Should some of your freedom be restricted in order to preserve resources?

Your answer is

  • Total voters
    41
jverne said:
Why is democracy the only right way? I don't really have a final answer i can find flaws in each system.
Click to expand...

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

*EDIT: HAH!
 
jverne said:
...a benevolent dictator...
Click to expand...

:LOL:

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

-Winston Churchill

EDIT: ****, AJ beat me to it by like 5 seconds!
 
Maestro said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

-Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Simply put democracy is the lesser evil.
 
AJ Rimmer said:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

*EDIT: HAH!
Click to expand...

**** you.:hmph:

As to democracy, please name a better system for preventing the control of the many by the power of the few. I'd prefer a mob rule to aristocracy or oligarchy.
 
jverne said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana

HAH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

HAH!
Click to expand...

...I don't understand what you want to say here. Are you saying Hitler had some interesting ideas we should look into? And that just because the Roman Empire had two centuries of peace, their form of government was better than democracy? Cause Sweden's been at peace for two hundred years and counting, and we've been a democracy for most of that time.

And you call this today democracy?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I kinda do.

All i'm saying is, that it's not that simple.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. It isn't that simple. Democracy isn't perfect, but there really isn't a better option we've thought of yet that guarantees civil liberties and a government that as adequately as possible represents its citizens.
 
AJ Rimmer said:
...I don't understand what you want to say here. Are you saying Hitler had some interesting ideas we should look into? And that just because the Roman Empire had two centuries of peace, their form of government was better than democracy? Cause Sweden's been at peace for two hundred years and counting, and we've been a democracy for most of that time.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that...i just gave you some examples of the alternative. As for hitler...he got democratically elected.



I agree with you. It isn't that simple. Democracy isn't perfect, but there really isn't a better option we've thought of yet that guarantees civil liberties and a government that as adequately as possible represents its citizens.
Click to expand...

Agree.


One question...does Sweden have anti littering laws. Or is that Finland?
 
Maestro said:
So? Sweden is an example of an effective, durable democracy.
Click to expand...

They've never really been tested, it's just everyone ignores them.

Jverne, Hitler got democratically elected by getting his Nazi party into the parliament there and using brute force to get people to vote for him. In post-Versailles Germany, no one called him out for it.
 
Jverne, are you in college? You sound like you're a standard college student who pretends to know lots of shit but really don't know anything. And you pretend to be open to other opinions, but seem incapable of comprehending them.
 
Krynn72 said:
Jverne, are you in college? You sound like you're a standard college student who pretends to know lots of shit but really don't know anything. And you pretend to be open to other opinions, but seem incapable of comprehending them.
Click to expand...

You see the irony here, do you?


I know, SOME stuff. Did i really ever said i know everything? Have i somehow implied it? What the hell are you talking about man?
Since you're falsely accusing me i would like to see actual proof of the allegations.
 
jverne said:
You see the irony here, do you?


I know, SOME stuff. Did i really ever said i know everything? Have i somehow implied it? What the hell are you talking about man?
Since you're falsely accusing me i would like to see actual proof of the allegations.
Click to expand...

I can't be arsed to look through all your posts to find all these things. And I'm not just talking about this thread, I mean, in practically every thread you've created you have a know-it-all attitude that you display through feign desire to "start a discussion."

Also, how does this quote not imply that you know more than everyone else?

jverne said:
Oh here we go again. Actually i'd love it to have my way.
Click to expand...

Plus things like "for me no restrictions would be needed since i'm educated AND can self control" make you sound like an idiot for a myriad of reasons.
 
I've lost interest in taking idealogical sides. I mean, you can argue till you're blue about which side is "better", but in truth, neither side is absolute: it all depends on your point of view. Philosophy, especially political philosophy, is absolutely relative, and to argue one side without some ulterior motive seems pointless.

What interests me more is what you would do in a position of power. What kind of plans would you lay down? Would your state be militaristic? Diplomatic Jeffersonianism using economic embargos? How many liberties would you try to steal from your citizenry? Would you want to be loved or feared? Peace and order at the cost of corruption or war and terror at the cost of stability and economic progress?

Personally, I'd try my best to get my population to do what I wanted them to do with the use of clever marketing and incentives rather than forcing it through laws. You can make a person do near damn anything if the conditions and environment is right!
 
jverne said:
One way would be to look at the energy for production/usage. For this instance we could argue less is better...from a purely technical standpoint. How much should be sacrificed should be left to the community, but i don't deny i'd like it if the verdict would be in favor of my views. There is a selfishness factor in here.
Click to expand...

So you think that it is viable to use energy consumption as the only measure of a products impact? I think your kind of thinking is bullshit. You have no idea what the cumulative system wide effect of a simple choice such as buying a tv is. You are picking a very few factors which then affect even more distant variables and then try to choose in a way to optimize that distant variable (the environment in this case). You cannot even hope to succeed in optimizing that variable, because it will undoubtedly be affected by more pathways than just the few factors and simplified model you are using. What about the effect on global production of other products and the effect of global production on the environment? The effect of economies of scale. Is producing larger quantities of goods more efficient? How does that affect the environment (this is still a bullshit undefined term, but it's yours so I will use it). How does your decision impact the marketing of products? How does it affect your consumption of other products? How does it affect your other activities? If you have a smaller tv will you be more inclined to drive to a friend's or a movie theatre? Will this "hurt" the environment? There is an infinite number of pathways to affect something as huge and complex as "the environment" You cannot understand those pathways. Thus you cannot make low level decisions to optimize the environment as you see fit.

And yes, you do come off as a college boy.
 
Global Warming has been grossly exagerrated for the sake of passing the Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme etc.

Nazi Germany used similar techniques with the likes of Eugenics to push their agenda across and grow power politically. Al Gore owns the company that would be dispensing carbon credits, more or less profiting from it all. They've basically looked us in the face and said "Polar Bears can't swim." a couple of times, amongst countless other bendings of the truth, or just straight-up fabrications.

If I can't even trust what my government is saying anymore, they won't have much of a chance to convince me to restrict freedoms like that.
 
Krynn72 said:
I can't be arsed to look through all your posts to find all these things. And I'm not just talking about this thread, I mean, in practically every thread you've created you have a know-it-all attitude that you display through feign desire to "start a discussion."
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't believe me that when i made this thread i didn't really know which answer would i vote. I actually do want discussion especially for such an all encompassing topic as this one.

Also, how does this quote not imply that you know more than everyone else?
Click to expand...

You tell me, i have no idea where did you get this from.


Plus things like "for me no restrictions would be needed since i'm educated AND can self control" make you sound like an idiot for a myriad of reasons.
Click to expand...

Just stating the truth. I can self control more than the average person, if i compare to people i know/see. But then again why is this a good thing?...the guy driving the Bugati veyron is probably enjoying his ass off right now.

Dan said:
So you think that it is viable to use energy consumption as the only measure of a products impact? I think your kind of thinking is bullshit. You have no idea what the cumulative system wide effect of a simple choice such as buying a tv is. You are picking a very few factors which then affect even more distant variables and then try to choose in a way to optimize that distant variable (the environment in this case). You cannot even hope to succeed in optimizing that variable, because it will undoubtedly be affected by more pathways than just the few factors and simplified model you are using. What about the effect on global production of other products and the effect of global production on the environment? The effect of economies of scale. Is producing larger quantities of goods more efficient? How does that affect the environment (this is still a bullshit undefined term, but it's yours so I will use it). How does your decision impact the marketing of products? How does it affect your consumption of other products? How does it affect your other activities? If you have a smaller tv will you be more inclined to drive to a friend's or a movie theatre? Will this "hurt" the environment? There is an infinite number of pathways to affect something as huge and complex as "the environment" You cannot understand those pathways. Thus you cannot make low level decisions to optimize the environment as you see fit.

And yes, you do come off as a college boy.
Click to expand...

You really think i'm that naive and not realize the implication of my actions?
Yes, if i don't buy a 40" TV some people in china might have less work and thus be poorer. Progress would slow down in general.
Maybe instead of driving to the theater you could learn to enjoy watching it on a 22". I mentioned that making a base on which we would take action is hard (if we wanted to take action, of course).
That's why i never gave any specific examples but left to you to decide.

You totally took it to the extreme.

We can also consider promoting something rather restricting. I never said that is not a possibility.

Vegeta897 said:
Resisting those desires is what makes a smart person.
Click to expand...
What is your take on this?

And if you're confused what i think about this issue...read my second post. Just so ye get a feeling how much you butchered my original intent.


Might be derailing a bit, but since you've gone that far

May i ask you what is your opinion on restricting guns?

I love guns btw...but if it's shown that restrictions decrease gun related crime (in conjunction with other means...like education) i'm prepared to have them restricted.
 
Yes.

For example, required recycling of home waste. I don't give a damn about the environment, but I do care deeply about my country's economy and her industries - who depend on imported resources because all we have is cement and tungsten. It's not like Australia, where iron sprouts out of the ground, or the Middle East, where oil is more plentiful than water. Or China, the place where resources go to die.

Seriously, whenever I meet an Amer- er, foreigner (funnily enough, Cana- er, others seem to understand the concept) he/she doesn't seem to understand why we don't put our ACs on whenever it's above 18C, and don't seem to understand the concept of wearing a goddamn sweater instead of turning on the heat to 30C. Resources don't ****ing grow on trees, you morons. At least, not in this country. Electricity is precious than you may imagine. Conserve. Protect. For the future.


This message has been brought to you by Numbers' Public Announcement Service.
 
PvtRyan said:
No. Just increase the price, either naturally (scarcity = higher price) or artificially (tax it).
Click to expand...

I would go for this. They don't even have to be completely new taxes. Certain taxes could be updated -- for example, the "gas guzzler" tax doesn't even tax SUV's since the tax started before SUVs became popular consumer vehicles. Yet it's never been updated (as of two years ao, haven't checked recently) to reflect the rise in SUVs. It would be completely logical, and probably acceptable to the public, to update it -- but it hasn't happened. I think it's a shame that our water is priced so low. Water/wastewater treatment plants actually operate at a monetary loss if you consider only the revenue from your water bill. A lot of the funds come indirectly from taxes, which people don't realize because it's a hidden cost. I would also be fine with immediate water reuse, as in drinking former wastewater immediately after treatment. For surface water discharge, the people downstream of you are drinking your treated wastewater anyways, so I don't see what the big deal is. I know that's not really "restricting our freedom" but I think efficient/logical solutions like that should be implemented.

As for the global warming issue, I've been around enough people who I trust are actually knowledgeable in the topic to accept that it is a real and significant problem. But I'm not a policy person so it's hard for me to see any feasible solution. Overall the topic just makes me depressed.
 
dfc05 said:
I would go for this. I think it's a shame that our water is priced so low. Water/wastewater treatment plants actually operate at a monetary loss if you consider only the revenue from your water bill. A lot of the funds come indirectly from taxes, which people don't realize because it's a hidden cost. I would also be fine with immediate water reuse, as in drinking former wastewater immediately after treatment. For surface water discharge, the people downstream of you are drinking your treated wastewater anyways, so I don't see what the big deal is.
Click to expand...

So taxing something is not a for of restriction? I don't know, in all honesty. Well technically probably not since you can buy it...if you have the money.

I'm curious what people think of this option.
 
jverne said:
So taxing something is not a for of restriction? I don't know, in all honesty. Well technically probably not since you can buy it...if you have the money.

I'm curious what people think of this option.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I didn't vote. I'd consider it a restriction since it would favor certain products over others. Maybe not a restriction of "freedom" but at least a restriction on the free market.
 
Freedom to reproduce should be restricted to one or two children per person/couple (preferably one for a few decades, 7b is probably a bit high). We're screwed if population grows indefinitely and will eventually succumb to a Malthusian Catastrophe.
 
Eejit said:
Freedom to reproduce should be restricted to one or two children per person/couple (preferably one for a few decades, 7b is probably a bit high). We're screwed if population grows indefinitely and will eventually succumb to a Malthusian Catastrophe.
Click to expand...

You're being sarcastic right?
 
Freedom to reproduce should be maintained to at least one or two children per person/couple (preferably one for a few decades, 7b is probably a bit high). We're screwed if population falls indefinitely and will eventually succumb to a Something Catastrophe.
 
Dude....Eejit voted yes, almost blew me off my chair.
 
jverne said:
You're being sarcastic right?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Population and population growth a big problems. You could argue that they're the root of many issues in the world such as pollution, endangerment of species, unequal distribution of food etc.

If we had say 3bn people in the world with our current technology we could easily feed everyone, sustainably, and not solely from a calorific standpoint but a balanced diet with sufficient protein too.
As suggested by the Borlaug Hypothesis we could also return a lot of agricultural land to natural ecosystems such as the forests, prairies etc.

The problem with most greens is they don't recognise/accept/admit population as being the root of many of their issues and that they can't really be tackled until the population problem is solved.
 
Eejit said:
Of course not. Population and population growth a big problems. You could argue that they're the root of many issues in the world such as pollution, endangerment of species, unequal distribution of food etc.

If we had say 3bn people in the world with our current technology we could easily feed everyone, sustainably, and not solely from a calorific standpoint but a balanced diet with sufficient protein too.
As suggested by the Borlaug Hypothesis we could also return a lot of agricultural land to natural ecosystems such as the forests, prairies etc.

The problem with most greens is they don't recognise/accept/admit population as being the root of many of their issues and that they can't really be tackled until the population problem is solved.
Click to expand...

:O You're actually not joking...i wouldn't believed if you hit me in the face with it.

The thing is i agree with you 100%, i've been saying for sometime that overpopulation (based on technology level and resources) is the number one problem humanity faces. Almost everything derives from it.

I even contemplated population control...but mentioning it on this forum is like shooting yourself in the dick with a shotgun. Especially if you're jverne.
 
Eejit said:
Freedom to reproduce should be restricted to one or two children per person/couple (preferably one for a few decades, 7b is probably a bit high). We're screwed if population grows indefinitely and will eventually succumb to a Malthusian Catastrophe.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. If put to a vote it's the only restriction of freedom I would agree with. Then again I'm biased, since I hate kids.
 
jverne said:
You really think i'm that naive and not realize the implication of my actions?
Yes, if i don't buy a 40" TV some people in china might have less work and thus be poorer. Progress would slow down in general.
Maybe instead of driving to the theater you could learn to enjoy watching it on a 22". I mentioned that making a base on which we would take action is hard (if we wanted to take action, of course).
That's why i never gave any specific examples but left to you to decide.

You totally took it to the extreme.

We can also consider promoting something rather restricting. I never said that is not a possibility.
Click to expand...

I do think you are naive. And as I pointed out, it is completely impossible for you to know the implications of your actions on an environmental scale. You seem to have just skipped over that and recommended exercising more self control. I have said it twice now, so I will say it only one last time in this thread:

Your entire argument is irrational because it is completely impossible to know the effect or magnitude of effect of individual actions on a distant and almost infinitely complex system. You can't just pick a scattershot of factors and draw inferences about certain effects of those factors on the environment. There are so many pathways by which something as complex and vague as "the environment" can be affected by a single choice, that your simplistic model will not capture 1% of your actual effect. It will not give you an entire picture of the effect of a specific choice. It will give you a distorted and untrue image of the impact your choices make as well as an unjustified sense of self righteousness that makes you seem like a douche.

Trying to manage and manufacture the climate in a specific direction is an impossible endeavour. We are basically blind and waving our arms at random. People are seeing feedback (on a scale of centuries) that they don't like. The climate changes, as a result of a pretty much infinite number of complex interactions on a large range of size and time scales. So researchers identify one pathway by which human industrial activity can affect climate (carbon dioxide) and now we are urged to try to isolate and control that factor. Of course, all natural systems are non-linear. You cannot isolate an individual component from the system and measure its impact. Without understanding the entire system, we would be no better the jverne, exercising self gratifying self control, while 99% of his impact on the environment may be coming from some action or choice which he has no idea about.
 
Dan said:
I do think you are naive. And as I pointed out, it is completely impossible for you to know the implications of your actions on an environmental scale. You seem to have just skipped over that and recommended exercising more self control. I have said it twice now, so I will say it only one last time in this thread:

Your entire argument is irrational because it is completely impossible to know the effect or magnitude of effect of individual actions on a distant and almost infinitely complex system. You can't just pick a scattershot of factors and draw inferences about certain effects of those factors on the environment. There are so many pathways by which something as complex and vague as "the environment" can be affected by a single choice, that your simplistic model will not capture 1% of your actual effect. It will not give you an entire picture of the effect of a specific choice. It will give you a distorted and untrue image of the impact your choices make as well as an unjustified sense of self righteousness that makes you seem like a douche.

Trying to manage and manufacture the climate in a specific direction is an impossible endeavour. We are basically blind and waving our arms at random. People are seeing feedback (on a scale of centuries) that they don't like. The climate changes, as a result of a pretty much infinite number of complex interactions on a large range of size and time scales. So researchers identify one pathway by which human industrial activity can affect climate (carbon dioxide) and now we are urged to try to isolate and control that factor. Of course, all natural systems are non-linear. You cannot isolate an individual component from the system and measure its impact. Without understanding the entire system, we would be no better the jverne, exercising self gratifying self control, while 99% of his impact on the environment may be coming from some action or choice which he has no idea about.
Click to expand...

So if i buy less stuff, drive more efficient cars whose newer technology allows better MPG for the same energy input, buy less one time use items, not throw garbage and toxins in my local river, insulate my house,...

Is your argument just a stupid excuse to do whatever you please? Because you know...there is such a thing as a micro climate and local ecosystems that you can have influence on.
You don't see the flaw in your thinking?


I forgot one thing...were there two cases where people wanted to restrict reproduction in this thread? What do you think of it, radical liberals of this forum?
 
Eejit said:
Of course not. Population and population growth a big problems. You could argue that they're the root of many issues in the world such as pollution, endangerment of species, unequal distribution of food etc.

If we had say 3bn people in the world with our current technology we could easily feed everyone, sustainably, and not solely from a calorific standpoint but a balanced diet with sufficient protein too.
As suggested by the Borlaug Hypothesis we could also return a lot of agricultural land to natural ecosystems such as the forests, prairies etc.

The problem with most greens is they don't recognise/accept/admit population as being the root of many of their issues and that they can't really be tackled until the population problem is solved.
Click to expand...
But on the other hand the places with the highest population density and the fastest population growth are generally the places that consume the least. According to this report, "of the 78 million people currently added to the world each year, 95% live in the less developed regions." These are by and large the impoverished places whose footprint on global resources is tiny compared to that of a rich country like the UK. This is especially true of global warming. I read of a paper which showed that the places where population has been growing quickest are those where emissions are growing the slowest, and vice versa. Between 1980 and 2005 Sub-Saharan Africa produced 18.5% of the world's population growth, and just 2.4% of the CO2. North America made 4% of the world's extra babies, but 14% of the extra emissions. 63% of population growth happened in places with super-low emissions. Moreover, about a sixth of the world's population don't produce any significant emissions at all - and this poorest section is likely to breed the fastest. The point seems likely to hold true for more general resource usage. Deforestation is usually driven by commercial operations for the timber and meat industries, whereas I imagine the people in the favelas have little impact.

It's telling that overpopulation is the one big world problem that the mega-rich can really get behind solving. Presumably this is because it's the only one that isn't directly their fault. But from a group of people whose consumption of resources and emission of CO2 must rank the highest on the planet by a large margin - and who live and work in countries that are themselves at the top of these lists - this all seems like the rich and powerful blaming the poor and powerless for the state of the world. Consumption is the important thing if some people consume as much as twenty other people.

The average number of children per family in the UK is 1.8. The US total fertility rate is 2.09. How much impact is it actually going to have to restrict birth in the big consumer countries, and how precisely would you go about restricting it in the places where it's booming?

EDIT: Dan, as much as your argument makes sense on an individual scale, ie, not knowing really how much impact one's own actions will have, there does happen to be an entire area of research dedicated to assessing the impact of certain emissions on certain factors of the climate. Not sure I'm inclined to believe that none of them really have any idea what they're talking about.
 
I was thinking of population with regards to conserving natural resources such as natural habitats, biodiversity etc. from the effects of increasing agricultural demand rather than oil, CO2 emissions and the like - did I not make that clear? I was aware that the countries with highest population growth tend to produce far less CO2, esp. when you look at it per capita.

If we try to feed a constantly growing population we'll have to cut down the remaining forests and fish till populations (and thus food chains) collapse completely - causing mass extinctions, and in the end we'll still fail.
We would likely also have a lot of social upheaval as many millions more children are born each year only to starve.

This planet can only sustain so many people. We aren't at the limit yet but I'd suggest it's better to limit our population ourselves, limiting any irreparable damage to the environment/biodiversity to what we have already accomplished.

P.S. your link 404s

P.P.S. Here's a link of my own - that's what I'm worried about and its likely effects not only on society should it come to pass but also the consequences to the environment of even narrowly avoiding it by feeding a population of say, 10bn
 
I think the question here is. Will people stop breeding and consuming that much before the resource net collapses?

Should all Chinese, Indians and Africans first reach our standard of living and then start to conserve.
 
jverne said:
So if i buy less stuff, drive more efficient cars whose newer technology allows better MPG for the same energy input, buy less one time use items, not throw garbage and toxins in my local river, insulate my house,...

Is your argument just a stupid excuse to do whatever you please? Because you know...there is such a thing as a micro climate and local ecosystems that you can have influence on.
You don't see the flaw in your thinking?
Click to expand...

No, my argument is not to try to control big things that are more complex than you can comprehend. Go ahead and buy newer green technology if you want, but don't kid yourself that you are helping the environment. You might be using less gas, and save some of the world's petroleum supply, or some of your money, but even that is dubious. You have no idea what the impact will be on the environment. (And furthermore you still refuse to define what helping the environment actually means, or why you should want to help the environment. I am starting to doubt that you even have a certain definition in mind.) You are not helping your local microclimate either. You are much better off worrying about the influences you can see, namely on yourself, or on the local economy, or things that are directly impacted, not 5th and 6th order effects that you have a bullshit feedback control or false modelling of influences on.
 
jverne is exactly what the Social Engineers want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechnoHippyChic
Forum Artifact Preservation Project
2
Replies
63
Views
7K
Raziaar
Raziaar
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Half-Life's unused cutscenes
Replies
0
Views
7K
Barnz
B
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Back
Top