Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
Deozaan:
Let's base it inversely on the amount of CO2 and other crappy stuff in our air.-worstje (June 26, 2011, 11:26 AM)
--- End quote ---
Erm... CO2 isn't "crappy stuff" in our air. It's necessary for all plant life. Despite what you hear on TV and in the newspaper, the science isn't settled, there is no consensus, and there is still quite a large debate about the whole man-made global warming thing going on.
But now we're really getting off the topic of Bitcoins.
worstje:
Deozaan, I know that. :) Stop focusing on the badly worded part of my post!111 :tellme:
More seriously: there's plenty of CO and spraycan gasses and other nasties like nano-particles that are quite on their way to messing stuff up beyond words. Just 1% more oxygen would make a world of difference the way I understand it, even if the greenhouse theory ends up being a total balloon of hot air (pardon the pun)..
Also.... :-* Porn porn porn!
Very relevant, or so I thought when I was getting the link, but I'm confusing it with another video. All those WoW videos are alike. I am sad to say, no chinese goldfarmers in this one... just porn. :D
JavaJones:
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.
-JavaJones (June 25, 2011, 12:48 PM)
--- End quote ---
Limiting economic growth without limiting population growth? You *really* want to talk about the haves and the have nots.
-wraith808 (June 25, 2011, 03:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
Population growth is largely self-limiting in developed ("1st world") countries. Unchecked population growth only ultimately leads to the saturation of Earth as a habitable space, regardless of its cause. So clearly growth without limit is untenable, and any system that relies on it as a fundamental principle is not sustainable long-term. One can make the argument that it might make sense as a short-term strategy for various reasons, but pretending it can achieve sustainable long-term viability is not only foolish but dangerous. The physical laws of the universe itself are ultimately standing in the way, but much sooner than they will rear their head the limitations of our own comparatively tiny world and resources will do so. Not acknowledging that eventual reality and *planning for it* is irresponsible in the extreme. Our current economic models have no answer or solution to that "end game".
- Oshyan
Renegade:
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.
-JavaJones (June 25, 2011, 12:48 PM)
--- End quote ---
Limiting economic growth without limiting population growth? You *really* want to talk about the haves and the have nots.
-wraith808 (June 25, 2011, 03:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
Population growth is largely self-limiting in developed ("1st world") countries. Unchecked population growth only ultimately leads to the saturation of Earth as a habitable space, regardless of its cause. So clearly growth without limit is untenable, and any system that relies on it as a fundamental principle is not sustainable long-term. One can make the argument that it might make sense as a short-term strategy for various reasons, but pretending it can achieve sustainable long-term viability is not only foolish but dangerous. The physical laws of the universe itself are ultimately standing in the way, but much sooner than they will rear their head the limitations of our own comparatively tiny world and resources will do so. Not acknowledging that eventual reality and *planning for it* is irresponsible in the extreme. Our current economic models have no answer or solution to that "end game".
- Oshyan
-JavaJones (June 26, 2011, 08:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
+1
Good points.
Perhaps a simplistic view: In math, physics, chemistry, blah blah, equations balance. Infinite growth models? They can't balance.
Here's a mathematician.
I have 1 apple. I still have 1 apple. I still have 1 apple. Ooops. I ate it. I have zero apples.
Here's an economist:
I have 1 apple. I have 1.2 apples. I have 1.5 apples. I have 2 apples. Ooops. I ate my apple, now give me your apple so I can eat my second apple.
wraith808:
Population growth is largely self-limiting in developed ("1st world") countries. Unchecked population growth only ultimately leads to the saturation of Earth as a habitable space, regardless of its cause. So clearly growth without limit is untenable, and any system that relies on it as a fundamental principle is not sustainable long-term. One can make the argument that it might make sense as a short-term strategy for various reasons, but pretending it can achieve sustainable long-term viability is not only foolish but dangerous. The physical laws of the universe itself are ultimately standing in the way, but much sooner than they will rear their head the limitations of our own comparatively tiny world and resources will do so. Not acknowledging that eventual reality and *planning for it* is irresponsible in the extreme. Our current economic models have no answer or solution to that "end game".
-JavaJones (June 26, 2011, 08:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
That still doesn't address the fact that there is no limit on population growth. It's all well and good to say that population growth is limited in 1st world countries, but if you go to extremely rural or extremely urban areas of the U.S., it would quickly become evident that this is not true. And I wasn't saying that there shouldn't be a limit on economic growth- only that limiting it without limiting population growth takes the ability of any limited economic system to support the (still) growing population.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version