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.
& this is the best of all possible worlds? The above is a very cheerful view of the progress of civilization - but it's not true. Economies & financial outcomes improved for the landlords of Irish lands in the 1840sCE, for instance. @ the price of driving the rural folk off the land, to death, or the cities, or overseas.
Capitalism may be efficient - more efficient than hereditary nobility - @ developing resources & putting them into the market. However, efficiency is only one component of government - once we start talking about the benefit of all mankind, bookkeeping isn't the sole criterion. We need to include externalities in these costs - in order to get a more accurate accounting of costs & benefits of given actions or policy.
We also need to be conscious of genetic diversity in the World & in human societies. If you watch a lot of TV, you get the impression that everyone has nice teeth, hair, skin, & is blond over blue. That isn't true either - it's a function of what sells & attracts viewers, & therefore sponsors & money to the TV station owners & their suppliers. It's not a reflection of reality in the World.
Animal & plant species are going to the wall @ an alarming rate - & we haven't yet inventoried everything that's out the in the World. We need to do so, & quickly - before the opportunity slips away. (& we should get tissue samples & DNA, to hold in nature cryopreserves, pending the opportunity & habitat to resuscitate those populations.)
Which TV? Not the Kardashians I'm watching. Big ass and dark brown hair.
Nah, I don't care what the pricing mechanism is @ this point. I'm saying that we need to capture & allocate all the costs involved in food production, for instance - the costs & environmental & human impacts of POL, fertilizer nitrogen & insecticide runoff into rivers & streams running to the oceans, the human costs of massive doses of antibiotics in meat production, BGH in diary animals, & so on. Because otherwise, we're making price allocations (& policy) in fantasy land, ignoring costs & inputs & outputs merely because they're inconvenient to include.
We can argue the politics later - because that's what it is. In the here & now, we have environmental & agricultural & industrial policy & health issues that need to be understood accurately in order for us to formulate any viable responses.
The pricing mechanism is either controlled by the free market or by the government. You don't like how it is going now and think the government can do it better. If you want all countries to comply the only way would be forced by the UN. And I guess the countries that don't agree will need to sanctioned or invaded and forced to do what the UN mandates. Non stop war over cleaner food.
People already have a choice in what they purchase. You can buy organic everything and BHT free milk. And GMO free products. That is the free market. If everyone wanted that then the other products would no longer have a market. Part of it is price. Organic products are a lot more expensive. Many people cannot afford them. Part of it is free will and choice. You want to force everyone to buy earth friendly products no matter how much more they have to pay for them and whether they like it or not. And you want the UN to decide how to force all countries to make this work. Somehow that is going to make a better world.
Perhaps a better solution to more regulation is more information. I do agree that chemicals in food production have a negative impact on the environment. Better educate people on choices they make instead of forcing them to comply or else.
The problem is almost entirely in Africa and there seems to be no will left in the developed world to do anything about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriz Brown
An economy based on constant growth cannot be sustained forever.
Sure it can, given continued constant development of technology.
Quote:
At some point we either run out of resources or people start dying in large numbers. What is the best solution?
You mean we run out and people start dying, right? But there's a whole world, solar system, galaxy... universe of resources out there for us to use. Human population should continue to expand along with our prowess in making use of the almost unlimited resources available. The threat is a technological crash, and that could well result from chaos caused by the population explosion currently underway in Africa.
The pricing mechanism is either controlled by the free market or by the government. You don't like how it is going now and think the government can do it better. If you want all countries to comply the only way would be forced by the UN. And I guess the countries that don't agree will need to sanctioned or invaded and forced to do what the UN mandates. Non stop war over cleaner food.
People already have a choice in what they purchase. You can buy organic everything and BHT free milk. And GMO free products. That is the free market. If everyone wanted that then the other products would no longer have a market. Part of it is price. Organic products are a lot more expensive. Many people cannot afford them. Part of it is free will and choice. You want to force everyone to buy earth friendly products no matter how much more they have to pay for them and whether they like it or not. And you want the UN to decide how to force all countries to make this work. Somehow that is going to make a better world.
Perhaps a better solution to more regulation is more information. I do agree that chemicals in food production have a negative impact on the environment. Better educate people on choices they make instead of forcing them to comply or else.
I like invoking the free market. Is this the same one that China games, or OPEC, or other syndicates? Yah, governments have a lot of input to markets. & no, I'm not interested in forcing anyone, let alone by the UN. (You know that the UN itself doesn't have any troops - it relies on the member states for manpower & muscle. & the biggest, most fearsome military in the World is - the USA, of course. So - we're not going to invade ourselves, & certainly not on the UN's say-so.)
Yah, the people who have a choice live in the West (& Japan & the Asian Tigers, & parts of some other countries). Otherwise, the choices are whatever's on offer, & Russia is still recovering from WWII & the fall of the USSR. Eastern Europe is also recovering from WWII, & they're @ various stages of recovery. Europe - the CM? - doesn't allow GMO @ all, TMK. So where you are determines a lot of how much choice you have.
I think that identifying & allocating all the environmental & health costs & any other costs involved in POL, fracking, the US grazing/meat animal system & so on, would be the result of better & more complete information, & would empower better policy & decision-making - surely that's not a bad thing in & of itself?
Since you will not run out of resources and people will not start dying in large numbers, there is no need for a solution.
The Earth can easily handle 60+ Billion people, but relax, since population will peak around 25 Billion, flat line and then start to decrease.
Someone has to work the coffee plantations in western Africa so that you can go to Starsux...unless you're willing to relocate to western Africa and do the work.
So, are you? You know, willing to relocate?
This is all 100% false.
The earth can sustain round 9-12 billion people.
And YES the world economy IS based on constant growth.
And YES the world economy IS based on constant growth.
Pray tell how 'economies' are based on constant growth when there are 'constant' expansions and contractions due to so many factors I'd still be listing tomorrow.
I like invoking the free market. Is this the same one that China games, or OPEC, or other syndicates? Yah, governments have a lot of input to markets. & no, I'm not interested in forcing anyone, let alone by the UN. (You know that the UN itself doesn't have any troops - it relies on the member states for manpower & muscle. & the biggest, most fearsome military in the World is - the USA, of course. So - we're not going to invade ourselves, & certainly not on the UN's say-so.)
Yah, the people who have a choice live in the West (& Japan & the Asian Tigers, & parts of some other countries). Otherwise, the choices are whatever's on offer, & Russia is still recovering from WWII & the fall of the USSR. Eastern Europe is also recovering from WWII, & they're @ various stages of recovery. Europe - the CM? - doesn't allow GMO @ all, TMK. So where you are determines a lot of how much choice you have.
I think that identifying & allocating all the environmental & health costs & any other costs involved in POL, fracking, the US grazing/meat animal system & so on, would be the result of better & more complete information, & would empower better policy & decision-making - surely that's not a bad thing in & of itself?
What China and OPEC might be a form of capitalism but not at all the free market obviously. I was being sarcastic about the UN. They are a paper tiger at best.
I am looking at it from the point of view of the USA. Just as every other country looks at things from their point of view. People have a free will everywhere. In many countries the decide not to exercise that right through elections or revolution if necessary.
If I may your point is looking at things from an environmental and health cost perspective and change peoples habits there would be more food available? Is that correct?
That is fine but making things more expensive by adding a tax or fee to foods that impact things negatively will never happen in a large scale. Sure there can be a soda tax in NYC but pricing ground beef to where its too expensive to buy will be met harshly I would think.
And if this is done to make more food available everyone would have to do it. All over the world.
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.
The League of Nations was the original UN
