thought for the day... again... capitalism? dying? dead?

[kaosmark2]

I see no evidence to back up your rosey view.

Nuclear fusion, for example, is decades away at least, from being viably possible and then even more decades away from being deliverable on a large scale. If it's possible to deploy fusion at scale, it could be 80 years before it's making an appreciable difference

but I agree, we need to invest in alternative technologies. The problem is that capitalism isnt geared up for the long term, it's geared up to make a short term return on investment and to give consumers what they want now and bugger the consequences

as for developing nations, it might not be a case of asking them nicely...it's more likely to be a case of the world running out of resources

[lost]

no worries about the ever increasing population of our planet?

[fred quimby]

that time, perhaps not (tho the govt had plans ready to implement if it started to get close, they'd blown the dust off them - and they include shooting civilians when necessary).

My point wasn't particularly about that time (I mentioned it cos it's the only time in my lifetime I'm aware of anything like that happening), my point was that it could happen easily and easier than it would have happened then.

The whole of the world is continually teetering on the brink because everything is so inter-dependent now. It needs only a gentle shove for the whole thing to come tumbling down all around the world.

[worm]

Everyone who's been talking about science not being able to provide...

The technology for nearly everything is there. Self-sufficient energy, mass food production, mass desalination, mass fertiliser production.

There are very very few materials that could not be reused. Phosphates don't disappear when they get used for fertiliser, they go into the plants, which we eat, then shit out. Water doesn't stop being water when we piss/sweat it out. Hydrocarbons don't stop being hydrocarbons when we make them into plastics. About the only thing that isn't sustainable is burning coal, oil and gas for energy.

The problem though, is investment and demand. In order to safely provide nuclear technology, or to mass-produce and network solar/wind/water power, it would need investment. Major investment. Investment from the people who are currently gaining from oil sales, whether directly or indirectly. To produce food, cheaply, en masse, worldwide, it could be done. There isn't the demand from the rich to develop the industry. African families can't pay for it, so why should they?

The science is there, just not the investment to turn it into industry. Those with the money to implement it on an affordable mass scale don't have any personal reason to invest though. It comes back to the selfishness of bankers, executives and governments.

[worm]

I don't have my lifetime to list nearly everything in the world, sorry. .

[worm]

...

Edited October 11, 2011 by worm

[fred quimby]

it's Capitalism that convinces us that we need this stuff

[fred quimby]

Everyone who's been talking about science not being able to provide...

The technology for nearly everything is there. Self-sufficient energy, mass food production, mass desalination, mass fertiliser production.

There are very very few materials that could not be reused. Phosphates don't disappear when they get used for fertiliser, they go into the plants, which we eat, then shit out. Water doesn't stop being water when we piss/sweat it out. Hydrocarbons don't stop being hydrocarbons when we make them into plastics. About the only thing that isn't sustainable is burning coal, oil and gas for energy.

The problem though, is investment and demand. In order to safely provide nuclear technology, or to mass-produce and network solar/wind/water power, it would need investment. Major investment. Investment from the people who are currently gaining from oil sales, whether directly or indirectly. To produce food, cheaply, en masse, worldwide, it could be done. There isn't the demand from the rich to develop the industry. African families can't pay for it, so why should they?

The science is there, just not the investment to turn it into industry. Those with the money to implement it on an affordable mass scale don't have any personal reason to invest though. It comes back to the selfishness of bankers, executives and governments.

[abdoujaparov]

As for whining and moaning . Hold up a mirror

[abdoujaparov]

You think too much of yourself... Your offering has been terrible. Dismissing technology and saying if we just bought less TVs is nothing less than silly.

[sifi]

Freudian slip?

[sifi]

More like iPad auto correct going crazy

Edited October 11, 2011 by sifi

[fred quimby]

you (maybe not you) might not feel that you were missing out on something that 'you' probably never dreamed you needed in the first place... and think of all the money that's wasted by advertisers trying (and succeeding) to persuade you to have more and more stuff

you'd make do with what you have. And let's face it, how many people need editing facilities better than high end film studios would have had not that long ago?

what is Apple's (or whoever) motivation to bring out another i-phone?

what are most companies motivation?

[Ed209]

there is a certain irony in the fact that the only reason we are all on this forum, and hence having this conversation, is because of our mutual love of festivals .... a weekend were thousands of people all come together all in the name of consuming massive amounts of energy, food, drink, drugs and music, and producing disgusting amounts of waste.

[eFestivals]

we have been teetering since we crawled from the oceans.

Yes it could happen, then again it may not. I couldn't see it in isolation I'm afraid. Yes when the world runs out of food which I guess is a very very long way away (unless we populate too much, but then nature just takes over as with any swarm)

It seems like there's two conversations going on here, one that recognises the true state of the world and the other that only recognises the state in the UK.

The 'teetering' I'm talking about humanity being on the edge of is the teetering caused by the inter-dependence of trade, which certainly hasn't existed since we crawled from the oceans - it's 40 years old at most. Sure, life has always been difficult for individuals since the dawn of time but individuals used to be able to have an individual approach to try and get around any difficulties - that option is now gone. Either we all manage to carry on, or we all fall into the shit. And it only takes the removal of a brick or two from the wall of life for the whole thing to come tumbling down for everyone in the western world (and many beyond too).

As for food, that's a weird one. We've had a growth in food production that's out-stripped the growth in the world's population for the last 50 years, and yet despite starting from the position of enough food being produced to feed everyone in the world (so there's been a growing surplus since). Meanwhile, we (people in the west) have sat by, thinking of ourselves as 'civilised', and been happy to watch millions die because those people are outside 'the system' that puts food on our own plates. Sure, we've made token efforts to satisfy our guilt and then thought "I can't do anything more" as we go shopping for a new TV, but we've ultimately sat back and watched them die.

The UK today is able to produce food for 70% of the population. That means that 30% of us in this country depend for our lives on 'the system'. That's you and me in that 30% ... you're kidding yourself if you really think you'd be one of the lucky ones, cos after all, some are going to be the unlucky.

And guess what happens if 'the system' breaks down? The rest of the world will sit back and watch us die no different to how we've sat back and watched others die. None of us are too special to realistically think we'd be the ones outside that scenario, but some are too special to think realistically.

And if the population grows too fast so that some have to die .... why are you thinking it won't be us that suffers? What have we got to offer (say) Kenya so that it keeps sending us food if/when its own population is starving? Right now we're able to swap beads for food no different to how we swapped beads for slaves in days gone by (and Kenya might even allow its people to starve for those beads as things stand right now), but one day they'll wake up and go "hang on, we hold the cards here". In a world that's short of food the only thing worth more than food are the guns that can secure food - and it's guns we're swapping for food while not able to afford the guns for ourselves; we're setting up our own certain deaths somewhere down the line.

[eFestivals]

Glad someone sees my point.

The point you were agreeing with recognised "The science is there, just not the investment to turn it into industry.".

And so 'your point' is that the things we know we need to achieve are already outside of what we're able to manage to do, while the possibility of achieving them gets harder because our access to the things we need for those achievements is getting more difficult (less efficient) and not easier. The investments needed are becoming ever-greater, and so the possibility of achievements for those things are becoming further away.

[eFestivals]

So by natural resource you actually mean required material.

'required material' that requires an ever-increasing effort to get.

The facts prove that this take on things is true. For example, 'new' energies' require greater efforts and investments for the same return as 'old energies', without energy efficiency covering the difference.

Which is a much more efficient technology.

yep, collecting rain in a bucket is a much more efficient technology than a desalination plant.

Which was exactly my point, a point that makes a fatal flaw in all you've said.

No, you've just got a limited pre-conception of what science and technology is.

You said that "We agree that the economy is fucked, but this has not slowed down the expanse of science and technology.", which is indisputably factually incorrect.

If you wish to take a view that's contrary to the provable facts then it's easy to wrongly believe that science will save you, just you personally cos you're that special and important to society (), and then you can keep believing that everything is fine and dandy while others drop dead of your negligence.

[eFestivals]

And this why I said the vision seems for us to subject ourselves ro a slum existence ?

yet it's nothing different to the 'slum existence' you're quite happy for others to have as things stand.

What makes YOU so special that it's you that gets the great lifestyle while others have that 'slum existence'?

Or can you explain what you actually mean by this... What goes... What stays...

what stays is food (but only in the short term - sooner or later the shit hits the fans with this - 2050 at latest are the current estimates).

All of the rest is open to 'negotiation' - what can be afforded, and what we don't want to give up from that.

[eFestivals]

there is a certain irony in the fact that the only reason we are all on this forum, and hence having this conversation, is because of our mutual love of festivals .... a weekend were thousands of people all come together all in the name of consuming massive amounts of energy, food, drink, drugs and music, and producing disgusting amounts of waste.

I agree with your general point - tho actually, the consumption side is 'negative' by a fair measure, and in many ways the whole thing is something that's non-consumptive (tho not productive either).

Because if we're all at home instead we're consuming more energy, no less food, and producing more waste.

What you're seeing at festivals is not festivals "producing disgusting amounts of waste", but 'normal' 'everyday' human activities - tho a lesser amount of waste is produced on average per day by a person at a festival than they produce on average thru a year. The weight of rubbish removed per-person from a festival against what is produced per-person within society as a whole proves this true.

[Purple Monkey]

Another great video. Sums it all up.

I'm just wondering what's going to come first - a genuine revolution of the system or another 9-11 pretext to prolong this current shambles?

Edited October 12, 2011 by Purple Monkey

[Purple Monkey]

People need to seriously attempt to get out of this binary way of thinking. It's always this extreme vs that extreme. It's all from our conditioning (the amount of religious, particularly Christian traits permeating every political thought in our heads is incredibly stifling).

People need to start thinking for themselves, really. Truly independent thought. Notice when that happens human beings tend to lean to a more altruistic state of mind? Funny that.

Edit: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-15269123

Guess we know where in the world the next pretext is going to be towards. Enjoy World War 3, fuckwits.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Purple Monkey

[eFestivals]

Look you might disagree with what I say... and you might disagree with where my opinion might lead...

But to say stuff like I am happy for people to live slums is pretty shitty... I am certainly not happy for people to live in slums. Just because I don't subject myself to your world view does not mean I am sat here smiling at people living in those sort of conditions.

Its like the other day when you basically said I was a racist. Its just gutter talk...

Join up the frigging dots.

If you refuse to lower your standard of living - something you've basically said is the case - then the result is that you're condemning others to a 'slum existence' and worse still, death.

You can't keep your current lifestyle and not condemn others to that: that is an economic certainty.

So you either have to accept that your standard of living has to fall so that others are raised, or you condemn others to a slum existence and worse.

The only gutter talk around here is when you say "I refuse to change, but I don't condemn others to a 'slum existence'".

You say you want solutions. I've given you the solution. You say it's no solution cos it negatively effects you. It's laughable.

[eFestivals]

You can create the Green Fields in one location and then ignore the massive amount of consumption / waste / power drain the whole festival creates ?

it creates a lower average consumption per-person than would be consumed on average if those people stayed at home. That's the fact.

It's simply that we fail to realise how much damage we do to our environment when it's not pushed in our faces as it is at somewhere such as Glastonbury.

[eFestivals]

PS: that's not me saying that the likes of Glastonbury is a good thing. I was merely commenting on the consumption side compared to normal-life consumption.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

it creates a lower average consumption per-person than would be consumed on average if those people stayed at home. That's the fact.