How Learning Economics Makes You Antisocial - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15034950
SolarCross wrote:
So "climate change" is just a scam for imposing totalitarianism, that explains a lot.



Well, as usual, you're *distorting* the real political reasoning and intent, SC.

I don't distrust my revolutionary comrades -- those who are Trotskyists. A proletarian revolution *has* to be global in scope because there's no point in using some contrived rationale as to which parts of the world could revolutionize social production (to workers' collectives), and which parts couldn't. The modes of production of capitalism and socialism are inherently *incompatible* because capitalism channels (social) value into the buildup of *exchange values* (currency, etc.), while socialism is all about social production for the sake of *use* values (social utility of any given production / item, and/or service).

Now, for that goal of the primacy of *use values*, we have to 'rewind' and figure out how to get from here to there -- that's the *planning* for the worldwide revolution, in the interests of the proletariat, by the proletariat. This mass-conscious planned upheaval has to be done so that the bourgeoisie is successfully overthrown, with all productive power put in the hands of the world's workers. Accomplishing this task requires a political 'vehicle' that can do exactly that, a transition-to-communism form of alternative social organization that can rival, and usurp, the current bourgeois ruling class power structure.

So, by this reasoning, a certain amount of *centralization* will be required, over all current and planned kinds of social organization and production -- which, in your mistrust, you call 'totalitarianism'. I'll note that your erroneous terming implies a 'socialist state' formation, which is inherently *incorrect* (Stalinism), and certainly not-the-point. Constrained socialism or communism *isn't* socialism or communism, again because of the inherent mismatch between producing for profits (capitalism) and producing for human need (communism).

Regarding climate change, the world needs a mostly singular plan and implementation, *worldwide*, so that the breadth of climate change can be addressed *consistently* and tackled. This, then, implies a need for governmental-type *centralization* over such a project -- preferably by the working class -- perhaps with the 'algae' approach in that article I posted here.


Rancid wrote:
WSWS is such a fucking dumb website. I'm shock that people cite that website. It's fucking horrible.

It's not just the content, but the writing style itself sucks. Their writers can't write well.



You sound so childish with your facile dismissiveness, because you're not addressing the content nor providing any political reasoning of your own as an alternative.
#15034953
ckaihatsu wrote:You sound so childish with your facile dismissiveness, because you're not addressing the content nor providing any political reasoning of your own as an alternative.


I already talked about how bad that site is when I analyzed the content of a previous WSWS article you posted that was pure shit. This was the one about the strike in matamoros. The "reporting" was so ridiculously dishonest, there is no reason to both reading another WSWS "article" again. It's a waste of time.

It's a shit website, what can I say? It's shit, so why should I put any energy into taking it seriously? Do you take Fox new seriously? I don't.

Anyway, the wrong assumption you are making right now is in thinking I'm some sort of anti-socialist. Which I'm not. Just because I think WSWS is a shit, doesn't mean I think socialism is shit. ;)

You're probably the childish one here by the way. First one to do name calling is usually the childish one.
#15034960
Rancid wrote:
I already talked about how bad that site is when I analyzed the content of a previous WSWS article you posted that was pure shit. This was the one about the strike in matamoros. The "reporting" was so ridiculously dishonest, there is no reason to both reading another WSWS "article" again. It's a waste of time.

It's a shit website, what can I say? It's shit, so why should I put any energy into taking it seriously? Do you take Fox new seriously? I don't.

Anyway, the wrong assumption you are making right now is in thinking I'm some sort of anti-socialist. Which I'm not. Just because I think WSWS is a shit, doesn't mean I think socialism is shit. ;)

You're probably the childish one here by the way. First one to do name calling is usually the childish one.



Well, I'm not going to nitpick -- you may want to realize, though, that if you're so pro-socialist, that news around worker-interest developments is not always easy to come by, and the WSWS happens to generate more revolutionary-minded news reporting than any other source I've ever seen.

I don't know what you find to be 'dishonest' there -- the WSWS does show a fair amount of sectarianism, but that's about the worst I can say, and that's typical of *any* revolutionary organization-entity, anyway. Saying it's 'shit' is definitely throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
#15034964
ckaihatsu wrote: if you're so pro-socialist

It's not so much that I'm super pro-socialist. It's more that I understand that capitalism has run its course, and it's time for something else. Socialism is an option, and there are certainly things I agree on with socialist/marxist/etc. I'd rather keep myself open to more ideas than just limit myself to socialist principles though. There's an opportunity cost associated with marrying yourself too much to a specific ideology.

ckaihatsu wrote:find to be 'dishonest' there

Dishonesty through omission is what I spotted in the previous article I mentioned. In my opinion, this is the worse kind of dishonesty you could find in publications.

ckaihatsu wrote:news around worker-interest developments is not always easy to come by

I agree, but that's no excuse to put out dishonest stuff. Anyway, ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think, so take comfort in that. :)
#15035046
ckaihatsu wrote:I think the *approach* is a good one, using algae as a concentrated carbon sink instead of trying to regrow forests to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.


Here is the style of the approach:

"Hi there! I have four PhDs and I'd like to talk to you about why Amway just makes so much sense in your life...."

What a great use of higher education! Of charm! Of concern for the world's many problems!
#15035160
Rancid wrote:
It's not so much that I'm super pro-socialist. It's more that I understand that capitalism has run its course, and it's time for something else. Socialism is an option, and there are certainly things I agree on with socialist/marxist/etc. I'd rather keep myself open to more ideas than just limit myself to socialist principles though. There's an opportunity cost associated with marrying yourself too much to a specific ideology.



Well, what would be the viable alternatives to capitalism, if not socialism?

Shouldn't those who do the actual work for collective society also be the ones to *determine* how their work gets done -- ?


Rancid wrote:
Dishonesty through omission is what I spotted in the previous article I mentioned. In my opinion, this is the worse kind of dishonesty you could find in publications.



Well, you may want to get more specific here, and include some links, but whatever you decide to do it's not a burning issue for me.


Rancid wrote:
I agree, but that's no excuse to put out dishonest stuff. Anyway, ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think, so take comfort in that. :)



Uh, not quite following your drift here, but free self-deprecation from the other (you) is always enjoyable, I guess.


QatzelOk wrote:
Here is the style of the approach:

"Hi there! I have four PhDs and I'd like to talk to you about why Amway just makes so much sense in your life...."

What a great use of higher education! Of charm! Of concern for the world's many problems!



I hear ya -- but I also want to emphasize the technological *content* of what I posted, versus 'style'. Growing tons of algae on rooftops (or wherever) certainly seems like a good methodology at this point in things.

(You can see substance-vs.-style in this diagram of mine....)


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image
#15036032
SolarCross wrote:A successful person is someone who achieves their goals. Mostly goals require other people to help make them come true. Consequently adept socialisers are able to make more challenging goals and achieve them. In general becoming wealthy is the natural outcome of being successful. As you give so shall ye receive.

As Mariana Mazzucato has so ably explained, one's goal could be to obtain a reward by benefiting others -- "making" -- or by harming others -- "taking." Success in taking is just as lucrative as -- often even more lucrative than -- success in making. Nothing to do with giving in order to receive. Privilege legally entitles its owners to take without giving any commensurate benefit in return.
#15042706
https://interestingengineering.com/a-ne ... -developed


A New Way to Capture, Convert C02 Has Been Developed

A group of scientists developed a new material that can efficiently capture and convert CO2.

By Donna Fuscaldo
October 11, 2019

A New Way to Capture, Convert C02 Has Been Developed
CO2 pollutionJukkisjupi/iStock

Capturing carbon dioxide is viewed as one way to fight global warming, but the current methods to do that require a lot of energy, making it hard to capture the greenhouse gases efficiently.


SPONSORED VIDEO

RELATED: CAPTURING CO2 TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE


Researchers developed a PCP to capture CO2

"We have successfully designed a porous material which has a high affinity towards CO2 molecules and can quickly and effectively convert it into useful organic materials," said Ken-ichi Otake, Kyoto University materials chemist from the Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (iCeMS) in a press release highlighting the results of their work.

The material developed by the researchers is a porous coordination polymer that consists of zinc metal icons. Using an X-ray structural analysis, the researchers tested the material and found it selectively captures CO2 molecules with an efficiency that is ten times better than other porous coordination polymers or PCPs.

As the CO2 molecules approach the material, which has a propeller-like molecular structure, they rearrange and rotate to trap the CO2 and change the molecular channels in the PCP. That enables it to recognize molecules by their size and their shape.

The CO2 capturing material can be reused

The PCP can also be reused. The scientists found the efficiency didn't decrease after ten reaction cycles. Once the carbon is captured the material it is converted and can be used to make polyurethane, which has a ton of applications including in clothing, appliances, and packaging.

"One of the greenest approaches to carbon capture is to recycle the carbon dioxide into high-value chemicals, such as cyclic carbonates which can be used in petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals," says Susumu Kitagawa, materials chemist at Kyoto University. The scientists said the work highlights the potential PCPs have in traping CO2 and changing it into materials that are useful. They called for future research to be done in the area.


ADVERTISEMENT


© Copyright 2019 | Interesting Engineering, Inc. | All Rights ReservedTerms of ServicePolicies
#15042707
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... nic-matter


ENVIRONMENT

Scientists Create a Material That Captures CO2 And Turns It Into Organic Matter

DAVID NIELD15 OCT 2019

Scientists have come up with an innovative way to try and counter the massive amounts of carbon dioxide we're still pumping into the air, even as a climate crisis unfolds around us: turning that CO2 into a useful organic polymer.


The newly developed method sucks CO2 molecules out of the air, without expending much energy in the process. The material can then potentially be turned into an ingredient for packaging or clothing.

The secret weapon is a porous coordination polymer (PCP) made up of zinc metal ions.

Those ions are able to selectively capture CO2 molecules with 10 times greater efficiency than other PCPs, the scientists say. What's more, the material is reusable, and was still running at maximum efficiency after 10 reaction cycles.

"We have successfully designed a porous material which has a high affinity towards CO2 molecules and can quickly and effectively convert it into useful organic materials," says materials chemist Ken-ichi Otake, from Kyoto University in Japan.

The idea of carbon sequestration has been around for some time, but the low reactivity of carbon dioxide means it's difficult to capture and lock away without using a lot of energy along the way – which kind of defeats the point.

PCPs (also known as metal-organic frameworks or MOFs) might hold the key to overcoming this obstacle. The one outlined in this new study uses a clever trick: an organic component with a propeller-like structure.


Using X-ray structural analysis, the researchers found that as CO2 molecules approach the PCP, its molecular structure rotates and rearranges, allowing the carbon dioxide to be trapped in the material.

The PCP is essentially working as a molecular sieve, able to recognise molecules by size and shape. Once the material has done its CO2-sucking job, it can be reused or recycled as an organic polymer. Organic polymers are able to be turned into polyurethane, which is used in clothing, packaging, domestic appliances and a variety of other areas.

We're seeing a number of promising in the field of carbon storage. Earlier this year scientists from RMIT University in Australia presented a way of turning CO2 back into coal, using a chemical reaction involving the metal cerium.

Another team of researchers, from Rice University in the US, have been able to develop a device for turning CO2 into liquid fuel: in this case the metal bismuth is the key ingredient, and formic acid is the end result.

All these ideas require further research and need to work at larger scales, but progress is being made. That said, they shouldn't distract us from the best way of cutting down the CO2 in the air and slowing global warming – reducing our carbon emissions.

It's clear that action needs to be taken, and fast. This new CO2 conversion method may well become very important to us in the future, not least because it turns something we don't want into something we do.

"One of the greenest approaches to carbon capture is to recycle the carbon dioxide into high-value chemicals, such as cyclic carbonates which can be used in petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals," says materials chemist Susumu Kitagawa, from Kyoto University.

The research has been published in Nature Communications.
#15048403
I've got this over-priced and untested product to sell.

I want to make a lot of money off of it so that I don't have to do anything useful for other people, and so that I have MORE than anyone else does that I know.

Of course, I'll need suckers for my useless products. "Suckers" are (ideally) people who you don't know, and who don't know you. The idea is to use charm, fast talk, and psychological manipulation to get suckers to give you cash for the useless product you are selling.

The best salesman has no real friends, because this ensures the highest number of potential suckers.

Do you see how this might be considered "anti-social?"
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

People saying the EU is a recreation of the Sovie[…]

The biggest scandal in American history

Sprinkling incriminating adjectives doesn't help[…]

Israelis nervous about BDS

Arabs may have Palestine only if israel allows it[…]

Supplemental reading in this thread: Consciousness[…]