how is mentioning not knowing what is going to happen 10 years from now addressing sustainability? ... we are not sustaining ourselves now ... i mention global warming because it is probably the major consequence of the uncontrolled economic growth ... something that has cost billions of dollars and many lives ... but there is no need to discuss it in this thread ... i only point it out because you patronize in your posts but yet you don't believe in something that most people believe in all over the world and the fact you point ...
How are we not sustaining ourselves now? Explain that. Once again, people are living longer and less people are starving then 100 years prior... and 100 years prior to that.
As I said, people such as yourself pain the picture that economic growth is bad. Re-read what you just wrote. As if uncontrolled economic growth hurts people.... ha ha. Seriously? Uncontrolled economic growth cost billions of dollars? Explain. "Controlled economic growth" costs billions of dollars!
Also, please explain how uncontrolled economic growth cost many lives?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. To some, the whole "global warming" issue is just a scheme. They don't want economic efficiency.They talk like economic growth is bad. They just want social equity. They use global warming to try to achieve that.
If one doesn't want economic growth, I wish they'd just be upfront about it.
.i didn't say economic theory is a joke ... i just said that referring to it constantly like the world exists in some bubble is a joke ... if you took the time to read what i wrote - you would understand that ...
The world doesn't exist in a bubble. But, economic theory and empirics seek to understand the world, particularly scarce resources.... look up the definition of economics for Christ's sake... that's what it studies. It's like discussing behavioral issues with a behavioral psychologist and saying that the behavioral psychologist is living in a bubble as they diagnose those behavioral issues.
I'd argue that someone who refers back to global warming, in discussions like these is living in a bubble.
.sooo ... in the end, your response to the state of our resources and planet is simply ... wait 10 years and technology will save us?
No, my response is that those concerned with resource scarcity repetitively avoid taking into account technology and how that has impacted the use of those resources. My opinion is (provided the economy doesn't shut down) technology should continue to improve. In doing so, making more with less is not only feasible, it's likely. I've provided dead on examples of people (like Malthus) who argued the opposite and were proven to be incorrect.
Nevertheless, if the economy does shut down, resource scarcity will be more of an issue. My opinion is those pushing for "equity" and arguing about the problems with "uncontrolled economic growth" are part of the problem that could result in a shut down of the economy. It's almost as if they want these scarcity issues to arise and become problematic.
How are we not sustaining ourselves now? Explain that. Once again, people are living longer and less people are starving then 100 years prior... and 100 years prior to that.
As I said, people such as yourself pain the picture that economic growth is bad. Re-read what you just wrote. As if uncontrolled economic growth hurts people.... ha ha. Seriously? Uncontrolled economic growth cost billions of dollars? Explain. "Controlled economic growth" costs billions of dollars!
Also, please explain how uncontrolled economic growth cost many lives?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. To some, the whole "global warming" issue is just a scheme. They don't want economic efficiency.They talk like economic growth is bad. They just want social equity. They use global warming to try to achieve that.
If one doesn't want economic growth, I wish they'd just be upfront about it.
global warming is an indication that it is unsustainable ... but i get it - you think it's some scam ... which is fine ... but this is the crux of our difference ... you think everything is as good as its ever been and i don't ... if we can't agree that global warming exists then we are at that point of the discussion ...
The world doesn't exist in a bubble. But, economic theory and empirics seek to understand the world, particularly scarce resources.... look up the definition of economics for Christ's sake... that's what it studies. It's like discussing behavioral issues with a behavioral psychologist and saying that the behavioral psychologist is living in a bubble as they diagnose those behavioral issues.
I'd argue that someone who refers back to global warming, in discussions like these is living in a bubble
again - it's troubling that you continue to interpret my words incorrectly ... it's like you not understanding what i meant when i said your earlier question was absurd ... it's like you are responding to something else ...
No, my response is that those concerned with resource scarcity repetitively avoid taking into account technology and how that has impacted the use of those resources. My opinion is (provided the economy doesn't shut down) technology should continue to improve. In doing so, making more with less is not only feasible, it's likely. I've provided dead on examples of people (like Malthus) who argued the opposite and were proven to be incorrect.
Nevertheless, if the economy does shut down, resource scarcity will be more of an issue. My opinion is those pushing for "equity" and arguing about the problems with "uncontrolled economic growth" are part of the problem that could result in a shut down of the economy. It's almost as if they want these scarcity issues to arise and become problematic.
I'm done.
so, if by chance it came to your light that global warming does exist and it is caused by man ... is malthus at least partially correct then? ... you claim to provide dead on examples but its based strictly on your biases and your discounting of things you don't believe in ... it doesn't make your opinion fact ... your black and white approach is evident ... similar to your view that obama will lose to whoever the GOP puts out there and that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional ... it highlights a lack of reasoning ... anyhoo ... i'm glad you're done cuz we clearly aren't getting anywhere ...
Comments
why single out the hippies!? ... why not the alex keatons!? ...
Cause I couldn't think of a word for it!!!!
How are we not sustaining ourselves now? Explain that. Once again, people are living longer and less people are starving then 100 years prior... and 100 years prior to that.
As I said, people such as yourself pain the picture that economic growth is bad. Re-read what you just wrote. As if uncontrolled economic growth hurts people.... ha ha. Seriously? Uncontrolled economic growth cost billions of dollars? Explain. "Controlled economic growth" costs billions of dollars!
Also, please explain how uncontrolled economic growth cost many lives?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. To some, the whole "global warming" issue is just a scheme. They don't want economic efficiency.They talk like economic growth is bad. They just want social equity. They use global warming to try to achieve that.
If one doesn't want economic growth, I wish they'd just be upfront about it.
The world doesn't exist in a bubble. But, economic theory and empirics seek to understand the world, particularly scarce resources.... look up the definition of economics for Christ's sake... that's what it studies. It's like discussing behavioral issues with a behavioral psychologist and saying that the behavioral psychologist is living in a bubble as they diagnose those behavioral issues.
I'd argue that someone who refers back to global warming, in discussions like these is living in a bubble.
No, my response is that those concerned with resource scarcity repetitively avoid taking into account technology and how that has impacted the use of those resources. My opinion is (provided the economy doesn't shut down) technology should continue to improve. In doing so, making more with less is not only feasible, it's likely. I've provided dead on examples of people (like Malthus) who argued the opposite and were proven to be incorrect.
Nevertheless, if the economy does shut down, resource scarcity will be more of an issue. My opinion is those pushing for "equity" and arguing about the problems with "uncontrolled economic growth" are part of the problem that could result in a shut down of the economy. It's almost as if they want these scarcity issues to arise and become problematic.
I'm done.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
global warming is an indication that it is unsustainable ... but i get it - you think it's some scam ... which is fine ... but this is the crux of our difference ... you think everything is as good as its ever been and i don't ... if we can't agree that global warming exists then we are at that point of the discussion ...
again - it's troubling that you continue to interpret my words incorrectly ... it's like you not understanding what i meant when i said your earlier question was absurd ... it's like you are responding to something else ...
so, if by chance it came to your light that global warming does exist and it is caused by man ... is malthus at least partially correct then? ... you claim to provide dead on examples but its based strictly on your biases and your discounting of things you don't believe in ... it doesn't make your opinion fact ... your black and white approach is evident ... similar to your view that obama will lose to whoever the GOP puts out there and that anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional ... it highlights a lack of reasoning ... anyhoo ... i'm glad you're done cuz we clearly aren't getting anywhere ...