Rise of far right an ominous echo

[biffvernon]

Capitalism did not create the world population explosion which is the cause of climate change catastrophic or not. That is a result of our exploitation of the store of fossil fuel and will end when we exhaust the supply.
In the modern world increased effort takes many forms, capital, labor engineering, research and product development. A company that develops a process that pollutes less will have reduced it's future liabilities from that pollution and has therefore increased it's yield.

Bit muddled there. The population explosion is not the cause of climate change - it's what the population does that matters, to wit burning fossil fuel. That got underway in earnest in the 19th century with the development of coal-powered steam engines. These were absolutely the child of capitalism. The growth of capitalism since then has been lock-step with fossil energy burning.

A bit of a grey area of course but I think you are more muddled then I am. Our use of fossil fuels let us dispense with draft animals for agricultural traction. This freed up the half of the arable land that was being used to support those animals and provided the food needed to support our recent population growth. A larger population consumes more and pollutes more just based on it's size. The form of government or economic system used to exploit the fossil fuels is irrelevant. Capitalism existed before fossil fuels and will exist after they are gone. The same cannot be said for Marxism.

China and India show that population can expand without much industrialisation and under both capitalism and communism. It was not tractors that allowed population growth and it is not population growth per se that is responsible for global warming.

[vtsnowedin]

Bit muddled there. The population explosion is not the cause of climate change - it's what the population does that matters, to wit burning fossil fuel. That got underway in earnest in the 19th century with the development of coal-powered steam engines. These were absolutely the child of capitalism. The growth of capitalism since then has been lock-step with fossil energy burning.

A bit of a grey area of course but I think you are more muddled then I am. Our use of fossil fuels let us dispense with draft animals for agricultural traction. This freed up the half of the arable land that was being used to support those animals and provided the food needed to support our recent population growth. A larger population consumes more and pollutes more just based on it's size. The form of government or economic system used to exploit the fossil fuels is irrelevant. Capitalism existed before fossil fuels and will exist after they are gone. The same cannot be said for Marxism.

China and India show that population can expand without much industrialisation and under both capitalism and communism. It was not tractors that allowed population growth and it is not population growth per se that is responsible for global warming.

You could not be more wrong.

[biffvernon]

China and India show that population can expand without much industrialisation and under both capitalism and communism. It was not tractors that allowed population growth and it is not population growth per se that is responsible for global warming.

You could not be more wrong.

In what way?

Did China and India have population expansion before industrialisation?
Were both capitalism and communism practised?
Did the populations expand significantly before the widespread introduction of tractors?
Is it not the size of a population's greenhouse gas emissions rather than the size of the population itself that is responsible for global warming?

I answer Yes to each of these. To which do you say No?

[vtsnowedin]

China and India show that population can expand without much industrialisation and under both capitalism and communism. It was not tractors that allowed population growth and it is not population growth per se that is responsible for global warming.

You could not be more wrong.

In what way?

Did China and India have population expansion before industrialisation?
Were both capitalism and communism practised?
Did the populations expand significantly before the widespread introduction of tractors?
Is it not the size of a population's greenhouse gas emissions rather than the size of the population itself that is responsible for global warming?

I answer Yes to each of these. To which do you say No?

Virtually every country in the world has had an expanding population post 1500AD. It is the rate of growth that took off post WW2 that is the problem . China had no capitalism prior to 1980 so it can hardly be blamed for their population growth Also India had socialist policies in place that caused famines in 1963 so capitalism appears not to be the cause of the population problem but the answer to it. The green revolution and it's reliance on mechanisation and pesticides has doubled yields up to now and has pushed back the point of famine for decades. This may not hold out much longer as groundwater supplies are being depleted and population growth has exceeded what these high yields can provide for. The population growth spurt does match up with the post war switch to mechanized traction. Note that many tractors in China and India are two wheel walk behind types suitable for the common two hectare farm size. A zero population would have zero green house gas emissions so saying that population is not the problem is ridiculous especially when you realise that every population aspires to increase their use of energy to raise their standard of living. To think that the world would be set to rights if all seven plus billion people would just live bushmen is absurd.

[UndercoverElephant]

You could not be more wrong.

In what way?

Did China and India have population expansion before industrialisation?
Were both capitalism and communism practised?
Did the populations expand significantly before the widespread introduction of tractors?
Is it not the size of a population's greenhouse gas emissions rather than the size of the population itself that is responsible for global warming?

I answer Yes to each of these. To which do you say No?

Virtually every country in the world has had an expanding population post 1500AD. It is the rate of growth that took off post WW2 that is the problem . China had no capitalism prior to 1980 so it can hardly be blamed for their population growth Also India had socialist policies in place that caused famines in 1963 so capitalism appears not to be the cause of the population problem but the answer to it.

Eh? I was with you up until the last three words. Capitalism can't solve the population problem.

A zero population would have zero green house gas emissions...

eh?

so saying that population is not the problem is ridiculous especially when you realise that every population aspires to increase their use of energy to raise their standard of living. To think that the world would be set to rights if all seven plus billion people would just live bushmen is absurd.

Obviously it is both. There's too many people and they all want an ever-larger slice of an ever-diminishing cake. That is a recipe for things going spectacularly wrong, and sooner rather than later.

[vtsnowedin]

Capitalism can't solve the population problem? Hope your wrong about that one. Quite a few of the centers of capitalism already have birth rates at or below replacement level. The problem seems to reside where capitalism is weak. How to get the millions in Egypt and other countries that are bursting at the seams to adopt strong family planning programs other then at gun point is the question.

Obviously it is both. There's too many people and they all want an ever-larger slice of an ever-diminishing cake. That is a recipe for things going spectacularly wrong, and sooner rather than later

I'm afraid you are quite right on that one.

[UndercoverElephant]

Capitalism can't solve the population problem? Hope your wrong about that one. Quite a few of the centers of capitalism already have birth rates at or below replacement level.

Those places also have totally unsustainable levels of consumption.

The problem seems to reside where capitalism is weak.

That is an oversimplification.

How to get the millions in Egypt and other countries that are bursting at the seams to adopt strong family planning programs other then at gun point is the question.

Why should they control their populations because people in "rich countries" want them to?

It's a bit like saying that deforestation is mainly a problem were capitalism is weak. Where capitalism is strong, most of the trees were chopped down ages ago.

[biffvernon]

China had no capitalism prior to 1980

Eh? The Communist Party of China was only founded in 1921 and did not come to control China until 1949. Various flavours of capitalism have dominated for the previous several millenia.

so it can hardly be blamed for their population growth

Indeed. The political system is not especially significant in determining population growth.

[Lord Beria3]

However, anybody can create a strange semi-occult secret society - you and I could tomorrow but it would mean nothing. Why? Because neither of us are rich or powerful - ultimnately it is the class role of these societies which make them interesting.

Well, yes and no. The occult aspect is not, in my view, insignificant. It is possible that symbols, gestures and imagery really do acquire power through repeated use. If you take the view, as I do, that consciousness rather than matter is at the heart of reality, it makes a lot of sense. But to each his own.

Could you explain what you mean by that? A re you suggesting that matter is a kind of illusion and that our thinking can 'create' our own reality?

In which case, if everybody in the world focused their consciousness, we could create energy and solve the PO crisis? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[Ludwig]

Could you explain what you mean by that? A re you suggesting that matter is a kind of illusion and that our thinking can 'create' our own reality?

In which case, if everybody in the world focused their consciousness, we could create energy and solve the PO crisis? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

You are barking up the wrong tree.

You can't get something for nothing.

[Lord Beria3]

Could you explain what you mean by that? A re you suggesting that matter is a kind of illusion and that our thinking can 'create' our own reality?

In which case, if everybody in the world focused their consciousness, we could create energy and solve the PO crisis? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

You are barking up the wrong tree.

You can't get something for nothing.

If I am wrong please explain your philosophy. I am genuinely interested, I have had many conversations on this matter in my time.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

However, anybody can create a strange semi-occult secret society - you and I could tomorrow but it would mean nothing. Why? Because neither of us are rich or powerful - ultimnately it is the class role of these societies which make them interesting.

Well, yes and no. The occult aspect is not, in my view, insignificant. It is possible that symbols, gestures and imagery really do acquire power through repeated use. If you take the view, as I do, that consciousness rather than matter is at the heart of reality, it makes a lot of sense. But to each his own.

The occult aspect of Skull & Bones is just about understanding the briefness of existence. Laying out an initiate in their coffin gets them to contemplate their death and how damn close it is. Do great things and do them now because tomorrow may be too late.

[vtsnowedin]

China had no capitalism prior to 1980

Eh? The Communist Party of China was only founded in 1921 and did not come to control China until 1949. Various flavours of capitalism have dominated for the previous several millenia.

so it can hardly be blamed for their population growth

Indeed. The political system is not especially significant in determining population growth.

Everything in China prior to 1949 would be more properly classified as feudalism. A poor substitute for capitalism.

[vtsnowedin]

Capitalism can't solve the population problem? Hope your wrong about that one. Quite a few of the centers of capitalism already have birth rates at or below replacement level.

Those places also have totally unsustainable levels of consumption.

But that is not as large a problem as unchecked population growth.

The problem seems to reside where capitalism is weak.

That is an oversimplification.

We are speaking in simple terms to make the point clear.

How to get the millions in Egypt and other countries that are bursting at the seams to adopt strong family planning programs other then at gun point is the question.

Why should they control their populations because people in "rich countries" want them to?

Perhaps because it is their problem and if they don't deal with it they will starve or be wiped out by civil wars.

It's a bit like saying that deforestation is mainly a problem were capitalism is weak. Where capitalism is strong, most of the trees were chopped down ages ago.[/quote] I reside in what is arguably the strongest capitalist country in the world. I am surrounded by trees and am sitting next to a cheery wood fire. Apparently capitalism isn't detrimental to trees in the long term.

[ceti331]

Bit muddled there. The population explosion is not the cause of climate change - it's what the population does that matters, to wit burning fossil fuel. That got underway in earnest in the 19th century with the development of coal-powered steam engines. These were absolutely the child of capitalism. The growth of capitalism since then has been lock-step with fossil energy burning.

my understanding is, Fossil Fuel exploitation caused the population explosion, directly.

life fundamentally is a temporary ordered state of matter that maximizes entropy production (..that's more fundamental than darwin)

more energy = more life.
less energy = less life.

fossil fuels were an energy lottery win.
details - every single use of fossil fuels supplants something we had to get renewably before so helped explosion. even something as simple as cooking, increasing the useable amount of food.

capitalism was the most efficient way for the fuels to figure out how to maximize their entropy, +6billion people were a side effect