Author Topic: Because there isn't enough misinformation on environmental science...  (Read 8980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pred the Penguin

  • 210
  • muahahaha...
    • EaWPR
Re: Because there isn't enough misinformation on environmental science...
Personally I'm not arguing against industrialization, just against the way it is implemented.

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
Re: Because there isn't enough misinformation on environmental science...
the cost of living in an agricultural society will be less than in an industrial one. by living away from urban centers property tends to be much cheaper, and growing your own food, as well as any wild game you may hunt, reduces your dependency on trade and therefore money. not to say that trade doesn't exist, rather that basic survival does not depend on it exclusively. in an urban industrial situation you're entirely dependent upon a paycheck as a primary means of survival.

What you're essentially advocating is arnarcho-primitivism. Actually what you are describing is how things used to be 200 years ago and the result was basically rampant poverty and decidedly worse nutrition. By your own admission China is, at this stage, much better off than India and most of Africa, and the reason for this is because China is much more industrialized. If you want to look at agro based societies and how much they suck, look no farther than most of Africa.

the usa used to be an agricultural society and still is to a huge degree. and we didnt need more powerful nations pumping us with cash and corruption to do it.  the original point i was trying to make was that middle-class environmentalism is a sham and to make any real progress in terms of environmental protection, that you need to:

bring production closer to home
make efficient products that have a longer design life, made with longer production runs, and that can be repaired
only trade internationally in raw materials (and then only goods that are abundant locally for ones that are rare locally)
process our own waste (such as not shipping tech waste to china for reclamation, which is very damaging to their environment)
and most importantly, stop exploiting the 3rd world

my argument wasnt against industrialization, it was against industrialization to benefit the west and not the nation in which the industry is undertaken. if they farm let them farm and use the food locally instead of for export. if they are going to build vehicles or machinery or general consumer products, let them use them for their betterment and not for ours. every nation must find its balance between agriculture and industry. then when their population is in good enough shaape, they should implement appropriate environmental standards. they should probably do it before their resources are depleted and their land to contaminated to grow anything.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 05:25:59 am by Nuke »
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

 

Offline Mikes

  • 29
Re: Because there isn't enough misinformation on environmental science...
my argument wasnt against industrialization, it was against industrialization to benefit the west and not the nation in which the industry is undertaken. if they farm let them farm and use the food locally instead of for export. if they are going to build vehicles or machinery or general consumer products, let them use them for their betterment and not for ours. every nation must find its balance between agriculture and industry. then when their population is in good enough shaape, they should implement appropriate environmental standards. they should probably do it before their resources are depleted and their land to contaminated to grow anything.

What you are arguing against is trade....   and what you are overlooking is human nature.
When people are "supposed" to live off their land and see their neighbors have what they need... they are either gonna trade for it or take it.
If you allow people to trade... then the world will quickly be back to what it is right now... if you forbid trade... the only other option really is violent conflict.

Happy new World... lol.

As a general rule... if your vision for the world is implicitly built uppon premises like "As long as people live peacefully" or "As long as people are content with what they have" ...  your ideas would likely do more harm than good.... much more harm.


And how would you implement such a change anways? We are doomed to compete within the status quo...  even if the US and Europe decide to go "green" ...  China would just step in with a smile. And even if the Chinese suddenly decided to do they same thing (They never would, as the country's stability hinges uppon economic growth) ...  even if somehow magically the whole world decided to follow your ideals... it wouldn't take long for some country to start producing tanks as part of its budget to get a little extra slide out of their neighbors.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 06:21:44 am by Mikes »

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
Re: Because there isn't enough misinformation on environmental science...
my argument wasnt against industrialization, it was against industrialization to benefit the west and not the nation in which the industry is undertaken. if they farm let them farm and use the food locally instead of for export. if they are going to build vehicles or machinery or general consumer products, let them use them for their betterment and not for ours. every nation must find its balance between agriculture and industry. then when their population is in good enough shaape, they should implement appropriate environmental standards. they should probably do it before their resources are depleted and their land to contaminated to grow anything.

What you are arguing against is trade....   and what you are overlooking is human nature.
When people are "supposed" to live off their land and see their neighbors have what they need... they are either gonna trade for it or take it.
If you allow people to trade... then the world will quickly be back to what it is right now... if you forbid trade... the only other option really is violent conflict.

Happy new World... lol.

As a general rule... if your vision for the world is implicitly built uppon premises like "As long as people live peacefully" or "As long as people are content with what they have" ...  your ideas would likely do more harm than good.... much more harm.


And how would you implement such a change anways? We are doomed to compete within the status quo...  even if the US and Europe decide to go "green" ...  China would just step in with a smile. And even if the Chinese suddenly decided to do they same thing (They never would, as the country's stability hinges uppon economic growth) ...  even if somehow magically the whole world decided to follow your ideals... it wouldn't take long for some country to start producing tanks as part of its budget to get a little extra slide out of their neighbors.

thing about restricting trade, is to restrict it to raw materials only. this would encourage everyone to make their own products at home. as opposed to having them made elsewhere and shipped in. it also makes sure whats made in a country stays in a country to benefit its people and not some external party. maybe its not such a good idea, but you never know.

human nature would never allow anything i proposed to happen. what i see is things continuing the way they are. the environmentally conscious countries pissing into the wind and individuals slightly reducing their carbon footprint. goods are all manufactured overseas where its cheaper. countries like china become well developed and pass industry to the 3rd world. might get handed on down a few times. and then one day were out of oil, or perhaps some other thing we overlooked. perhaps we will have alternative fuel sources, but these would be geared towards general consumers wishing to ease their guilt by being more efficient, things that matter, like trains, trucking, shipping all having been ignored. leaving little or no means to move goods from overseas locations to here and vice versa. trade collapses and the world devolves into anarchy. what really concerns me is we will dig a hole we cant get out of. i really dont care. i will enjoy watching them mushroom clouds.
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

  

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Re: Because there isn't enough misinformation on environmental science...
Quote
and we didnt need more powerful nations pumping us with cash and corruption to do it.

This isn't true, Britain made substantial investments in america and even today still is our number one investor. Trade built american industry to a very large degree.

And yes, the us was also hopelessly corrupt during this time, much more so than today.

Quote
the usa used to be an agricultural society and still is to a huge degree.


The USA is 90% urbanized/suburbanized. 200 years ago it was agricultural just like everywhere else, but today not at all.

Quote
it was against industrialization to benefit the west and not the nation in which the industry is undertaken.

No one forces them to do this, and in fact for many decades closing their economies off was how Latin America tried to develop in accordance to the dependecy theory. The result was they all became basket cases, leading to a lost decade. Globalization happened because the old ways weren't working anymore and the third world got tired of being poor.

It took western countries more than 150 years to fully industrialize, mainly because there wasn't a disproportionately wealthy market to export to. The reason south korea, taiwan, and the other tiger economies were able to industrialize so much faster was not because of any special characteristic or anything like that, it was because they had a place with lots of money to sell the stuff they were making.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key