Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Definitely yes.

Technically yes.

Technically no.

Definitely no.

Uncertain.

Other.

Don't care.

[Soadreqm]

I'm not really concerned about this. As long as we have energy to toss around, other resources can be recycled. Unlike most things that are wrong with the world, this one is a technological problem rather than a social one, and therefore most likely solvable. Are we going to master fusion before we run out of uranium? Entirely possible. Certainly easier than eliminating world hunger.

Considering that we make enough food to feed the entire world and feed it to cows whereas we don't have a clue how to do fusion, I think you have this backwards.

Nope.
World hunger isn't a technological problem. It's been possible to solve since farming was discovered. All you have to do is stabilize population to a level you can support without problems, and have some surplus to keep stored away so every unexpected climate problem doesn't cause a famine. And by contrast, increasing food production won't help shit, unless you can increase it exponentially for all eternity so population doesn't outpace it. There is currently no known method for reliably causing vast social changes or instating laws so that they affect the whole world. People have been trying to perfect the technology of world domination for thousands of years, with no notable success. Meanwhile, fusion power has been under study for fifty years or so. Experimental reactors abound. Yeah, I'm definitely betting for the breakthrough to happen in fusion.

Food isn't really recycable.. Unless.. Is it?
Engergy isn't the only thing we need, y'know.

Not directly recyclable, but consider this: If you have energy, you can farm without natural sunlight. Arable land is currently way cheaper than electricity, and will probably remain that way for a long, long time, but you don't actually NEED it. Yeah, really producing significant amounts of food with artificially lit indoor hydroponic farms is definitely a futuristic techno-fantasy that probably won't happen inside a reasonable timeframe, but it's not actually impossible.

And in the shorter term, you can terraform more and more areas into farmland. We're nowhere near exhausting the planet's theoretical maximum carrying capacity. But, as stated, increasing food production won't actually solve the problem, since demand will simply increase to meet the supply.

[x2yzh9]

I'm not really concerned about this. As long as we have energy to toss around, other resources can be recycled. Unlike most things that are wrong with the world, this one is a technological problem rather than a social one, and therefore most likely solvable. Are we going to master fusion before we run out of uranium? Entirely possible. Certainly easier than eliminating world hunger.

I am, somewhat. Food isn't really recycable.. Unless.. Is it?
Engergy isn't the only thing we need, y'know.

Wait, you've got something. If, when we discover and fully implement nanotechnology, you could implant someone with a system that recycled their bodily nutrients, so they never had to eat.

[fqllve]

Entropy.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

When humans first developed they lived in a communist society with the good of the tribe held to be paramount to the good of any one member.

Hunter/gatherer "tribes" are (not "were" since there are, after all, still hunter gatherer "societies" in existence) essentially family units, which work together internally because, you know, humans are normally inherently benevolent within their closest circles, and five people can more easily gather enough food for five than one person can for one.

The whole of human development has been freeing the individual from the despotic rule of the shamans and witch doctors and their modern day equivalents.

That's... entirely false, in every conceivable way. In horticultural societies (semi-nomadic tribes of several dozen to around 150 that practice primitive agricultural techniques; think amazonian or african tribesmen), which are the next step up from nomadic hunter/gatherers, but a step below agricultural, where you get the most rudimentary power structures and religious organization, chiefs and shamans are essentially powerless, holding nothing more than some perk or advisory capacity to the rest of the tribe. Ironically, the same thing emerges in anarcho-libertarian communes, where you end up with respected members of the community that hold no formal power but everyone listens to because they tend to know what they're talking about.

With more advanced agricultural technique came land ownership and a sedentary lifestyle, which led to formal power structures like kings and churches, and the more technology has advanced the more powerful the state has become, since it can communicate internally and spread its power further. It has, however, become more benevolent as a general rule, and occasionally even taken steps to suppress malevolent power structures, like corporations and criminal syndicates.

If one claims a dictatorship is needed to institute communism that should be the first red flag (no pun intended) that something is wrong. If something requires a dictatorship to exist it must by anathema to the rights of man, because it requires those right to be made subservient to the whims of the dictator in order to be instituted.

Communism calls for a tyranny of the working class, not a dictatorship. You must remember the revolution the brought about the USSR was hijacked by the bolsheviks after the whole "deposing the corrupt, oppressive dictatorship that joined in WWI for shits and giggles while driving Russia into ruin" was accomplished by more moderate socialists, and then the USSR itself was hijacked by Stalin, a borderline retarded thug who'd be more at home running a petty protection racket than trying to turn an agricultural backwater into a modern industrial superpower (though he did manage that, surprisingly enough, and managed to turn the tide against the Nazis in WWII despite the fucktarded achievement of killing all his military officers because paranoid lunatic).

Therefore I suggest that the utopia, because that is actually what we are arguing about here, would be a truly Libertarian state.

Considering libertarian economic theory boils down to "hey, you know what'd be awesome? if we gave all the power to the most corrupt sociopaths in the world!"... yeah, no.

[jaked122]

I think that communism and socialism have the most honorable ideals, however those are merely ideals.
I personally just want each man to be the god of his own destiny. where one is accountable for one's actions, where honesty is absolute, where at last men are free to experience the consequences of their actions. as a result this looks like essentially the ideal capitalist world, where regulation wouldn't be necessary because everybody would just try to be decent.

[Fayrik]

Not directly recyclable, but consider this: If you have energy, you can farm without natural sunlight. Arable land is currently way cheaper than electricity, and will probably remain that way for a long, long time, but you don't actually NEED it. Yeah, really producing significant amounts of food with artificially lit indoor hydroponic farms is definitely a futuristic techno-fantasy that probably won't happen inside a reasonable timeframe, but it's not actually impossible.

Ahh, Multi-story farms. I think they'd be a beautiful sight to see...
If, of course it gets pushed through properly and keeps to some animal welfare standards, and not just become a meat processing plant.

And in the shorter term, you can terraform more and more areas into farmland. We're nowhere near exhausting the planet's theoretical maximum carrying capacity. But, as stated, increasing food production won't actually solve the problem, since demand will simply increase to meet the supply.

I kinda agree with all of this...
Though, somethings definitely up. I can sense some sort of barrier in the way the world's economy is working. I wouldn't say it's the impending oil crisis, but I might be wrong, in which case we may well be facing the precursor to the oil companies collapsing without any form of plan b.

Heck, to an alien - or at least complete outsider, that might just be quite funny. Like watching someone run full speed into a brick wall head first. It's a lot less funny when it's your head that hits the wall.

Sorry about all that though guys. I figured I needed to balance out all this utopian discussion with some doom and gloom.

[Zrk2]

Nanotechnology + Solar panels = Abundant energy.

Wrong, when the sun is not shining there would be no energy. Same with windmills.

Contrary to popular belief it is impossible to store all the electricity produced during the sunny/windy times to power those when neither is available. The physics simply don't work.

Re Sir Pseudonymous:

1. Your claim that corporations are malevolent is a communist flamewar claim. Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations which manipulate the government for corrupt benefits are evil. If the government were not involved in the economy then most of these 'evil' corporations would not be able to perform most of the acts that people are upset about.

2. Tyranny of the working class is just as bad as tyranny of the upper class. Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, the wealthy have rights too. If the powers of government were restrained then it would be harder for the upper class to oppress the lower because they would have had fewer official devices to use. See the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the USA. It was passed to ensure the free flow of labour between corporations in order to promote the growth of small businesses, yet the Supreme Court ruled that unions inhibited the free movement of labour and so the government crushed the first serious labour movements. I support unions, I feel they serve an important purpose in counter balancing the powers of corporations.

3. Your claim about sociopaths is patently incorrect. Libertarian economic philosophy boils down to "GTFO government let people deal amongst themselves! If people are working things out amongst themselves then the law of supply and demand will ensure that prices level out to reasonable levels so long as people make intelligent purchases and refuse to pay exorbitant rates.

Jaked122 makes the point I have been trying to make in fewer words, because I feel that a capitalist system would better defend the rights of everyone than a communist system would.

[Fayrik]

Wrong, when the sun is not shining there would be no energy. Same with windmills.

This is why we're looking into using the cries of the damned to power ectoplasmic generators.
Eheh.

2. Tyranny of the working class is just as bad as tyranny of the upper class. Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, the wealthy have rights too.

Have you never heard of Anarchistic Communism?
The idea is everyone gets rights. Equal rights.
For the poor, this means much more, for the wealthy, much less. That is why communism is hated. The rich people don't like it, so they tell everyone else to not like it.

[fqllve]

Have you never heard of Anarchistic Communism?
The idea is everyone gets rights. Equal rights.

Direct democracy can be pretty scary. Ever hear of a likely fictional guy called Socrates?

For the poor, this means much more, for the wealthy, much less. That is why communism is hated. The rich people don't like it, so they tell everyone else to not like it.

I'm not gonna believe that the majority of people refuse to do something that would benefit them because some rich assholes told them not to. More likely it's selfishness.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Nanotechnology + Solar panels = Abundant energy.

Wrong, when the sun is not shining there would be no energy. Same with windmills.

I wasn't aware windmills required the sun to be shining on them.

1. Your claim that corporations are malevolent is a communist flamewar claim. Corporations are not inherently evil. Corporations which manipulate the government for corrupt benefits are evil. If the government were not involved in the economy then most of these 'evil' corporations would not be able to perform most of the acts that people are upset about.

Yes because company towns, union suppression, treating workers as disposable, engaging in fraudulent advertising, and sabotaging your competitors come about as a result of corporations bribing government officials for some tax cuts or no-bid contracts, and couldn't possibly exist otherwise.

2. Tyranny of the working class is just as bad as tyranny of the upper class. Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, the wealthy have rights too. If the powers of government were restrained then it would be harder for the upper class to oppress the lower because they would have had fewer official devices to use. See the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the USA. It was passed to ensure the free flow of labour between corporations in order to promote the growth of small businesses, yet the Supreme Court ruled that unions inhibited the free movement of labour and so the government crushed the first serious labour movements. I support unions, I feel they serve an important purpose in counter balancing the powers of corporations.

I was not endorsing the idea, merely pointing out that it's not meant to be a "dictatorship", but a tyranny of the working class with the aim of facilitating the transition to anarchism, and preventing those with money from just hiring a personal army to kill all those upstart laborers.

3. Your claim about sociopaths is patently incorrect. Libertarian economic philosophy boils down to "GTFO government let people deal amongst themselves! If people are working things out amongst themselves then the law of supply and demand will ensure that prices level out to reasonable levels so long as people make intelligent purchases and refuse to pay exorbitant rates.

Left to their own devices, the ones who succeed in a lassez-faire economy are the most corrupt and amoral, and being corrupt and amoral will use that success to make themselves more powerful, no matter the cost to society as a whole. So yeah, it does boil down to just handing everything over to the absolute worst of humanity.

Jaked122 makes the point I have been trying to make in fewer words, because I feel that a capitalist system would better defend the rights of everyone than a communist system would.

a) Capitalism does jack shit to protect anyone, because it's nothing but giving absolute power to whoever has the most money.
B) Rights are subjective concepts, which can only be enforced by a strong authority. People cannot be trusted to honor the mores of society when push comes to shove, though a good deal of them will there will always be many who don't, and there are always differing notions of morality after all.
c) Capitalism can't work in a post-scarcity economy, at which point human labor is superfluous, and thus there's nothing for anyone to work for, nor are there the limited resources capitalist economics are based on. Socialism isn't an exact fit either, superfluity of human labor and whatnot, but it is closer in that, with effectively unlimited resources and free labor, everyone can easily be provided for, and thus there's the whole "government caring for its people" part that's intrinsic to socialism.

For the poor, this means much more, for the wealthy, much less. That is why communism is hated. The rich people don't like it, so they tell everyone else to not like it.

I'm not gonna believe that the majority of people refuse to do something that would benefit them because some rich assholes told them not to. More likely it's selfishness.

Never underestimate the power of spin on the masses. Wealth leads to influence over the media, and control of the media leads to control over what spin gets spewed over the airwaves and all over the front page.

[Nikov]

Oh hey look, another Marxstrubation thread.

[Realmfighter]

Quite literally every time Nikov makes a hilarious pun about Communism, I ejaculate violently.

I love you Nikov.

[fqllve]

I think it's worth pointing out that economic policy and social freedom are not exactly correlated.

Nanotechnology + Solar panels = Abundant energy.

Wrong, when the sun is not shining there would be no energy. Same with windmills.

I wasn't aware windmills required the sun to be shining on them.

Sure don't. But they do require the sun to be shining on the earth! What happens every night at 8pm when the sun turns off, hmm?

Never underestimate the power of spin on the masses. Wealth leads to influence over the media, and control of the media leads to control over what spin gets spewed over the airwaves and all over the front page.

Oh, I'm not, but I don't think that people decide against communism just because some dude told them it was evil. He's got to at least present a compelling argument, even if that involves a shitton of lies. And I think the most compelling argument against communism is also the most compelling argument against taxes. "Fuck that, this is my money."

[Eagle_eye]

I think it's worth pointing out that economic policy and social freedom are not exactly correlated.

Nanotechnology + Solar panels = Abundant energy.

Wrong, when the sun is not shining there would be no energy. Same with windmills.

I wasn't aware windmills required the sun to be shining on them.

Sure don't. But they do require the sun to be shining on the earth! What happens every night at 8pm when the sun turns off, hmm?

umm... global wind patterns aren't isolated to two constantly shifting halves of the earth. Now, onto rant time.

Personally, I think all government is going to be screwed up, but socialism is the best possibility barring completely resetting human nature to be loving and peaceful. The wealthiest individuals in capitalism have complete control of everything collectively, even if they're not particularly coordinated about exercising that control. Just look at fox news: do you think those are really objective viewpoints? Of course not, they're the viewpoints of Rupert Murdoch, who happens to be able to afford and have the knowledge of economics necessary to get one of the biggest mouthpieces on earth. Millions of people, who would actually become wealthier under a socialist government, have had these ideas essentially fed to them, and they think that all those rich ceo's are their friends, when really they're out to get as much money as they can, without any care of who has to suffer to make that possible. People die on the streets by the hundreds every year, and yet others live in opulence and drive million dollar cars which are worth enough food to feed and clothe all those people many times over. Some of them may have made bad decisions, but does that really mean they deserve to die? Because that's essentially what you're saying, if you just echo the pathetic excuses the corporations use to defend their looting. "Well, effort and skill are rewarded, and they didn't have any". Last time I checked, incompetence was not a capital offense. We execute people for murder, but if someone who had done nothing more than fail at his job was tried in court and sentenced to death, there would be a huge outcry. Why is this any different? In fact, many of these multimillionaires screwed up themselves- The man who destroyed home depot, whose name I cannot remember at the moment, got a 150 million dollar bonus when he was fired. What did he do to deserve that? Going by either capitalist or socialist ideals, he doesn't deserve to be rewarded at all. His failure certainly is no better than that of someone who simply can't hold a job. At least they weren't responsible for destroying the livelihoods of others. Even if you disapprove of the socialist system of equal compensation, you cannot reasonably say that these people produced anything, helped anyone, did ANYTHING deserving any sort of compensation. When they do their job correctly, they do little more than move money around. You may claim they create jobs, but they do so at the expense of a roughly equal number of jobs. Why should they, with their spectacular failures, be given massive bonuses, while innocent people starve to death or die of exposure in winter?

[fqllve]

umm... global wind patterns aren't isolated to two constantly shifting halves of the earth.

Well duh. That's why I said turns off and not sets. As in, the earth is flat and every night at 8pm the sun is extinguished.

Millions of people, who would actually become wealthier under a socialist government, have had these ideas essentially fed to them, and they think that all those rich ceo's are their friends, when really they're out to get as much money as they can, without any care of who has to suffer to make that possible.

No one thinks CEOs are their friends and no one thinks they have anyone's but their own best interests in mind.

Last time I checked, incompetence was not a capital offense.

It is. Nature says so. You jump in the water wearing lead boots? Death penalty. You try to sail around the world? You end up like Columbus: falling through space forever.