

Sorry, I just sprayed coffee all over the keyboard trying to stifle my laughter. Good luck in your new 'no resources required' universe.

 

Once you've cleaned off the keyboard, can you show me an example of a critical resource that was completely depleted before substitution, conservation, and innovation made the problems presented by the scarcity of the said resource manageable - if not null and void?

 

Easy: the northern cod fisheries collapse.

 

And mankind subsequently ran out of food? The total number of calories available per capita has declined as a result?

[Bug]

Ah,

You are right.

Nothing so far has caused total global annihilation.

We should just keep going.

 

Stay the course.

 

Damn the ice bergs.

 

Let them eat cake.

[Hugh Conway]

So long as societies retain the capacity to innovate, resources become obsolete long before they're completely depleted. Yawn.

 

What critical resource does the world no longer have due to the recklesness of the Easter Islanders?

 

As a society Easter Islanders collapsed because of wrecking their environment. Ex post facto changing your goal post to humankind doesn't change the painful reality that societys can, and do, fuck up.

[prole]

What will be our Moai?

 

 

 

[j_b]

Once you've cleaned off the keyboard, can you show me an example of a critical resource that was completely depleted before substitution, conservation, and innovation made the problems presented by the scarcity of the said resource manageable - if not null and void?

 

Easy: the northern cod fisheries collapse.

 

And mankind subsequently ran out of food? The total number of calories available per capita has declined as a result?

 

This isn't what you asked. We have another 30-40 years of global fisheries at current rates of depletion and there is no sign that we will act before it is too late. The northern cod collapsed because of overfishing despite much scientific warning that fishing should be curtailed. Hundreds of communities lost their entire economy and way of life.

[prole]

And mankind subsequently ran out of food? The total number of calories available per capita has declined as a result?

 

Fuck no!

 

 

 

That's what I call innovation!

Edited November 24, 2008 by prole

[prole]

This isn't what you asked. We have another 30-40 years of global fisheries at current rates of depletion and there is no sign that we will act before it is too late. The northern cod collapsed because of overfishing despite much scientific warning that fishing should be curtailed. Hundreds of communities lost their entire economy and way of life.

 

"Let them eat TURDUCKEN."

[mkporwit]

"Let them eat TURDUCKEN."

 

Mmmmm, turbaconducken ...

[Fairweather]

What will be our Moai?

 

 

 

 

Even Fairweather has to admit that picture says a lot about the state of the national condition. Well done. But then, does a photo of a 1970's era Chicago housing project--complete with graffiti and used heroin needles--say any more? Ditto, a decrepit, soul-killing, Soviet-era concrete apartment bloc? Hmmm; I'll stick with the capitalist model, thank you.

 

The flip side of your coin?

 

Edited November 25, 2008 by Fairweather

[tvashtarkatena]

The Eastern Islander's world collapsed because of lack of resources. As did the Mayans. And the Greenlanders. And on and on and on. Those societies lived in relatively closed systems. Well, I would define the Earth as a relatively closed system, just a bigger one, sudden arrival of star hopping aliens notwithstanding.

 

The difference, and I can't believe I actually need to explain this, is just one of scale. Any population that outstrips its resources in a closed system is due for a reset. We're arriving at that place globally in terms of energy, water, and food production. I guess JayB's never been to Africa to witness some grim examples of what of this for himself (not really his style, I'd wager).

 

JayB exhibits a common trait among conservatives: an inability to recognize the game being played, and an incapacity to understand when the rules of that game have change. For example, he often cites the Green Revolution and the abundance of cheap calories (in the U.S., anyway) as evidence that there couldn't possibly be a problem; ignoring what every farmer has known for decades: we got that abundant food through unsustainable practices; and are now at risk of not only draining the fossil aquifers that sustained it, but the very topsoil that grew it. In JayB's tiny world, you can drive your car at 150 mph indefinitely without worrying about burning up the motor; because, hey, we've been doing it for the past half hour without a hitch, right? Hence, his oft recycled maxims, which always seem to pre-date the last century, nevermind this one.

 

Will this reset mean extermination? In some poorer, politically ravaged areas, that's already happening. In America, where we have a lower population growth rate, stronger civil society, and much greater resources, not necessarily. The reset will certainly mean global depopulation, probably mostly voluntary. The U.S. won't be excluded from this: an inevitability which will (and, um, already is) challenging an outdated economic model that relies on on cheap, abundant energy and unlimited population growth, and unrestrained consumption.

 

The key idea here is that JayB's kind is not capable of recognizing, nevermind accepting, a problem early enough to prevent catastrophe. That's why this election was so important. The conservative movement badly needed to be put down and shoved aside to make room for people who actually have the capacity to recognize a real threat and do the politically difficult work of addressing it. Under JayB's favored leadership, we had no chance to make a reasonable transition to a world of scarcity. Obviously, given the events of the day, it's not going to be painless...at all, but at least it might be non-violent...for Americans, anyway. Shoving the idiots into a closet and locking the door was step one towards some sort of sane adaptation to the somewhat less bountiful reality of the 21st century.

Edited November 25, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

You might try reading JayBs question as you flapped your lips quite a lot and didn't answer it.

 

Maybe you can't, so you fill up the space with hot air.

 

The Eastern Islander's world collapsed because of lack of resources. As did the Mayans. And the Greenlanders. And on and on and on. Those societies lived in relatively closed systems. Well, I would define the Earth as a relatively closed system, just a bigger one, sudden arrival of star hopping aliens notwithstanding.

 

The difference, and I can't believe I actually need to explain this, is just one of scale. Any population that outstrips its resources in a closed system is due for a reset. We're arriving at that place globally in terms of energy, water, and food production. I guess JayB's never been to Africa to witness some grim examples of what of this for himself (not really his style, I'd wager).

 

JayB exhibits a common trait among conservatives: an inability to recognize the game being played, and an incapacity to understand when the rules of that game have change. For example, he often cites the Green Revolution and the abundance of cheap calories (in the U.S., anyway) as evidence that there couldn't possibly be a problem; ignoring what every farmer has known for decades: we got that abundant food through unsustainable practices; and are now at risk of not only draining the fossil aquifers that sustained it, but the very topsoil that grew it. In JayB's tiny world, you can drive your car at 150 mph indefinitely without worrying about burning up the motor; because, hey, we've been doing it for the past half hour without a hitch, right? Hence, his oft recycled maxims, which always seem to pre-date the last century, nevermind this one.

 

Will this reset mean extermination? In some poorer, politically ravaged areas, that's already happening. In America, where we have a lower population growth rate, stronger civil society, and much greater resources, not necessarily. The reset will certainly mean global depopulation, probably mostly voluntary. The U.S. won't be excluded from this: an inevitability which will (and, um, already is) challenging an outdated economic model that relies on on cheap, abundant energy and unlimited population growth, and unrestrained consumption.

 

The key idea here is that JayB's kind is not capable of recognizing, nevermind accepting, a problem early enough to prevent catastrophe. That's why this election was so important. The conservative movement badly needed to be put down and shoved aside to make room for people who actually have the capacity to recognize a real threat and do the politically difficult work of addressing it. Under JayB's favored leadership, we had no chance to make a reasonable transition to a world of scarcity. Obviously, given the events of the day, it's not going to be painless...at all, but at least it might be non-violent...for Americans, anyway. Shoving the idiots into a closet and locking the door was step one towards some sort of sane adaptation to the somewhat less bountiful reality of the 21st century.