Climate pole

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I am reasonably convinced that global warming exists and is man-made.

However, I am not so convinced that it can be reversed with any reasonable efforts on our part, unless we are willing to keep the developing world in poverty forever.

I tend to think it might be more useful to ramp up our efforts to colonize other planets before the most serious effects of global warming occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think much is unknown about global warming; it;svery complex, and projections are very uncertain.

I think colonizing other planets sounds more costly and far-fetched than keeping Earth's population down to a reasonable level. Of course I could be wrong on that.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I am reasonably convinced that global warming exists and is man-made.

However, I am not so convinced that it can be reversed with any reasonable efforts on our part, unless we are willing to keep the developing world in poverty forever.

I tend to think it might be more useful to ramp up our efforts to colonize other planets before the most serious effects of global warming occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is easier to colonize a planet currently completely inhospitable to human life than to deal with the problems here on earth? Which planet would you like to live on?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am reasonably convinced that global warming exists and is man-made.

However, I am not so convinced that it can be reversed with any reasonable efforts on our part, unless we are willing to keep the developing world in poverty forever.

I tend to think it might be more useful to ramp up our efforts to colonize other planets before the most serious effects of global warming occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is easier to colonize a planet currently completely inhospitable to human life than to deal with the problems here on earth? Which planet would you like to live on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if we can deal with the problems while still allowing developing countries to industrialize, then obviously this is the best solution.

However, we currently have a problem with man-made global warming while only about 1 billion people live in the industrialized world (and thus contribute to the global warming problem). Even if we somehow keep the Earth's population stable, how could we possibly do less damage to our environment in the future when China and India and other nations are fully developed, and we have 5 billion people consuming on the same level that the top 1 billion do today?

Even if the developed world does everything we can to stop global warming, I don't see how it is going to make a difference unless we want to keep the rest of the world in poverty.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am reasonably convinced that global warming exists and is man-made.

However, I am not so convinced that it can be reversed with any reasonable efforts on our part, unless we are willing to keep the developing world in poverty forever.

I tend to think it might be more useful to ramp up our efforts to colonize other planets before the most serious effects of global warming occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is easier to colonize a planet currently completely inhospitable to human life than to deal with the problems here on earth? Which planet would you like to live on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if we can deal with the problems while still allowing developing countries to industrialize, then obviously this is the best solution.

However, we currently have a problem with man-made global warming while only about 1 billion people live in the industrialized world (and thus contribute to the global warming problem). Even if we somehow keep the Earth's population stable, how could we possibly do less damage to our environment in the future when China and India and other nations are fully developed, and we have 5 billion people consuming on the same level that the top 1 billion do today?

Even if the developed world does everything we can to stop global warming, I don't see how it is going to make a difference unless we want to keep the rest of the world in poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch...A1_4V77MOK.html

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am reasonably convinced that global warming exists and is man-made.

However, I am not so convinced that it can be reversed with any reasonable efforts on our part, unless we are willing to keep the developing world in poverty forever.

I tend to think it might be more useful to ramp up our efforts to colonize other planets before the most serious effects of global warming occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is easier to colonize a planet currently completely inhospitable to human life than to deal with the problems here on earth? Which planet would you like to live on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if we can deal with the problems while still allowing developing countries to industrialize, then obviously this is the best solution.

However, we currently have a problem with man-made global warming while only about 1 billion people live in the industrialized world (and thus contribute to the global warming problem). Even if we somehow keep the Earth's population stable, how could we possibly do less damage to our environment in the future when China and India and other nations are fully developed, and we have 5 billion people consuming on the same level that the top 1 billion do today?

Even if the developed world does everything we can to stop global warming, I don't see how it is going to make a difference unless we want to keep the rest of the world in poverty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the phrase in bold a given?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielso [..]


You live under a state that dictates how you should and should not live your life. If the state decides to take precautionary measures to curb climate change with minimal effect on your life is this something we should be spending our efforts opposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy the 'minimal effects' argument. The state grows and grows and grows until the economy implodes and the state dies and it takes a lot with it.

What we should focus our efforts on is understanding the world. Not the make-belief made-for-television fairy tale world, but the real world. Only if we understand the real world can we oppose these crazy zealots.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, how does proposing private property curb climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private property means legitimate ownership. Legitimate ownership means care and responsibility. Care because it's actually yours and destroying it means you lose value in resources. Responsibility because you are liable for the effect it has on others.

The state represents the complete opposite of private property. It thusly also means the opposite in terms of care and in terms of responsibility. The state cares nothing about it because nobody actually legitimately owns anything. It has all to do with grabbing what you can grab and dumping anything you don't like on somebody else or the organization as a whole. So when Bush spends a gazillion dollars on war which is not his own money, then he just walks away afterwards without a care in the world.
The same with responsibility; the state is liable to noone and the state actors all work together because they recognize a mutual benefit. That's the 'benefit' of being a violent monopoly; there is literally nothing that can hold you accountable for anything. Which is why we desperately need a market in arbitration and security.




[ QUOTE ]
I know you won't like this, but I'm pretty sure the answers for saving the natural world are opposite to your capitalist/free-market leanings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. See above.


[ QUOTE ]
In the words of Bookchin: "Captialism is fundamentally hostile’ to humans as social beings, to. women, and to the natural world"

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is not a thing. Capitalism means the market means voluntary trade between humans. How is voluntary trade hostile to 'humans as social beings'?

Your one-liner marxists propaganda fails again.

[Copernicus]

I would refuse to respond to polls that are called "poles", even if it wasn't posted by Nielsio

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nielso [..]


You live under a state that dictates how you should and should not live your life. If the state decides to take precautionary measures to curb climate change with minimal effect on your life is this something we should be spending our efforts opposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy the 'minimal effects' argument. The state grows and grows and grows until the economy implodes and the state dies and it takes a lot with it.

What we should focus our efforts on is understanding the world. Not the make-belief made-for-television fairy tale world, but the real world. Only if we understand the real world can we oppose these crazy zealots.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, how does proposing private property curb climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private property means legitimate ownership. Legitimate ownership means care and responsibility. Care because it's actually yours and destroying it means you lose value in resources. Responsibility because you are liable for the effect it has on others.

The state represents the complete opposite of private property. It thusly also means the opposite in terms of care and in terms of responsibility. The state cares nothing about it because nobody actually legitimately owns anything. It has all to do with grabbing what you can grab and dumping anything you don't like on somebody else or the organization as a whole. So when Bush spends a gazillion dollars on war which is not his own money, then he just walks away afterwards without a care in the world.
The same with responsibility; the state is liable to noone and the state actors all work together because they recognize a mutual benefit. That's the 'benefit' of being a violent monopoly; there is literally nothing that can hold you accountable for anything. Which is why we desperately need a market in arbitration and security.




[ QUOTE ]
I know you won't like this, but I'm pretty sure the answers for saving the natural world are opposite to your capitalist/free-market leanings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. See above.


[ QUOTE ]
In the words of Bookchin: "Captialism is fundamentally hostile’ to humans as social beings, to. women, and to the natural world"

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is not a thing. Capitalism means the market means voluntary trade between humans. How is voluntary trade hostile to 'humans as social beings'?

Your one-liner marxists propaganda fails again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply. I do however take offence at you describing my references as being examples of "one-liner marxists propaganda". Especially in reference to a quotation by Murray Bookchin the same author of the essay slamming Marxism called "Listen, Marxists!". You do realise opposition to capitalism does not = communism? In fact Libertarian Socialist ideology could not be any further from the main branches of Marxism with Leninist-Marxism in paticular which does the opposite of calling for the abolishment of capitalism - instead opting for state ownership of it.

"That doesn't make any sense. Capitalism is not a thing. Capitalism means the market means voluntary trade between humans. How is voluntary trade hostile to 'humans as social beings'?"

You fail to realise how it is anti-women too?

[LongRedHair]

Global warming is real no doubt about it the current warming trend has been going on for the last ~15-18,000 years.

The debate is just how much effect Man has had on it in the last 200 years or so. Personaly I think it's not very significant.

Should anything be done about it? That all depends if your interested in the long term survival of the human race. If you don't care we just carry on as we are the earth will be good for the next few hundred year before the human race gets killed off. If you do care then you have a lot of very hard decisions to make.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalism is not a thing. Capitalism means the market means voluntary trade between humans.

[/ QUOTE ]
...AND violent monopoly over an area of near arbitrarily assigned property to the exclusion of all other considerations. Capitalism is more than just "voluntary associations", lol.

Are you unaware of the significant scholarly criticism of capitalism?