Desireless 2 (Little Upsilon)

MOTHER NATURES DYING

One of the consequences of our leaders allowing the Capitalists to manipulate us into letting our instincts of desire get the better of us, is the damage caused to Mother Nature. The making and transporting of these items of our desire are risking our future generations Environment and standard of life.

Our forefathers fought against other peoples desires to safeguard our standard of lives.
Now its our turn to face our future generations threat. But our fight is not against another persons desires. Our fight is against our own desires.

The only way the future generations will have what they need to survive is if we sacrifice desiring for more than we need to survive.

Desireless for our futures sake.

Whats harder to fight against?
Your own desire or another persons desire?

Keep in mind you can always dispose of another persons desire (If you can find them)

Actually, capitalism is good for the environment:

Example, old growth forest filters out less CO2 than new, growing forest. Logging companies are capable of maintaining acres and acres of new, perpetually-growing forest for profit. Everyone wins, no desire is sacrificed, nobody loses.

By the way, the sacrifice of non-essential, but convenience-allowing goods, like cars, computers, television, radio, etc. DOES sacrifice standards of living.

Sacrifice isn't necessary when sustainable profits require sustainable management of resources. Over-logging kills more trees than can be re-grown and hurts future profits. Over-fishing does the same.

Once oil becomes scarce, the cost will continue to rise. This will mean that alternative fuels will become more cost-effective than oil.

In other words, market forces will solve everything you want without anyone sacrificing anything.

Counter-example?

Hi Scarlet. Does Bio-Diversity have any impact on life? Or can man survive alone?

Market forces only exists if there is profit to be made. For if there was no profit there would be no market. If a person needed what you had they would come to you, instead of you going to them. To make profit you need to grow. And in a time of cut backs, growing will be hard to do. Which means the market will force cost cuttings. aND THAT WILL BE WHY MOST COMPANIES WILL END UP POLLUTING MORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IF THERE WAS NO MARKET. tHE MARKETS ARE GONNA CREATE POLLUTION. Not solve it.

Look at BP.

Where diversity within an ecosystem is relevant, part of the ecosystem can be preserved. It's not that difficult. The entire ecosystem need not be preserved. Not all diversity can be demonstrated to be relevant.

The fact is that some bio-diversity contains profit potential. Only the short-sighted capitalist would fail to see this (no cure for stupidity). The far-sighted capitalist does. Good resource management along with conservation of future potential resource streams is good... and just as capitalistic as before. Monetary value can be applied to an ecosystem. How much value does clean water add to fishing businesses? How much value does clean water save from water purification plants? How much value could tourism bring? How much value can hunting permits bring? How much potential value is lost in the loss of this species?

This brings me to another point. If you happen to be against fur, then you are decreasing the value of

Regarding the newly added second part:
Yes, look at BP. This oil spill is costing them millions in lost revenue, expenses to fix it, bad publicity, etc. I want you to honestly tell me that this oil spill is profiting them. Market forces dictate that oil spills are bad for business and bad for profits. Preventing this spill could've save them much more than it's now costing them.

Edit: Counter-point?

biodiversity is not as important as biostability

I think I recognize the argument... enough to guess who is making it.

However, I will argue that some biodiversity is good. In the case of crops, biodiversity is important as it allow a greater pool of genetic material for the improvement of crop yields through hybridization with disease resistant strains (or some other strains) as the need becomes apparent. This is not to say that all biodiversity is necessary. The species or strains that can be predicted to hold potential monetary value (and hence value to the human race) should generally be preserved. Those that don't have no meaning to the survival of humanity or the survival of any ecosystem that humanity depends on don't need to be preserved. Is this what was meant by biostability?

Once more though, this wouldn't hurt the capitalist system and the potential future value is reason enough to conserve some land.

Short term profits have no potential future value. That's why they are called short term. And at the moment every-one's gone short. The captains of capitalism are struggling to keep their own boats afloat. You really think their gonna think about the birds and the bees?

I can (on the odd occasion) still spend 1/2 an hour watching ants. What we gonna leave the kids with, if the only life left is being used by us? Cartoons?

What you grew with, they will dwell upon.

Had a couple of beers, not to sure if that last bit made any sense, but I'm gonna leave it anyways cuz I like it.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Short term profits have no potential future value. Short term profits have no potential future value. That's why they are called short term. And at the moment every-one's gone short. The captains of capitalism are struggling to keep their own boats afloat. You really think their gonna think about the birds and the bees?<!-/Quote-!>

Short term profits require the ability to repeat. Otherwise, you will not have short term profits the next quarter, the next year, the next decade, and your business will be doomed for failure. Anyone foolish enough to think that it's enough to make loads of money once, then retire isn't worthy of the title of "captain of capitalism". Greed dictates that you will want to earn more, forever more, money. Have you ever heard of the goose that laid the golden egg?

Greed = Poverty
Greed + Intelligence = Money

To the second bit (will click the link after), thats what Im talking about. If nature loses its natural habitat and only exists in a controlled habitat, the children will have to go to places to find nature, instead of co-habitating with nature and seeing it everyday. Creating a situation where most kids will have no immediate contact with life other than there own kind and domesticated animals. Which could ultimately leave them without the wonder needed to look further than ones self.
Its all about what you had as a kid. Sure, until its gone you might not realise just how important it was to your development. But if you were to think about the time you saw your first Dragon Fly or Butterfly and heard your first cricket, Owl or woodpecker. Or the first time you watched a spider build its web or the team work of a ants nest. As I said, it might seem insignificant now. But I bet at the time it felt like your whole world.

We c

Oil
1. Spill
2. ???
3. Profit

This is the message I wished to convey: How do oil companies benefit from spills?

Now, I don't think you realize another very important fact: Extermination costs money. Who will foot the bill to exterminate bees and wasps and roaches and ants and flies and spiders and pill bugs and caterpillars and termites and mosquitoes and crickets? I don't know about you, but I've lived and grown up in a developed environment and the insect population DOES NOT just randomly die off because of urbanization. RAID won't get rid of them. Exterminators can't permanently get rid of them. In fact, they just keep coming back. How is it possible to eliminate them? They won't die off easily, and it would take thousands of dollars to kill them all, but to what end? This much money and effort? What is the goal? Oh yeah, whenever they actually make concerted efforts to destroy whole population

If you see a forest, how do you know what it used to be like... twice as large..three times.. You don't know what has been lost from it so you think it's fine. You see a picture of a reef, but have no idea that it used to 20 times larger than what you see, so you have no idea about what was lost from it so you thnk it's fine. But what was lost? You have no idea. And neither do I.

And a problem with the oil spill is that nobody who wants cheap oil has the guts to say that "Yes, I am partly at fault for this mess."
Did you take a bus to work lately? Did you drive less than you usually do? Did you turn off your computer earlier than normal anytime at all? These are only a few if the things we could do to reduce the demand for petroleum. But do we?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

If you see a forest, how do you know what it used to be like... twice as large..three times.. You don't know what has been lost from it so you think it's fine. You see a picture of a reef, but have no idea that it used to 20 times larger than what you see, so you have no idea about what was lost from it so you thnk it's fine. But what was lost? You have no idea. And neither do I.<!-/Quote-!>

You've effectively said nothing by immediately assuming with no support that larger forests and reefs are desirable. Why are larger forests and/or reefs desirable? Why aren't smaller forests and smaller reefs desirable? If larger forests are more desirable, why not allow the forest to reclaim our cropland and our roads? Oh, right. We need those for human society to function prosperously... and even just function, period. Without crops, we starve. Without roads, we lose ju

That last part is quite silly Scarlet. Spilling milk costs at worst some paper towels, this oil disaster has already cost the lives of both humans and MANY MANY animals. Then the job losses, environments destroyed and the cost of cleaning it up. Comparing the worst man made disaster in U.S. history to spilling milk is actually pretty disturbing.

Oil is like milk in that humans do not need either, it is unlike milk in that it is a finite resource which will eventually run out. The oil we drill here is traded on the world market just like all of the oil in the world and if we were to stop drilling completely it may cause a rise in gas prices of 5 cents, assuming that OPEC doesn't just go ahead and up their production to keep prices exactly where they are, I wouldn't exactly call that a catastrophic economic loss such as what we will see from this oil disaster.

If you're going to make economics arguments be honest about it, r

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

That last part is quite silly Scarlet. Spilling milk costs at worst some paper towels, this oil disaster has already cost the lives of both humans and MANY MANY animals. Then the job losses, environments destroyed and the cost of cleaning it up. Comparing the worst man made disaster in U.S. history to spilling milk is actually pretty disturbing.<!-/Quote-!>

Ultimately, there is little difference other than scale. If I spill a glass of milk on someone's rug, I'm spilling 8 oz and it might be cleaned with a paper towel or it might need steam cleaning. Multiply that by millions, possibly billions, and you get a very similar situation. Imagine millions of gallons of spilled milk spoiling in the streets of a major city... imagine the lost revenue and the cost of cleaning it up.

Most of the job losses were artificial and created by poor decision making anyway. The cur

Capitalism by definition tells you nothing about how natural resources (environment) are (is) treated. It means that in production of goods (or services) a lot of capital is used and less of labour.

Labor or capital oriented economies both need natural resources as one of conditions for production to take place. One could argue that capital oriented economies are more dangerous simply due to their ability to make a larger impact on environment and reach into areas labor oriented can not or have huge difficulties doing so, like for instance deep sea oil drilling.

To NoProblem & WhiteBoy. Good on ya and well said.

Hi Ravbar. I think your right about the greater impact. Plus with a Labour oriented economy the companies only have to make enough money for labour, resources and development. Where in a Capital oriented economy the companies need to make enough money for labour, share holders, development, resources and profit to keep the speculators at bay.

Meaning a Capital oriented economy/company needs to make more money, which inturn, means using more resources to pay for its existence. Where as a labour oriented economy/company needs to make less money, so it ultimately ends up using less resources, which inturn makes it more Environmentally friendly.

If the Yanks paid the same tax on petrol as we do in the UK they would be able to pay their debt to China back.

Scarlet........Helloa.........As I was reading your last couple of posts I was thinking, where was your angle

What is an example of a "labor oriented economy" that anyone playing this game would be interested in living in?

I guess there are none.

Hey, here's an interesting article. Old but still quite relevant.

Can selfishness save the enivronment?

@Ravbar
Your description indicates that you're referring to capital intensive and labor intensive industries. These have no relation to the economic system in place, be it capitalism or otherwise. It is conceivable to have labor intensive industries within a capitalistic economy. The only reason this would occur, just as the only reason there are capital intensive industries, is that it is less expensive to produce the goods in this manner. Efficiency measured by monetary investment versus monetary profit is the sole factor in determining whether an industry is capital or labor intensive. Capital intensive industries happen to make more money in most cases.

Further, you've also assumed that labor intensive industries automatically are better for the environment. This assumption is demonstrably false. Consider the case of water usage and carwashes. I watching a "please conserve water" commercial (Southern California) poin

Ok Jojo. I'm reading your link, so as I go along I'll gonna make some notes.

1)'We believe they are wrong. Our evidence comes from a surprising convergence of ideas in two disciplines that are normally on very different tracks: economics and biology.'

Surly economics and biology are one and the same? The need to survive in the best possible conditions.

2)'Evolutionary biology has been transformed by the "selfish gene" notion, popularized by Richard Dawkins, of Oxford University, which essentially asserts that animals, including man, act altruistically only when it brings some benefit to copies of their own genes. This happens under two circumstances: when the altruist and the beneficiary are close relatives, such as bees in a hive, and when the altruist is in a position to have the favor returned at a later date.'

So why do I see Mosquitoes pulling flies out of the water?
And

'BESIDES, environmentalists cannot really believe that mere consciousness-raising is enough or they would not lobby so hard in favor of enforceable laws. About the only cases in which they can claim to have achieved very much through moral suasion are the campaigns against furs and ivory.'

Terrible one. What about recycling? Organic food? Energy saving by switching off your TV, computer or lights when your not using them? Green transportation? Protection of conservation and green belt areas? Plus the overall awareness of our responsibilities, as guardians, to the natural world?

Keep in mind that Environmentalists wouldn't have to do anything if there wasn't people out there that are quite prepared to consume and destroy everything regardless of the concequences.

Quote from your thread: 'What he meant was that because interest rates could allow money to grow faster than whales reproduce, even somebody who

Scarlet.

You said: 'If every individual sacrifices, who benefits? I don't benefit, do you benefit? Why should I sacrifice for your sake? Why should the guy next to me be required to sacrifice for my sake? Why should he sacrifice for yours? Why should you sacrifice for mine? In short, why should anyone sacrifice? If I'm going to give up something, I expect compensation.'

I'm saying: "The sacrifice is for the future generations benefit. Plus you cant expect to benefit from a sacrifice. Surly would'nt that be defeating the point? Anyways, all that we need to do is leave the Environment in a better condition than we were given it in. Sure man has made a few mistakes in his past (Easter Island) But most of us have learned from those mistakes. Its not fair on the future if we consume everything and leave them with nothing but a pile of waste.
Plus you talk about you wanting compensation. Who's g

Scarlet. You talk about putting a price on Nature. How can you put a price on something that nobody owns? Let alone sell something that nobody has the right to own?

How would everyone feel if our governments restricted our consumption of energy and material goods for 50 years to give Mother Nature a chance to adapt to man?
All it would take is for us to only use/buy what we need and not what we want for 50 years and Natural selection will ensure the survival of the web of life, Mother Nature and Gaia.

I was about to write something about the impacts of nature on holidays and sunny summer days and I suddenly thought that Scarlet probably wouldn't even notice if Nature disappeared tomorrow.
But if the Eco system did collapse and Mother Nature did disappear. I bet you Scarlet, that the next time you go back to that place where you have been before on holiday, you will miss her.
You will also be sad that you let her go. But at-least you wont be angry as hell like the next generations are gonna be with us for leaving them with Jack Shit.

50 years isn't long. Its not like being as