Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that increasingly the trend in history will be that war eventually becomes less and less prevalent. The more and more international trade spreads and the richer people get the more war will become uncommon because eventually war would be seen as to economically costly.
Basically I tend to agree with the Democratic peace theory.
I would agree with this^^. Also nuclear weapons have made major wars disappear as there will only be Mutally Aided Destruction of the entire globe, or their will be peace. In this regard, nuclear weapons are the greatest (albeit morbid) peacekeepers ever to exist. While police action and small terrorist attacks have and will still occur, the 21st century has been and will be the most peaceful century ever to exist.
So I believe the history of major armed conflicts is over, and the history of the future will be that of a different kind.
The ironic offshoot of all the environmental hype is that it just might stiffen resistance (or maybe just complacency) to the point where a true environmental disaster can't be undone.
Consider, for example, the supposedly "spontaneous" or "grass roots" opposition which stopped American nuclear power development dead in its tracks in the late 1970's. The leadership could tilt scientifically-grounded reasoning in their favor, but the vast majority of participants had little or no scientific knowledge.
Since that time, we have had a second disaster, at Chernobyl, for which a cover-up was attempted a first because the operators had the full co-operation of an authoritarian government. Then came Fukushima, and while a generous measure of hype was added by a news media which thrives on short-sight, most of the safety mechanisms did what they were intened to do, and the recovery has proceeded with little outcry, both because the sponsoring nation knows its alternatives are limited, and because many of those alternatives have lost some of their attractiveness in the wake of the global-warming concern.
Now, all of a sudden, nuclear power doesn't look so "evil", and plants which were supposed to be decommissioned in forty years (I live about 5 miles from one) might have to do extra duty. But disposal of the wastes (which has been addressed and for which plans were in place) has again been uprooted and delayed due mostly to politicized in-fighting.
But the part of the picture which truly unsettles me is the interrelation of the various species, and the possible loss of one or more which light play a key role. It's emblematic of my age and background, that I first heard the word "ecology" in a juvenile science-fiction read called Farmer in the Sky, by the late, great master of the trade -- Robert A. Heinlein. That was waaay back when I was a junior high-schooler, in the spring of 1963.
So I guess the point I want to raise here is that environmental issues need some very serious study, but only by that small portion of the population which actually knows what it's looking into, and these people can't afford to have their ideas shouted down either by short-sighted personal and bsiness interests, or by technophobes, touchie-feelies or New Agers motivated by cuddly "polar-bear" appeals, or by alternative theories without empirical, scientific backing.
Not an easy task, I know, but compared to the mistakes made by the opposition, the free exchange of opinion, leavened by serious, credentialled professionalism, is better than anything else offered.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-14-2013 at 11:52 PM..
Capitalism/liberal democracy?........the bottom line is consumerism, and I do not see how it can help but devour the society and economy it feeds off of, and suck the environment dry and spit it out as toxic garbage. It is dependent upon fanning the embers of human greed into a constantly burning fire, and greed is hardly the best basis for a society...that much is already clearly apparent by simply examing the degradation of American society and culture in the past three decades.
The original poster's premise is deeply flawed because there is no correlation between Environmentalism and Capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in direct competition with Communism. Environmentalism would be the opposite of Industrialism. It is possible for a society to be both Capitalist and Environmentalist. Communist societies can be just as industrialist and harmful to the environment as capitalist societies. This has been proven by the Soviet Union and China. In fact, those countries are worse for the environment than America.
In the next 100 years, my guess (and hope) is that countries around the world will become far more environmentally aware and enact strict policies to preserve the environment. Anyone denying that we are destroying the planet rapidly at this point is a lunatic. It is a matter of life and death going forward. Unfortunately, we are still polluting the world and destroying the environment at record rates with no signs of slowing down anytime soon.
The original poster's premise is deeply flawed because there is no correlation between Environmentalism and Capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in direct competition with Communism. Environmentalism would be the opposite of Industrialism. It is possible for a society to be both Capitalist and Environmentalist. Communist societies can be just as industrialist and harmful to the environment as capitalist societies. This has been proven by the Soviet Union and China. In fact, those countries are worse for the environment than America.
In the next 100 years, my guess (and hope) is that countries around the world will become far more environmentally aware and enact strict policies to preserve the environment. Anyone denying that we are destroying the planet rapidly at this point is a lunatic. It is a matter of life and death going forward. Unfortunately, we are still polluting the world and destroying the environment at record rates with no signs of slowing down anytime soon.
Capitalism also requires infinite growth, and promotes wasteful consumption. I suppose "Green Capitalism" is not a complete oxymoron and certainly the USSR and PRC's environmental records are ugly but I don't think a free market and ecological conservation could co-exist easily if at all.
No, it was the end of an era. A new era began with the U.S. the king of the hill. With America's decline and China's rise we entering a whole new era again. I'm afraid WW3 will be a part of that and determine whoes king of the hill in the next era.
It depends on which aspect of history we are talking about. In terms of economic history, Capitalism has and will always be the primary mode of human material exchange. Communism was just a short fluke on the radar of history. Mercantilism, Corporatism, Welfare State, Distributionism, Free Market, Bartering, etc are simply different flavors of Capitalism and had/will have their day in the sun. It's as primal as the first caveman lending the second caveman his hammer.
In terms of political history, that's a very different story. If anything, it's Paralmentary Democracy that is beginning to fade. Europe simply cannot get it's mess together. We here in the States aren't in all that much better shape. Even the Founding Fathers had unkind words for democracy. Human social groups, from the family unit up to nation states have through history been top-down, heirarchial institutions built upon power being vested in a leader(s) to direct them. We will continue to see dictatorship, monarchy, mob rule, theocracy play out in the world through all time and may one day even see it here in the Good ole USA.
Humans are a prickly bunch and despite everyone's waxing about rights and freedoms most would gladly take their neighbors away if it served their interests.
Capitalism also requires infinite growth, and promotes wasteful consumption. I suppose "Green Capitalism" is not a complete oxymoron and certainly the USSR and PRC's environmental records are ugly but I don't think a free market and ecological conservation could co-exist easily if at all.
You're forgetting that the catalyst in a free market is consumer demand. Given that producers are beholden to produce what consumers want, green capitalism isn't an oxymoron at all, it simply requires that enough people put environmental protection ahead of other factors when determining which product to purchase.
We're seeing the tip of that iceberg already, with quite a lot of companies offering more environmentally responsible alternatives (phosphorus free detergents, recycled paper etc). Unfortunately for the environment, we're still stuck on low short term cost (even over quality, which probably reduces cost in the longer term) as the primary focus of consumers.
When the commies failed and went bust in the 1980's, the leftists knew that tack they had tried for decades was dead and they needed a new shiny vehicle to sham people into believing a utopia would exist only if they signed over their personal freedom and individuality.
That vehicle became environMENTALism. It had been around for a while, yes, but the original benign beliefs around it were hijacked into an extremist, political movement. And that political movement is utopian statism. Utopian statism believes that we can have a utopia where everyone is the same, the individual is minimized, everything is fair, etc and the stick at the back to enforce all of that is totalitarism that puts the state into total control and management of it's people.
In a nutshell, by using shame and attacks on individuals and businesses either with the media or with government regulation, the environMENTAL plan is to strip away and control food and energy supply, individual transportation and individual property rights and choice(such as healthcare). In addition through regulation and taxation they make all of these necessities much more expensive, making you beholden to the state as many are for Medicaid, Food Stamps, Energy Bill Assistance or a plethora of other programs.
I'm a well traveled man and a keen historian. I've been all over the world and sure you might find the odd dirty place, but the earth is doing just fine, often times better thanks to human habitation. The skies are still blue, plenty of plants and animals are growing and the earth chugs on.
So I don't buy all this jive panic hysteria we are destroying the earth. Total nonsense fomented by city liberals who have had no idea all the hard work out there in the real world that makes their modern life possible.
Capitalism is both mean and loving at the same time. At it's core it has individual property rights and individual choice. It cuts out the old, inefficient, wasteful technology in favor of new, faster, better ways of doing things. I have found in life, the mean part of life is where I learned the most or became a better more efficient person.
Countries that have embraced that have brought themselves out of poverty and wallowing in their own sewage, into modern more healthy communities.
So no history did not end in 1989. The utopians will still try to find ways to impose totalitarian policies on the people and the people will always be striving to have their own property and freedom.
You're forgetting that the catalyst in a free market is consumer demand. Given that producers are beholden to produce what consumers want, green capitalism isn't an oxymoron at all, it simply requires that enough people put environmental protection ahead of other factors when determining which product to purchase.
We're seeing the tip of that iceberg already, with quite a lot of companies offering more environmentally responsible alternatives (phosphorus free detergents, recycled paper etc). Unfortunately for the environment, we're still stuck on low short term cost (even over quality, which probably reduces cost in the longer term) as the primary focus of consumers.
And often those more environMENTALly "responsible" alternative take more energy to produce or waste more energy in their process. Such as these stupid toilets you have to flush several times or light bulbs that blast you with UV radiation while making it harder to see or washing machines that don't clean clothes like they used to.
Cost may be a consideration, but people also like quality too, so I don't buy it that everyone is driven solely by cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
