The connection between Religion and Climate Change (Denial) - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14688230
Dr House wrote:Theology doesn't have 150 years of consistently successful results, plus pocket successes throughout history going back to the beginning of civilization, to back itself up.


Such as?

Theology doesn't heal the sick, capitalism does.


Capitalism is not the same thing as the """science""" of economics. And capitalism doesn't heal the sick either. Medicine does. Capitalism just makes them pay for it.

Theology doesn't feed the hungry, capitalism does. I could go on.


No, agriculture has been feeding the hungry since long before capitalism.
#14688232
Saeko wrote:Such as?

Well, just for starters...

Capitalism is not the same thing as the """science""" of economics. And capitalism doesn't heal the sick either. Medicine does. Capitalism just makes them pay for it.

My apologies, I should have been more specific.

Entrepreneurialism and inventiveness, which are allowed to exist freely in no other system except free-market capitalism, have healed the sick and fed the hungry. "Medicine" (and things like medical treatments) only exists because people have developed it, at great cost to themselves. There'd be no chemo, MRI machines, advanced modern pharmaceuticals, without private enterprise.

See, this exactly what I meant. You're acting like a creationist. Thanks for proving my point.
#14688235
Dr House wrote:Well, just for starters...


Oh look somebody wrote something on the internet and cited no sources! Whatever they say must be true and completely unbiased! It says so right in the title! :lol:


My apologies, I should have been more specific.

Entrepreneurialism and inventiveness, which are allowed to exist freely in no other system except free-market capitalism, have healed the sick and fed the hungry. "Medicine" (and things like medical treatments) only exists because people have developed it, at great cost to themselves. There'd be no chemo, MRI machines, advanced modern pharmaceuticals, without private enterprise.


Really? So a doctor who gets paid by the state to develop chemo and MRI machines would, for some reason, refuse or be unable to do so?

See, this exactly what I meant. You're acting like a creationist. Thanks for proving my point.


Meh.
#14688241
Brazil's food production index is a public, verifiable statistic, as is their transition to free trade. Those don't need to be sourced.

Saeko wrote:Really? So a doctor who gets paid by the state to develop chemo and MRI machines would, for some reason, refuse or be unable to do so?

The state wouldn't have paid people to develop chemo and MRI, and if it did they'd make a botch of it, because they're doing it for the state. The state is like a reverse Midas: everything it touches turns to shit.

You'd think the Soviet experiment would have taught people that. East Germany couldn't even make a decent cars, and they're Germans.
Last edited by Dr House on 12 Jun 2016 06:31, edited 1 time in total.
#14688243
Brazil's food production index is a public, verifiable statistic, as is their transition to capitalism. Those don't need to be sourced.


I'd like a source.


Dr House wrote:The state wouldn't have paid people to develop chemo and MRI,


Not sure why not. They already pay people to build computers, invent microwaves and radar, refrigerators, vaccines for smallpox and to discover god particles.

and if it did they'd make a botch of it, because they're doing it for the state.


They've got a long record of successes. Like eradicating smallpox.

The state is like a reverse Midas: everything it touches turns to shit.


Nice dogmatic opinion you've got there. But the state is just a group of people, no more or less a priori capable than any other.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the wonderful state also put people on the fuckin' moon.
#14688249
Not sure why not. They already pay people to build computers, invent microwaves and radar, refrigerators, vaccines for smallpox and to discover god particles.

Ahem.

Nice dogmatic opinion you've got there. But the state is just a group of people, no more or less a priori capable than any other.

Their incentives are different.

The state uses capital and labor like any other entity, but the major difference is that the state has no actual vested interest in generating effective productive processes, or true innovation (which requires creative destruction and stepping on people's toes) -- quite the opposite, the interests of every individual within the state are vested in doing AS LITTLE as possible. Which is why every single socialist nation ever has been plagued with chronic shortages, lagging innovation, stagnation, and poverty. Venezuela is just the latest example of this, but whenever anything is centrally planned it either stalls or collapses.

Your argument seems to amount to "waaah, why do I have to pay for food and medicine?", when the reality is that we all pay for those things, socialism or no socialism. The difference is that because of the greater efficiency of capitalism, we pay less per unit under it and have more money to do it.

Which is why private cab drivers are wealthier than public doctors in Cuba.
#14688253
Dr House wrote:Ahem.


Oh look! More opinions from people on the internet, yay! Let's uncritically and unquestioningly believe whatever they say!

They have a fancy official sounding name too. And they're entirely privately funded, so there's absolutely no way they could be a mere propaganda mill. It's so nice when I have rich people and their lackeys to do my thinking for me.

Moreover, let's not even attempt to address the point in question!


Their incentives are different.

The state uses capital and labor like any other entity, but the major difference is that the state has no actual vested interest in generating effective productive processes, or true innovation (which requires creative destruction and stepping on people's toes) -- quite the opposite, the interests of every individual within the state are vested in doing AS LITTLE as possible. Which is why every single socialist nation ever has been plagued with chronic shortages, lagging innovation, stagnation, and poverty. Venezuela is just the latest example of this, but whenever anything is centrally planned it either stalls or collapses.


Again, that's just more dogmatic opinions. If you look at actual facts and history, the state, apparently by doing as little as possible, did quite a lot.

Your argument seems to amount to "waaah, why do I have to pay for food and medicine?", when the reality is that we all pay for those things, socialism or no socialism. The difference is that because of the greater efficiency of capitalism, we pay less per unit under it and have more money to do it.

Which is why private cab drivers are wealthier than public doctors in Cuba.


No, my argument is that crapitalism and crapitalists have nothing to do with the rise of modern medicine, agriculture, industry, etc. The credit goes entirely to the engineers and scientists. And the idiot money-changers should get out of the fucking way.
#14688254
You actually think there are "money changers" in the way of innovation, yet the state isn't? The entire point of the state is to get in people's way. Who was in Tesla's way? Orville Wright's? Philo Farnsworth's?
#14688256
Dr House wrote:You actually think there are "money changers" in the way of innovation, yet the state isn't? The entire point of the state is to get in people's way. Who was in Tesla's way? Orville Wright's? Philo Farnsworth's?


Pretty sure that the person in Tesla's way was Thomas Edison. I don't know about the others.

Dr House wrote:You actually think there are "money changers" in the way of innovation, yet the state isn't?


Oh no, the state definitely can get in the way of innovation, especially when it's run poorly. You just seem to dogmatically believe that this is somehow necessarily the case, and that private entities are all ineffable shiny golden gods.
#14688258
Saeko wrote:Pretty sure that the person in Tesla's way was Thomas Edison. I don't know about the others.



Oh no, the state definitely can get in the way of innovation, especially when it's run poorly. You just seem to dogmatically believe that this is somehow necessarily the case, and that private entities are all ineffable shiny golden gods.


EDIT: Oh and the entire point of the state is to acquire power.

p234
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"
#14688266
/Gin-scented tears

So beautiful. This is why I am secretly a proponent of oligarchical collectivism, and any form of totalitarianism.

I've already forgotten what I've been talking about, but back in my LDS church days, it was interesting to know so many Mormons who acknowledged the science of evolution and that the world is billions of years old.
#14688314
This chart is firm evidence of Jewish supremacy. The Quakers and Buddhists can join us in our vast ZOG cabal to clean up everyone's messes. In all seriousness, it's not really surprising that faiths that don't require Genesis to be a science textbook don't have a habit of ignoring science.

Also, significant human impact is the most plausible explanation for climate change. No alternate explanation yet offered by deniers has passed the smell test. How we handle it is up for debate, though it'll have to be tackled on a global scale whether we choose cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.

I personally think preventing a similar sort of problem from arising in the future will require a transition from an exchange-value-driven society with its short-term profit-driven time preference. To a use-value-driven society where the necessary resources are coordinated to handle human needs rather than being diverted into superfluities. In short, bottom-up democratic socialism.
#14688672
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Research published on arvix, i.e. chiefly physics and a subset of other fields, is probably the only exception to this.


In general I more or less agree with your sentiments, but there is some pretty shit stuff on the arxiv as well. Especially stuff dealing with philosophical issues or using bayesian techniques.
#14688807
Dr House wrote:Well, just for starters...


My apologies, I should have been more specific.

Entrepreneurialism and inventiveness, which are allowed to exist freely in no other system except free-market capitalism, have healed the sick and fed the hungry. "Medicine" (and things like medical treatments) only exists because people have developed it, at great cost to themselves. There'd be no chemo, MRI machines, advanced modern pharmaceuticals, without private enterprise.

See, this exactly what I meant. You're acting like a creationist. Thanks for proving my point.


inventiveness and development happens outside of the free market capitalist system. state directed research programs have a long track record of delivering innovation, technology development equal to anything the entrepreneurial system has developed. the internet, the space program. "the entrepreneurial" free market system system is neither a requirement nor particularly well adapted to produce innovation. high end software tools are now dominated by the open source movement, even big companies fund and support open source developers because they feel this is the best most cost effective way to develop software tools.

the free market favours the development of large monopolies which are fundamentally opposed to change. without regulation monopolies will arise which will stifle change and development.

the free market and capitalism , cannot claim credit for the total development of technology, research and development works best outside of capitalism. a lot of the fundamental research is carried on outside the capitalist free market.

it's very hard to say any technological change or innovation was solely the product of capitalism , as technological development is built upon what has gone before and isolated the last little bit and calling the product of capitalism is pretty much a joke.
#14688827
The free market's natural tendency is actually against monopolies, since it provides no barriers to competition. All it takes to break an existing monopoly is to have a better idea and some capital.

The supposed "era of monopolies" was anything but. The average business in the late 19th century was small and most industries had dozens of competing businesses. The large-scale, more successful corporations were, however, harder to compete against simply because international competition wasn't a thing -- tariff walls were in the way.

In the modern era, monopolies that don't have a legal mandate are not just nonexistent, they are impossible. Corporations that don't face domestic competition (which are few) invariably face international competition.

The state isn't incapable of innovating, but it is inherently a more cumbersome and inflexible machine than any private enterprise. The incentives state actors respond to are invariably tied to things that directly oppose effective innovation: power, control, and sheer inertia (when one controls the ultimate monopoly, one has the power to do nothing). All of the above are natural barriers to the creative destruction and unconventional thinking required to innovate.

Further, the things that the state is capable of generating are only things that further the greater glory of the state, not the well-being of the people. We spent billions of dollars figuring out how to go to the moon, for example, which private R&D might have spent on figuring out the more efficient farming and growing techniques that created cheaper food and eventually ended chronic famine. The majority of the innovations that allow us to live the comfortable lives we live are things we take for granted, and things a state enterprise would (and indeed did) take for granted -- they aren't glorious. They're mundane. People invent them because someone somewhere might buy them, but without a profit motive those cease to exist.

Once again: I point you to East Germany's inability to make a car that anyone would buy if they had a choice. German automotive prowess is the stuff of legend. In West Germany in the 80s you could buy a BMW M3 or a Mercedes 190E Cosworth. To this day, they are some of the best cars ever made. In East Germany you could buy the... Trabant. A cartoon come to life with bodywork made of literal manure.
#14688982
Blablabla.

Capitalism us what is currently causing climate chance, and since all the politicians who have the power to do something about it are also capitalists, then nothing is getting done.

For all this talk about how capitalism is flexible and helps people, actual facts seem to show otherwise.

Yes, we know you believe Amit Soussana is a liar ([…]

Do you get paid a certain amount of money for ev[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

^ I shared the Sachs and Meirsheimer videos in her[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]