yeah, but we'll never be like Brazil. Thats too clean and advanced. There will always be that one idiot who says "Then I wont be able to drive my truck. Let me drive wahtever i want. i can afford the gas. It doesnt effect you" Those idiots dont understand that it's MY gas you're wasting. But, I think people are slowly moving away from gas guzzlers, especially since now you cant trade in some trucks and SUV's at most dealerships. As far as how it's changed me. I try to think of everything i need and make one trip when running errands. No special trips to get something I want and dont need.
I've never heard that argument from an Obama supporter....especially since Obama supporters know that WE use and waste more energy than China and India (based on population, of course) and whats the problem with asking them to cut back on energy as much as possible? you act like that's a bad thing.
good call. it's really killing china now we should get them to switch back to communism since it was clearly less destructive.
TJ: You keep bringing up China and India's appetite for fossil fuel and the long term effect on the environment, but you never spell out what you think needs to be done to address it. From my own work, I know China especially is going anywhere and everywhere it can (Zimbabwe comes to mind) to make deals for every natural resource imaginable to keep its manufacturing base rolling. What long term forecast to you see for the global economy and in what way is the energy industry going to adapt to meet demand in the developing world? How will it placate demand by consumers for lower fuel prices, and demand from just about every government, NGO and world body to lower emissions?
I think CometsWin is correct, IMO. Capitalism has been destructive. Proabably the most destructive. When everything is reduced to purely economic value - the only thing that really stands in one's way from performing any atrocity in the sake of a dollar is this fragile thing called ethics. And by fragile I mean, historically abused and/or ignored. Sure, feudalism was not much better - but it was WAY less efficient. That's not too imply capitalism should be avoided. Rather, without a consistent ethical guideline (or, more appropriately, regulation to enforce said ethic - humans are weak and greedy) capitalism will devour itself. Ergo - capitalism is not bad - it just needs to be steered and, to certain extent, restrained in order to assure mutual sustainability.
can i get an official quote for my signature? like something to the effect of "Feudalism...not much better than capitalism."
It would be better for the world if China and everyone else practiced a more thoughtful, socialist form of capitalism.
I disagree completely, and maybe its just because we focus on different issues. Capitalistic economies have depleted the world's natural resources much quicker than any other, granted. But the same economies have developed alternatives every time a resource became threatened. (Read back to the horror stories just 40 years ago predicted with the impending end of the world's iron reserves.) Most importantly though, capitalism has created the only environment in the history of the world where there is significant social mobility. The advancement of human rights under capitalistic societies is dramatic. Modern, centrally-planned mixed economies don't have as good a record for social mobility, but they are still better than any where an aristocracy or oligarchy control the resources.
I was more focused on the "sustainability" portion. Ruthless efficiency coupled with little oversight or impetus to restrain unfettered expansion is a serious problem. With respect to social aspects, you are right to an extent. There is significant social mobility if you happen to be in the right country. The US, for example, provides excellent opportunities in this regard - but almost always at the expense of another nation. Witness US policy in latin america, farm subsidies that have demolished africa, oil in the middle east and eurasia, etc. This depletion comes at a MAJOR cost - not just in terms of the actual resources, but in the ruthless efficiency employed - usually coupled with a "by any means necessary" ideology. But its even deeper than simple death, destruction, famine (depending on your definition of "deeper"). Capitalism has the unique ability to expand across cultures - and obliterate them. The pompous Tom Friedman nailed this aspect in The World is Flat and The Lexus and the Olive Tree. It's a scary thought that soon you won't catch as much "locality" or "uniqueness" about different places in the world. I think that would be a real disaster: a de-diversifying if you will. I wrote a paper on this some time ago - if I can remember I'll pull it up when I get home and post a few excerpts. Now - back to work.
I'd argue that much of that isn't capitalism. Farm subsidies are anti-capitalist, and imperialism, whether military or economic, is not dependent on any particular economic system. The United States and Britain before it caused such damage around the world, not because of their economic system, but because of their power and willingness to use it. You are not the first to recommend The World is Flat to me, and it's in my queue. I typically hate Friedman's tone in his articles, but that book's been recommended to me too often for me to ignore it.
You'd have to at least acknowledge that capitalism exasperates the above. Heck, it's the key driver. Why be imperialistic if not to milk the crap out of another (poorer) nation?
Yes and no. Greed is the key driver, which is present in any economic system. The Soviet Union was imperialistic and milked the crap out of poorer member States and other nations. In fact, exploitation of a resource by a corporation is streamlined by government control of that resource. Property rights and relatively free markets allowed many to benefit from oil production in the US during its oil boom. Contrast that with Shell's relationship with the Saudi Royal family and its resource. The one thing that capitalism doesn't allow is collective control over resources. In other economic systems (and even some mixed systems), if they are democratic, may vote to restrict use of a resource. It that's your point, I concede. I'm just not sure how destructive that is.
A fair point. Perhaps a better way to phrase my argument is that capitalism exasperates said greed. Well, this was (more or less) my earlier point. Capitalism is not necessarily preordained to result in bad things - it can be regulated. Now, with respect to culture, society, and even the concept of value - I'd still say it's a pretty damn destructive force - and inherently so. It's a cohort of materialism.
