Print

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

[Leafsnail]

After all, if a company adopts a plan that will kill it long term, it will die. Whereas a company that does not do so will not die. So theoretically it number of good companies would increase as the number of slash and burn would decease.

This logic works if you assume new companies are never made...

[Criptfeind]

Go ahead. Follow that line of thought.

Also known as:

This logic works if you assume new companies are never made...

This logic works if you assume that when new companies are made, the economy is reset and all old companies are disbanded...

[Leafsnail]

I know you have a desire to respond in as similar a way as possible, but your response doesn't actually make sense.

Your point is that slash and burn companies die more than long termist companies, therefore there will be less and less slash and burn companies over time.  This requires an assumption that no new slash and burn companies are being made.

My point is that as long as new slash and burn companies keep being made there's no reason to think they'll ever stop existing, or even that they'll ever become less prevelant.  This does not require the assumption that the economy undergoes resets in order to work.  Indeed, as long as a slash and burn company makes its creator some quick money, they've fulfilled their purpose and can be regarded as successful even if they ultimately fold.

[Criptfeind]

I know you have a desire to get me to talk more because I make no sense at all, so here is some more.

Your point is that more and more slash and burns will be made, and the numbers compared to the size of the economy over a long period of time will stay the same or increase. This requires an assumption that no new long term companies are made.

My point is that as long as slash and burn companies are failing and long term companies are being made or growing there's no reason to think that long term companies will not gain a larger and larger percentage of the economy. If the long term companies already do something, it is highly unlikely that a slash and burn company will appear and drive them out of business, but when a slash and burn company dies there is a chance that a long term company will take it's place. Indeed, as long as the economy does not reset, long term companies should gain a larger and larger share and cramp the slash and burns out.

[nenjin]

If the long term companies already do something, it is highly unlikely that a slash and burn company will appear and drive them out of business, but when a slash and burn company dies there is a chance that a long term company will take it's place. Indeed, as long as the economy does not reset, long term companies should gain a larger and larger share and cramp the slash and burns out.

Economic resets...like a massive banking failure and a recession, where everyone is spending less and businesses are feeling it? In this environment a businessman might say the safest bet to make money would be a S&B company. Safest bet for WHO is the question. Someone wanting to make money, sure. People that need jobs, security, or enjoy and support the product or service provided? They expect to rely on these things, not to have them evaporate back into the market.

[Criptfeind]

Not really. This is where the slash and burn die and the long term survive. For the most part at least.

Yeah it hurts, but the healing process always does.

[nenjin]

Not really. This is where the slash and burn die and the long term survive. For the most part at least.

See: The primary offenders in the banking collapse and toxic loans fiasco. They're still in business, even if the investment bundles and schemes they were running all ulimately folded.

[Fenrir]

One

Oh, my. Simply do not like the presentation, do you? Very well, very well indeed! It would be impolite of me to conduct an argument in such a fashion as caused others discomfort, so I shall compose an exposition for you, a wall of text making the point in such terms as can not be distorted or missed. So it begins.

Then perhaps the issue we need to address as a species isn't resource scarcity, but our ridiculous need to have gold-plated palaces. It may be the hardest thing humans have ever tried to learn, but curbing our desire for things beyond what we actually need is what I think would save us as a species.

You have made the assertion that, because resources shall always be scarce, mankind should stop wanting ridiculous things. No frivolous things should be desired. No need for golden palaces or sparkling jewelry or whatnot. That is why there is a fuss at all, right? Mankind should look to important things.

Use your imagination. In a world where all our material needs are accounted for and supplies unlimited, what become the one thing you CAN'T have by default? Other people's fealty, respect, support or service. Control over others. That's what becomes the scarce resource. How do you ensure that scarce resource ends up in your hands? You create more of it.

That's partly why I look askance at people's hoarding. Because I know that humans easily fit into that equation and we're not that far removed from looking at each other as meat, weighed by the pound.

In fact, you have said that it is very desperate that mankind should lay aside such things, for, if mankind does not, and it should come to pass that all resources can be manufactured without effort, in mankind’s greed for greater, it would turn upon itself, and men would make slaves of his fellow men. In the eyes of others, a man would be little more than meat, and his worth would be measured in ounces and pounds.

Supporting a happier community gives you what they want, them what they want and it's equitable. Christ, if half of people made pleasing others their highest priority, the world would be a pretty nice place to live. Why is this impossible again?

You then go on to say that, men ought to give his fellow man what they want, or, at least, you use such in an effort to demonstrate the being kind is the best option. It does, after all, give me what I want, give them what they want, and it is equitable. It would make the world a pleasant place to live. Such a pleasant picture.

Two

Let us first address the similarity between “need” and “want” as you have used them. You use them rather interchangeably, with the only real difference being that “need” implies something you want very much. If you mean something else, please offer correction, but this is your meaning as I perceive it.

Nothing can be anything more than a want, really, unless there is some end for which we require that which is needed. We need water to live, and we need to live. Now, we mean two very different things by that. We shall not live if we have not water, but why do we need to live?  We want to live. I suppose that, when we say that we want to live, we really mean that we need to live in order to be happy, but let us not fool ourselves into thinking that our survival is more than simple desire. It is not a universal writ that is carved into the cosmos.

Why is all that semantic tripe important? “Need” and “want” imply different things, so it is important that we know what we mean when we use them.

How does this relate to your argument? You state the following.

It may be the hardest thing humans have ever tried to learn, but curbing our desire for things beyond what we actually need is what I think would save us as a species.

You write of things beyond that which we need, but, as I demonstrated above, what is a need if not a want? You can not classify things as needs and wants and act as if they are separate. Needs are merely strong wants, or so it seems that you use it, for they can be naught else in absence of some goal, so how can you say where the needs end and where everything beyond begins? You can not do so in any useful fashion.

Three

You say that resources will always be scarce. You do that here.

Resources will always be scarce, that defines the problem but not a solution.

But did not your argument for human beings turning one another require that resources would cease being scarce?

Use your imagination. In a world where all our material needs are accounted for and supplies unlimited, what become the one thing you CAN'T have by default? Other people's fealty, respect, support or service. Control over others. That's what becomes the scarce resource.

Ah, I see. You assert that humanity will simply take the final scarcity as the commodity then. However, you seem to have put the happiness of society and the desire for human advancement on rather different scales, and you suppose that we shall favor one for the other.

You suppose that we shall simply stop valuing a happy society for favor of manipulation, but this desire for a happy society is not much different from the desire for the golden palaces earlier. It is not blessed by some divine hand; there is not any objective way one could say that we should value the happiness of others. We seek it, because it pleases us. For what other reason would we have?

So, if they be similar, might we not speak of both as commodities to be sought?

Human happiness will always be a commodity, for, to abuse other human beings as a commodity would make human happiness scarcer, and, thus, by your reasoning, human beings would seek this new commodity. If it did not make happiness scarcer, why object?

You can not separate your want for a harmonious community from the want for a golden palace. They are both desired, and they both have no better reason to be had beyond that they are desired.

Four

So, you are of the opinion that the desire for a palace is ridiculous and selfish, but you do not hold that opinion for having a happy community and helping others. That does not make sense, as one is not much different from the other.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you have also decided that the rest of humanity should not desire golden palaces for favor of more important things, but you seem to have ignored the fact that this is just your opinion, even so far as to refuse to answer why you presume that it is important.

Of course, simply not wanting more, while exceedingly unlikely that anyone could accomplish it, is also no solution, for what is a solution if it does not achieve the goal? Would we say to the dying man, “stop wanting to live”? After all, as I have stated, his want to live is only different from the desire for a palace only by severity.

Precisely which things should society stop wanting?

Fin

[nenjin]

You write of things beyond that which we need, but, as I demonstrated above, what is a need if not a want? You can not classify things as needs and wants and act as if they are separate. Needs are merely strong wants, or so it seems that you use it, for they can be naught else in absence of some goal, so how can you say where the needs end and where everything beyond begins? You can not do so in any useful fashion.

Says the living, breathing, functioning human with internet access and a house and a chair to post from. I'm all for idealistic or theological discussions, but don't try to parlay that into arguing being alive isn't a need. You can't even construct that sentence without being alive. Spare me the philosophy 101 exercises?

At the very least, I applaud your methodical construction. You've spared me a lot of typing.

You suppose that we shall simply stop valuing a happy society for favor of manipulation, but this desire for a happy society is not much different from the desire for the golden palaces earlier. It is not blessed by some divine hand; there is not any objective way one could say that we should value the happiness of others. We seek it, because it pleases us. For what other reason would we have?

You can not separate your want for a harmonious community from the want for a golden palace. They are both desired, and they both have no better reason to be had beyond that they are desired.

You're taking the relativist perspective, and I reject it. Someone that builds themselves a gold fortress at the direct expense of others isn't on an equal footing with the person who provides for the well being others simply because everyone desires something. I desire a cheeseburger and pay $5, X dictator wished for Y atrocity and murdered thousands to achieve it. Same because they're both desires? BS.

Precisely which things should society stop wanting?

They should know when enough is enough and have the selflessness to either stop taking, start giving back, minimize harm or all three. We're not an island unto ourselves just because we're on the internet. I mean, it's shit like when car companies stubbornly refused to stop making SUVs and people that were all gung ho about their personal freedom were really loud about never driving anything else. Now? You'll notice a lot fewer SUVs as the focus of production and people are generally a lot more conscious about fuel use. They did that out of fear. Can we not start acting a little more selflessly without having to be pushed into it by crisis? Recycling is the same damn principle. Take 2 hours out of every year, convert half that crap back into usable materials.

Except selflessness involves $ in the larger scope of things, so it's a totally different ball game.

[Criptfeind]

Not really. This is where the slash and burn die and the long term survive. For the most part at least.

See: The primary offenders in the banking collapse and toxic loans fiasco. They're still in business, even if the investment bundles and schemes they were running all ulimately folded.

Well I am not disagreeing with you there. Them banks are going to trouble if they keep on trucking like before. Hopefully the fed will make good on it's promise to slowly minimize them and reduce their power to the point where they are not to big to fail.

[Fenrir]

Says the living, breathing, functioning human with internet access and a house and a chair to post from.

I am not sure what you mean by this, for my relative comfort is meaningless to this conversation.

I'm all for idealistic or theological discussions, but don't try to parlay that into arguing being alive isn't a need.

You may notice that I stated no such thing. The point is that “need” is a relative thing. Being alive is only a need so much as it is a prerequisite for all of my wants. Of course, my living is not a need for you, as it is not a prerequisite for your wants. If you do not state precisely what you mean by what humanity needs, that is to say, the purposes that make these things needs, then your statement about how we should not go beyond what we need is of no meaning.

Spare me the philosophy 101 exercises?

You seem to be making a weak effort to dismiss what I say with remarks that do not seem to make any sense.

You're taking the relativist perspective, and I reject it.

If you wish to be correct, as I suppose you do, it is not sufficient to reject something without a good reason. Tell me, if morality is not relative, from whence do you get it? What objective, logical rules have you for morality? and why should we follow them?

Someone that builds themselves a gold fortress at the direct expense of others isn't on an equal footing with the person who provides for the well being others simply because everyone desires something. I desire a cheeseburger and pay $5, X dictator wished for Y atrocity and murdered thousands to achieve it. Same because they're both desires? BS.

Calling it “BS” without offering a reason really does nothing.

They should know when enough is enough and have the selflessness to either stop taking, start giving back, minimize harm or all three.

When is enough? How will they know?

You are also presuming that they are stealing something from society.

We're not an island unto ourselves just because we're on the internet. I mean, it's shit like when car companies stubbornly refused to stop making SUVs and people that were all gung ho about their personal freedom were really loud about never driving anything else. Now? You'll notice a lot fewer SUVs as the focus of production and people are generally a lot more conscious about fuel use. They did that out of fear. Can we not start acting a little more selflessly without having to be pushed into it by crisis? Recycling is the same damn principle. Take 2 hours out of every year, convert half that crap back into usable materials.

This hardly answers my question that you quoted.

Except selflessness involves $ in the larger scope of things, so it's a totally different ball game.

This remark seems rather random, as I can discern no relevance or useful meaning.

[nenjin]

I am not sure what you mean by this, for my relative comfort is meaningless to this conversation.

It's entirely relevant. You need food to survive and shelter from the elements. Those are basic survival needs. Both of those things in a modern context require money, and money requires a job to pay for your house, groceries, taxes, vehicles and yes, luxuries. And I say this in the context of some of the worst weather the US has experience in decades and a year loaded with earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding and wild fires. Before you go saying a tent in the wilderness suffices.

So don't treat these very real necessities (which I assume you pay for?) as foregone conclusions. They're not. They're all required to stay alive and debate, and even if you make them relative by saying people in America are basically living the same lives as people in Sub-Saharan Africa, they are still requirements for living and totally separate from gold fortresses. There are fundamentals to staying alive and there is a line at which you can draw where you don't need certain things, you only want them. (Internet, cable, a TV, 24-hour power, dishwashers, washing machines, and 1,000 household items.) You can live on 3 bowls of rice a day. But you want a wide selection of foods, in different flavors from across the world. Those aren't needs, except to spoiled individuals who have never had to make due with less.

Of course, my living is not a need for you, as it is not a prerequisite for your wants.

Actually, you're wrong. I'm sure you do, or will one day, do something that is a prerequisite for my needs. You might flip burgers, or finance my loan, or check up on my health, give me tech support, legislate the laws or pick up my trash. Maybe you won't ever directly serve my needs, but in some way you'll serve my needs being part of the system. I'm not just whistling Dixie when I say we rely on each other for damn near everything, yet people want to over look that fact when it comes time to start rewarding people for their effort in proportion to the role they play.

If you do not state precisely what you mean by what humanity needs

Do I need to tell you to breathe? Can we please dispense with all the psuedo-logic gotcha crap, otherwise known as:

philosophy 101 exercises

If you wish to be correct, as I suppose you do, it is not sufficient to reject something without a good reason.

I wish to have a view point that someone doesn't write off as invalid on its face when it's not being used as a theoretical construction. If you're here to be right, we can simply stop right now because I'm personally not putting out this kind of effort as some sort of intellectual dick-waving exercise. Are you?

Tell me, if morality is not relative, from whence do you get it? What objective, logical rules have you for morality? and why should we follow them?

Do the least harm with the most good for the most people. That's my philosophy. Where does it come from? It doesn't really matter where. As long as people have the capacity to talk to each other, they're going to believe different things. If you want me to change my mind that:

Someone that builds themselves a gold fortress at the direct expense of others isn't on an equal footing with the person who provides for the well being others simply because everyone desires something. I desire a cheeseburger and pay $5, X dictator wished for Y atrocity and murdered thousands to achieve it. Same because they're both desires? BS.

Isn't a crock that you can't defend , you better do more than go "nanner nanner poo poo, you didn't spell it out for me so I refuse to respond to it." I'm calling your assertion armchair philosophical crap coming from someone who isn't being honest intellectually, they just want to win. Deal with it or convince me otherwise. Because that's what it sounds like. Or can you actually provide an example or explanation that actually makes sense outside of a theoretical internet debate? Because I doubt you'll find anyone who agrees with the sentiment. But good luck to you.

When is enough? How will they know?

You are also presuming that they are stealing something from society.

They could try listening to their employees when they say "don't fire us so you can make the same amount or more than you did last year."

They could listen to consumers when they say "be honest and don't fuck us to make bank."

They could listen to the scientific community and environmentalists when they say "you can't keep doing this to the Earth, because you're destroying it and us in the process."

There are many indicators. It's matter of how important these things are versus staying in business and turning a profit (and keeping people employed, I'll be the first to admit that.)

And exactly what is the sweat of a man's brow worth, Fenrir? Because you say it's worth exactly what they believe it is. If that's the case, who exactly is supposed to be right? The people with the money?

This hardly answers the question that you quoted.

Let's see. Smaller houses. Fewer children. Fewer new fancy tech gadgets every year. Fewer diamonds. Fewer imported goods. Fewer cars. Smaller global catches of sea food. Stop chewing into the Amazon for all the illegal lumber.

Take all that saved money and resources and reinvest it into your infrastructure and the success of your country and your countrymen. Start thinking about how your actions will play out over the long-term in the next 10 or 20 years, not just in the next fiscal quarter.

I could go on but I think I've satisfied your obsessive need for me to explicitly state exactly what I'm thinking.

[Fenrir]

It's entirely relevant. You need food to survive and shelter from the elements. Those are basic survival needs. Both of those things in a modern context require money, and money requires a job to pay for your house, groceries, taxes, vehicles and yes, luxuries. And I say this in the context of some of the worst weather the US has experience in decades and a year loaded with earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding and wild fires. Before you go saying a tent in the wilderness suffices.

So, a tent won't suffice, because there are earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding, and wild fires? A full three quarters of those things would threaten a home more than a tent at any rate.

There are fundamentals to staying alive and there is a line at which you can draw where you don't need certain things, you only want them. (Internet, cable, a TV, 24-hour power, dishwashers, washing machines, and 1,000 household items.)

Well, as you stated that mankind should learn to curb our desire for things that are beyond what we need, you should give up your Internet access, electricity, and anything else that you happen to have that is on that list, as I would be justified in labelling you a hypocrite.

Those aren't needs, except to spoiled individuals who have never had to make due with less.

You say all those other things in an effort to display that needs are not relative, but here you actually admit that they are, as you point out that what you would consider a want is a need for someone else.

Actually, you're wrong. I'm sure you do, or will one day, do something that is a prerequisite for my needs. You might flip burgers, or finance my loan, or check up on my health, give me tech support, legislate the laws or pick up my trash. Maybe you won't ever directly serve my needs, but in some way you'll serve my needs being part of the system. I'm not just whistling Dixie when I say we rely on each other for damn near everything, yet people want to over look that fact when it comes time to start rewarding people for their effort in proportion to the role they play.

If I died right now, not one of your needs would fail to be fulfilled. The system marches on without me, it is unlikely that I shall one day fulfill any of your basic survival needs, so no, you do not need me alive.

Do I need to tell you to breathe?

No, since needs are relative, you need to tell me relative to what are those needs that you see as something beyond which we should not reach.

Can we please dispense with all the psuedo-logic gotcha crap, otherwise known as:

philosophy 101 exercises

“Psudeo-logic gotcha crap” and “philosophy 101 exercises” are equally meaningless. If am being illlogical, and you know it, it should be easy enough to point out why I am illogical without resorting to dismissive and meaningless labels.

I wish to have a view point that someone doesn't write off as invalid on its face.

So you do not really care if your point of view is factual or logical, you just do not want people to write it off as invalid?

If you're here to be right, we can simply stop right now because I'm personally not doing this as some sort of intellectual dick-waving exercise. Are you?

No. Again, you are attempting to dismiss me by implying that I am simply being obtuse.

Do the least harm with the most good for the most people. That's my philosophy. Where does it come from? It doesn't really matter where.

If you are going to reject moral relativism, you shall need to provide some proof that morality is not relative, so it really does matter where you get yours.

As long as people have the capacity to talk to each other, they're going to believe different things.

So you do accept moral relativism? This has me a little perplexed.

If you want me to change my mind that:

Someone that builds themselves a gold fortress at the direct expense of others isn't on an equal footing with the person who provides for the well being others simply because everyone desires something. I desire a cheeseburger and pay $5, X dictator wished for Y atrocity and murdered thousands to achieve it. Same because they're both desires? BS.

If you want more than "I think it's BS", you better do more than go "nanner nanner poo poo, you didn't spell it out for me so I refuse to respond to it."

I can not respond to it if you do not make some kind of logical point. You just said it was BS.

I'm calling your assertion armchair philosophical crap coming from someone who isn't being honest intellectually, they just want to win.

I am calling your assertion about my assertion nonsensical crap coming from someone who is being an intellectual coward, they just do not want to lose. See, I can do that too, but it is only going to get the thread locked, so, unless that is what you want, please refrain from it.

Deal with it or convince me otherwise. Because that's what it sounds like. Or can you actually provide an example or explanation that actually makes sense outside of a theoretical internet debate?

If it makes sense inside the debate, why would it not make sense somewhere else? All of this stuff only makes sense if it is correct, so, I don't get it.

Because I doubt you'll find anyone who agrees with the sentiment. But good luck to you.

Thank you, but I am sure I don't care.

And exactly what is the sweat of a man's brow worth, Fenrir? Because you say it's worth exactly what they believe it is. If that's the case, who exactly is supposed to be right? The people with the money?

They would both be right. The sweat of a man's brow is worth to any particular individual what that individual thinks it is worth, so long as that judgement of worth is not based upon false pretenses.

Let's see. Smaller houses. Fewer children. Fewer new fancy tech gadgets every year. Fewer diamonds. Fewer imported goods. Fewer cars. Smaller global catches of sea food. Stop chewing into the Amazon for all the illegal lumber.

Take all that saved money and resources and reinvest it into your infrastructure and the success of your country and your countrymen. Start thinking about how your actions will play out over the long-term in the next 10 or 20 years, not just in the next fiscal quarter.

That does not answer the question, “precisely which things should society stop wanting?” You just say “fewer”, but you do not say by how much. Before you get annoyed, I shall just arrive at the point. You see, you can not answer that question. You have decided, for yourself, that which is superfluous (admitting that the Internet is one of them, but obviously unwilling to make that sacrifice, obivously). My whole point is that needs are relative, and, thus, that which is not a need is not something that you can objectively state, as you have been trying to do.

I could go on but I think I've satisfied your obsessive need for me to explicitly state exactly what I'm thinking.

If you do not state what you are thinking as I have done, you can give up hope of being understood.

[Montague]

What are you guys even arguing about anymore?

[Fenrir]

I am still basically trying to point out that he can't say what it is that society needs, as needs are relative. It seems to have done some snowballing.

Which, now that I think about it, probably was not worth the ruckus. I would not be surprised if someone got a mute over this.