[added quote]

thecite Wrote:Any arguments? I do tend to change my opinion often, you can ignore me if you like, doesn't bother me one bit.

huh? I was showing appreciation for the big Pavlovian guffaw I enjoy whenever you say "anarcho-syndicalist". (I'm kinda' primitive.) One just doesn't encounter it often enough. So I was waiting with great anticipation! Oh wait, would it still be Pavlovian then? No matter, it's a good word too. And kinda apropos, don't you think, given all this dreary talk of dystopia? I prefer guffawing.

Oh, and speaking of sense of humour, I coincidentally came across this sentence recently: “Satire is words full of wind, all stupidity and no substance.” says the politician. ;p

thecite Wrote:Blahah > Yes, you can make some theoretical argument about how capitalism *could* be sustainable, unfortunately this isn't how it plays out in reality.

It sounds like you're trying to argue that capitalism is 'human nature' or 'natural' or something, which is nonsense. This is a system that has developed historically and can be changed historically. Just let me ask you: did Native Americans have a human nature? How about Europeans up until around 600 years ago?

Yes, I am saying that capitalism is an extension of not just human nature, but all nature, into an economic system. Yes, Native Americans shared the same human nature and so did all historical civilisations. Just because they didn't tokenise resources, it doesn't mean they weren't treating them in the same way. Every species on the planet acts in exactly the way which evolution has selected to be most likely to benefit them, by bringing them enough resources to be able to procreate as much as possible. Ants, guppies, wombats and every culture of Homo sapiens sapiens; all extract resources until they reach the carrying capacity of their environment. Then they keep going at a population which fluctuates around the carrying capacity until they exhaust them all. We are just bacteria on a large spherical petri dish, we'll be gone in the blink of a geological eye.

That doesn't mean I think capitalism is great - there are problems in our system. I'm just saying the way to fix them is not to try and design a new system from the ground up. Nobody on this planet, not any inividual or any group, has the intelligence to design such a system. Any attempt will only end in more suffering. Read the link you posted for a reasonable argument in that direction.

I think a huge amount of effort is wasted, and therefore suffering prolonged, because people cannot accurately identify proximal and ultimate causes, and because people too readily listen to what others are trying to preach.

And you are wrong about capitalism being a historical invention, it has been evolving as long as trade has existed, evolving faster since trade became promisary (money) and was finally tweaked at the international level with Adam Smith onwards. What Smith added isn't what creates the features you think are unsustainable, those things were always there: greed, self-interest, more greed.

You are right that it can be changed, but it can't be replaced.

[ファブリス]

overture2112 Wrote:Maybe it _is_ the case that without super robots that decide everything for us according to some utiliterian theory we'll all die of resource starvation or otherwise screw ourselves over, then again,

The movie started to lose me at that point when it suggested the use of some super smart program that will compute the shortest route for vehicles, and the best use of resources and so on.

I'm sure we will eventually come up with technologies that can recycle almost indefinitely. Either that or we will come up with new materials that are extremely durable and because they are no longer "natural" resources, they will be more easily recycled, or they will be less complex (more unified) and thus require far less different type of resources to build.

We already have come up with technologies like producing bacteria that eats discarded rubber tires. Why don't these things get mass production? That's a human problem, not a technology problem.

Also like some of the ideas of the "degrowth" movement, but the prospect of living in a world paranoid about resource use is not very motivating to change our ways.

[ファブリス]

Well I watched it all and all things considered I support the movie. Not that it matters since nobody in my immediate environment gives a rat's ass about it. They're too busy thinking about retirement or the next car they're gonna buy.

I resonate with parts of the movie because even way long before I read alternative sites on the web, I have never been happy as an employee. Surely I'm not the only one out there? I've been mildly happy using the skills that I enjoy at my last job, but at the end of the day I couldn't care less to build stuff for corporations that sell Tobaco or soft drinks.

The end of Zeitgeit: Moving Forward is very reminiscent of recent events...

yonosa Wrote:(...) I coordinate (along with a few others) my local chapter and we are expecting around 150 people for March 12th Z-day this year, and this is our first Z-day event.

So what do you do there? Show the movie for free and then discuss?

I would certainly at least attend if there was something like this here. I live in the south of Belgium now... *sigh*. Used to be really discontent about it until I spent some time in India last year and got a better perspective on things. Boy, are we lucky

Blahah Wrote:And you are wrong about capitalism being a historical invention, it has been evolving as long as trade has existed, evolving faster since trade became promisary (money) and was finally tweaked at the international level with Adam Smith onwards. What Smith added isn't what creates the features you think are unsustainable, those things were always there: greed, self-interest, more greed.

You are right that it can be changed, but it can't be replaced.

Alright, so you're saying that all forms of societal arrangement represent human nature to one degree or another, fair enough. However, hunter gatherer societies were able to sustain themselves for tens of thousands of years; whereas our current system looks as if it will destroy itself within a few hundred.

Modern capitalism is an invention of the last few hundred years; take say, private property, or the development of corporations. There's no law of nature that says our system had to develop the way it has, it has developed to due to historical decisions, and can be changed through historical decisions. This is such a basic idea I think it should be obvious.

I see no reason why our current system could not be completely replaced. I don't think it would be an instantaneous transition, more like small progressive changes; but I don't see why a system completely different to our current one couldn't be formed in the future. There are no rules of history.

Thora Wrote:[added quote]

thecite Wrote:Any arguments? I do tend to change my opinion often, you can ignore me if you like, doesn't bother me one bit.

huh? I was showing appreciation for the big Pavlovian guffaw I enjoy whenever you say "anarcho-syndicalist". (I'm kinda' primitive.) One just doesn't encounter it often enough. So I was waiting with great anticipation! Oh wait, would it still be Pavlovian then? No matter, it's a good word too. And kinda apropos, don't you think, given all this dreary talk of dystopia? I prefer guffawing.

Oh, and speaking of sense of humour, I coincidentally came across this sentence recently: “Satire is words full of wind, all stupidity and no substance.” says the politician. ;p

Oh, right, sorry. Sounded like you were dismissing it or saying something pejorative.

thecite Wrote:Alright, so you're saying that all forms of societal arrangement represent human nature to one degree or another, fair enough. However, hunter gatherer societies were able to sustain themselves for tens of thousands of years; whereas our current system looks as if it will destroy itself within a few hundred.

Modern capitalism is an invention of the last few hundred years; take say, private property, or the development of corporations. There's no law of nature that says our system had to develop the way it has, it has developed to due to historical decisions, and can be changed through historical decisions. This is such a basic idea I think it should be obvious.

I see no reason why our current system could not be completely replaced. I don't think it would be an instantaneous transition, more like small progressive changes; but I don't see why a system completely different to our current one couldn't be formed in the future. There are no rules of history.

Hunter gatherer societies had only hundreds or thousands of members, they were tiny. There was no resource strain. Now, humanity is probably passed the carrying capacity of the Earth. That's not about the economic system, it's just about how many people there are. Also, hunter gatherer societies were essentially the same, they just ruthlessly exploited resources.

Yes corporations are recent, but private property has existed since prehistory. The current system is good for a lot of people, so those people don't want to change to a new system. You'd have to force some people to change, and that is where every historical systemic revolution (not the ones where a King is overthrown) falls down. Upheival means inevitable suffering.

Small changes, sure, but don't think you can replace capitalism that way. It's not an inherently bad system, there are just some parts which are poorly executed. Let's focus on righting those wrongs.

I don't know what's so bad about people wanting more possessions. If that's what people want, let them live that way. If someone wants to plan their retirement or save up for a new car, that's fine, they can provide themselves whatever comfort they want in their lives if they work to earn it.

Global injustices have so little to do with capitalism, and so much to do with historical atrocities which are essentially driven by greed or self-righteous people thinking they know what's best for everyone (like the Zeitgeist movement). The whole thing has an air of propaganda about it, with the utopian youtube videos and the clueless hopefuls flocking along because they've found a focal point for their dissatisfaction.

Before I move on, I'd be interested to hear your idea of a working capitalist system that we should be aiming to work towards?

In other words, what are the parts that you believe are merely 'poorly executed'?

Anyone know where I can get one of those 3D printers? Sometimes I really just want a wrench but I never seem to have one lying around..

Blahah Wrote:...

Global injustices have so little to do with capitalism, and so much to do with historical atrocities which are essentially driven by greed or self-righteous people thinking they know what's best for everyone (like the Zeitgeist movement). The whole thing has an air of propaganda about it, with the utopian youtube videos and the clueless hopefuls flocking along because they've found a focal point for their dissatisfaction.

I've already outline why our current capitalist system inherently produces unusustainability, and why this is separate of overpopulation (but obviously exacerbated by it), I see no need to restate it.
Perhaps hunter gatherer societies were somewhat different around the world, but take one example I do know a bit about, Australian Aboriginal societies. Spread out through the continent, the tribes comprising 1, 000, 000 people or so managed to survive tens of thousands of years without making a single lasting dent on the environment.

When I said private property, I meant more specifically, private land ownership, which is a relatively recent idea dating back to the 18th century or so.

I have no problem with the idea of possessions per se, I simply think it's wasteful to consume/ produce things unnecessarily. If you want every person on earth to enjoy the same material wealth that we currently enjoy in the west, we're going to need to start sharing possessions and stop wastefully producing things. There aren't enough resources to go around.

At some point or another violence may be necessary in societal change, and it might not; if enough people support a particular idea there's no saying how the government might react to that, it's all hypothetical.

I could give you a whole list of injustices that our current system produces, but I feel that would be counter productive. The last two Zeitgeist movies do a good job of highlighting many of these things, 'The Corporation' also.

thecite Wrote:Perhaps hunter gatherer societies were somewhat different around the world, but take one example I do know a bit about, Australian Aboriginal societies. Spread out through the continent, the tribes comprising 1, 000, 000 people or so managed to survive tens of thousands of years without making a single lasting dent on the environment.

Well, those tribes had a basic mode of living. As complexity evolved in societies we came to expect more, be more productive, afford basic securities and comforts to people, and so on. You really have no way of knowing precisely what environmental impact aborigines had on Australasia, but it's absurd so suggest that they had none. It's highly likely that they massively changed the ecological structure of the continent, and drove many species to extinction, especially some of the Australiasian megafauna. I know aboriginal foraging techniques rely on burning vast swathes of forest. Aborigines also introduced the dingo to Australia, which is single-handedly responsible for several extinctions and massive ecological damage. I refer you to the book Aboriginal Environmental Impacts. It's easy to idealise ancient or primitive peoples, but honestly, we're all the same.

thecite Wrote:When I said private property, I meant more specifically, private land ownership, which is a relatively recent idea dating back to the 18th century or so.

No it isn't. Private land ownership dates back at least to Roman and Greek culture. I don't know a huge amount about more ancient societies, but I know that the major Patrician families in the Roman empire owned most of the land. Maybe you're thinking of land enclosure?

thecite Wrote:I have no problem with the idea of possessions per se, I simply think it's wasteful to consume/ produce things unnecessarily. If you want every person on earth to enjoy the same material wealth that we currently enjoy in the west, we're going to need to start sharing possessions and stop wastefully producing things. There aren't enough resources to go around.

Right, there aren't enough resources for this amount of people. Some people will die, then there'll be enough resources. We'll also find more sustainable ways of harvesting existing resources, and realise new resources which will supplant old, unsustainable ones (like oil). I don't think anyone thinks its not wasteful to produce things unnecessarily. But what do you mean by 'consume [..] unnecessarily'? Should everyone have a universally defined maximum amount of stuff they can have? What about people who work harder or contribute more, shouldn't they be allowed to accumulate the fruits of their labour? If not, what's the incentive for people to contribute actively? If I can't expect to get something back for what I put in, I won't take part.

thecite Wrote:At some point or another violence may be necessary in societal change, and it might not; if enough people support a particular idea there's no saying how the government might react to that, it's all hypothetical.

True, there doesn't have to be a violent transition, but if there's a chance it would be violent, I wouldn't want there to be one at all. There is no human or group who knows what's best for the whole planet to the extent that they should force their views on others.

thecite Wrote:I've already outline why our current capitalist system inherently produces unusustainability, and why this is separate of overpopulation (but obviously exacerbated by it), I see no need to restate it.

I read back through all your posts in this thread, and I couldn't find anywhere you'd explained this. You've stated it a few times, but without any justification.

thecite Wrote:Before I move on, I'd be interested to hear your idea of a working capitalist system that we should be aiming to work towards?

In other words, what are the parts that you believe are merely 'poorly executed'?

Well, I don't claim to have designed a complete working system - anyone who makes such a claim is dangerous. However, I can comment on the parts of the economic system where I have some expertise. I think we can both agree that current management of some natural resources is insufficient or atrocious; I'm talking about common water resources, biodiversity, forest resources, anthropogenic climate change (the atmosphere is the resource). A combination of economic and political changes could make a huge contribution to making these resources sustainable. Strengthening CITES and the CBD is necessary for biodiversity protection, a stronger commitment to R&D funding and concessions to the hotspot nations. We also need a stronger international way of incentivising forest protection, probably by some form of cap-and-trade scheme, managed on an international scale where resource holding nations receive remuneration from the resource consuming nations (e.g. western nations pay, brazil and central africa get paid). The same could be applied to CO2 emissions. You push value into a resource which doesn't have enough native value with C&T, I've yet to see a strong argument against it. This isn't so far away, and there might be some progress towards it at the next UNCCC, COP 17.

And obviously, we need to replace oil as our primary energy source. This will happen naturally when the cost of extraction becomes too great, pushing the price of oil much higher than sustainable alternatives. But in the meantime another positive result of the continuing UNCCCs needs to be massive increases in R&D of sustainable technologies. And we need more flagship projects from rich nations.

Anyway this is all getting a bit involved - suffice it to say that I think the devaluation of the environment, and especially the commons (air, water, land), is a failing of the current economic system. The answer is economic constructs, not abolition.

A couple of things:

1. The closest that we have gotten to capitalism was probably in the 19th & early 20th century (before 1930s), especially before fiat money. What we have nowadays can't be characterized as capitalism, it's been socialist for a looong time now.

2. The problems attributed to capitalism has more to do with _corporations_. Essentially, corporations are rather bizarre things, accorded legal rights of persons. By having limited liability, the actions of the people working for the corporation end up rather disconnected from moral behavior. Not to mention, corporations often have a mandate to grow, no matter what, to satisfy the stockholders etc.

The corporations video touches on it a bit.

> Blahah
I wasn't attempting to idealise them, I'm aware there are a few species of megafauna that Aboriginals are *suspected* of contributing to their extinction due to forest burning, hunting etc, compare this to the dozens of species extinctions us westerners have caused in a few hundred years since settlement. (For the record, the European introduced Red Fox, rabbit, cat and other species have had a much worse effect than the Dingo in thousands of years.)

I don't know a whole lot about ancient civilisations either, but up until the 18th century in the West, one generally bought the right to live on the land, but not the land itself.

How small a population do you think we'd need to sustain the massive wastage that our current system produces? The US only has 305 million people or so, but they're consuming an enormous proportion of the world's resources. Why should we be content with wasting large amounts of resources to achieve arbitrary cyclical growth? If humans want to survive on this planet for thousands of more years to come, we're going to need to be as thrifty as possible.

Well, I'd say most natural resources, but yeah.
I'm very skeptical about cap and trade schemes (I tend to think it's too little too late), but I don't really know much about some of the other things you mentioned, so I guess I'll research them more.

From what I've read, it'll most likely be a few more decades before the cost/ difficulties of oil extraction (i.e. deep sea oil drilling) become too great, which is obviously far too long.

[ファブリス]

Well, this guy sure is optimist (we're all going to be rich and healthy woohoo!) Nice visualization btw.

Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats (BBC Four)

[ファブリス]

Here is a nice critique of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - The Freedomain Radio Review

A Reply to Peter Joseph

That Freedomain review was really good; the presenter seems like a very adamant Anarcho-capitalist, which I don't really agree with, but a very good review nonetheless.