The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Does capitalism drive population growth?

Does capitalism drive population growth?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. ...
  14. 38
  15. 39
  16. 40
  17. All
Peter Hume,

You ask - "If we were to produce the same amount of food, clothing, housing and transport, and communications, by some other means, why would not that other way be equally or more unsustainable?"

The answer is that it "would" be unsustainable - the point being that capitalism as it is practiced has delivered an economic system that is ravenous. Our appetite for the glories and delights of abundance, waste and conspicuous consumption is insatiable. Moderation, unfortunately, is not a quality that humans excel at - which is a great pity, as a system like capitalism can only survive with restraint.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 8 July 2010 8:42:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sienna:
<squeers, why wouldn't any system be faced with the same problem if it is to provide for people's wanting to live, be healthy, have families, and enjoy life?>
Dear Sienna,
Do you despair then that human economy cannot abide by a budget, or is somehow exempt from the natural strictures that curtail any specie's living beyond its means. Should we not be grateful, that our intelligence affords us an insight into our inevitable fate, and act to prevent it? What is the use of those verities you describe if their realisation is purchased on dodgy credit? The answer to your question is of course economy; living sustainably has always demanded economy. Why not now? I don't suggest we go back to the dark ages, just that we realise that the quality of our lives has to be in proportion with our realistic means--and ethical. This is where our giant brains can help us, but we prefer to bury them in the sand.

PH:
<Why is such an unsustainable tendency, as you have described it, not a characteristic of life itself, rather than of capitalism>
Because we have evolved to a point (and we have plenty of sober historical precedent to caution us) where we can foresee danger and head it off, no? Would you run your household economy the way the broader economy is run?

And now you want to crowd me into the "collectivist" camp for an easy kill and ritual disembowelling, right?

Anyone who "actually reads" Marx is forced to acknowledge the incredible accuracy of his economic predictions. It does not entail that s/he fits the convenient stereotype you lot have fictionalised. I defy you to show me one argument (from the "thousands" you boast about) that cogently discredits Marx's economic theory.
Like the creationists you no doubt love to lampoon for knowing nothing about evolutionary theory, you condemn Marxist economics without knowing a jot of it, based on the self same deluded faith you ridicule in others.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 8 July 2010 9:02:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, a bit rushed.
Victor Lebow. (and Annie Leonard).
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 8 July 2010 9:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TBC – me live in fear. Not at all

My life is rich, not simply in a material sense either but on many other dimensions too.

Just as I acknowledge the dangers communism I also acknowledge the dangers of leprosy but I do not fear leprosy because I ensure I do not adopt practices which expose me to it.

Condemning communism is the best way I can think to acknowledge the dangers communism and alert people to it, just like avoiding leprosy.

Actually the analogy is quite apt, after all, both are wasting diseases which diminishes life quality as well as killing people slowly.

I think if we would all be better off if you left Squeers to explain his whacko theories, rather than act as some amateur interpreter, try confining yourself to your own personal observations.

Maybe try to counter my claim that "But the alternative to capitalism always ends up as the horror of “communism” by that name or any other"...

And avoid making feeble ad hominines like “bi-polar” (which does not apply to either me or my world) and that my world is still here, rather than being “a world which has gone” … so you are wrong on both points, not that you probably have the wit to understand why.

In fact the world of today is far less “collectivist” to the one I was born into, when the horror and threat of Russian tanks and bombs was a continuing daily, China held its masses in slavery, Cambodia was a horror still to be revealed and Mugabe (another collectivist liar) had yet to be unleashed on Africa.

One thing I do know, every generation have people who suffer from the “socialist theorist” gene, exactly the same as many folk suffer dwarfism. Difference, dwarfism affects the pattern of physical growth, the “socialist theorist” gene affects the ability to perceive the world in real terms, substituting bizzaro alternatives for the process of creating wealth and trade; peoples right to an expectation of liberty and the imposition of a monolithic, overpowering state bureaucracy with endowed hubris of obscene proportions
Posted by Stern, Friday, 9 July 2010 4:02:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really Stern... are you trying to live up to your character with your post?

I assume that you interpret Squeers words, as you do with everyone else's, in order to make sense of them? If not, then you just type your fingers off to no end.

(which might be why you worry about leprosy?)

But being such a man-of-the-world I am surprised you are unfamiliar with the term 'bipolar world'.

You'll have to learn to look up phrases you do not understand, here, I've done it for you:

Bipolar World: http://eefy.editme.com/BipolarWorld
"Bipolar World" is a term used to describe a world political climate in which nations form factions built around one of two comparatively equal superpowers. Its opposite, in which one superpower stands above the others, is a Unipolar World.

You cannot type your fingers off about 'Capitalism and Communism' if you are unfamiliar with this.

As for this line, "Maybe try to counter my claim that "But the alternative to capitalism always ends up as the horror of “communism” by that name or any other"... you'd have to inform us all of the cases you are thinking of before any comment could be made.

My point is simply that while you engage in a love affair with the old era of Capitalism in its old battle against Communism, like poor deluded Bob, you seem to be missing the damage currently being wreaked by the system you support so sternly.

It seems unlikely that the world can afford to have 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians living the same style as however many billions the West is..is it about 2 billion?, and still have the Earth hold up.

So, something has to give... that could involve an evolution within Capitalism, and is more likely to be that than an entire 'new' system imposed from elsewhere, but change is afoot, of that there is little doubt, to some of us here, but clearly not to you.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 9 July 2010 11:12:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was a spin off to the bi-polar world of superpowers that saw the West use it as an accelerator to growth, so however much you fear Communism your life has 'benefited' from it...horrible to think about, eh Stern?

As for this, "the ability to perceive the world in real terms"...and you speak of 'hubris'?

I'll leave the debate about perceiving the world in 'real terms' to those who delve deeper philosophical works than me but my two-bob version is that the seeking for 'real terms' might be as much an illusion as the utopian dreams you fear.... there's an old line you might know 'where you sit is what you see'. This makes it hard to have everyone 'seeing' the same 'real terms/world' at the same time.

In fact, seeing the world is 'real terms' is not possible, but do explain what you mean, since I am unable to interpret it.

Finally, 'In fact the world of today is far less “collectivist” to the one I was born into', yes, indeed, but I was not thinking as far afield there as you were.

More the disintegration of local communities, the ones we all live in, as the rise of a distorted liberal individualism, and the urgency to flog things to keep the pyramid scheme going, has resulted in the moral panic, driven by rightwing 'thinkers' and politicians, and the smugger I'm-alright-Jack types who so loath sharing the world with others.

There are far worse community diseases than leprosy to worry about, and I wonder if we are seeing just a few emerging as a result of how we live?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Friday, 9 July 2010 11:13:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. ...
  14. 38
  15. 39
  16. 40
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy