End of the World Party

[alvarezbassist17]

Ok, so I dispute the 11% and the 1.2 acres/American or whatever, but just step back and think about how vastly more productive one acre can be than another (I'm not just talking about farming, what can be done with land can be productive in any sector).  And then just check out Google Earth and look how empty all of the land is.

So what you're saying is, in Corey's hypothetical scenario where every human on the planet is relocated to Texas, THE REST OF THE PLANET IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH to sustain that?

hahahaha i pooed a little loling at that.  call me easily entertained, who knows.

[TheShade1989]

Every generation goes through this thing where there's speculation that the end of the world (religious or otherwise) is approaching. It's probably because humans have never been around longer than their own lifetime, so seeing all these disasters and stuff, it's like "oh wow, it's happening all the time, the world must be ending soon". In reality, there are more disasters because ppl can record them more now, and because the world is more populated, so whereas there used to be disasters that didnt affect anyone, now they always do.

The world obviously will end one day, and while I think humanity is definitely capable of being the cause of it...I dont think so. Maybe an asteroid or maybe just the sun wen its own life comes to an end, but I dont think the world will end soon. It could end at any time for any reason, sure, but I dont see all these things happening as any kind of sign.

And 2012...UGH...that's the most annoying thing ever. I tried to convince everyone to calm down, since it was Mayan mythology (not even mythology for the end of the world, just the end of one age, and then the beginning of another), but because religious ppl have picked up on it, it's sent ppl into a panic. So basically wen it's 2012 I make it my mission to scare as many ppl as possible, since I cant make it go away and wont be able to ignore it. I just hope the world doesnt end in 2012, because then I'll hear all the "I told you so"s.

[oldgentlovecraft]

Yet if the world does end, at least nobody has to listen to the miserable shits whine and moan anymore.

[shine down unshy]

I'm prayin' for rain.  I'm prayin' for tidal waves.

[derekautomatica]

I just think one day everyone's head is going to explode. Nothing fancy like some Devil popping out of the ground, or the heavens opening up, or wrath of any kind. All its gonna be is heads exploding at the same time.

[Oldnewtype]

You guys can end the world however you want just leave me out of it.

[deftones86]

im throwing an end of the world party on Dec 21st 2012. its on a friday haha smoke a blunt a watch it all go down.

[bitterpeace]

i guess i'm the only one who hoped this was a Medeski Martin & Wood thread? 

[alvarezbassist17]

It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.

So what ? Should I blame myself for not living in the third world ?

I'm just saying that environmental socialists with that kind of attitude are pretty much saying that it'd be better for people to take extremely severe cuts in their standards of living in the richer countries and for the poorer countries to be condemned to starvation than it is for us to use the resources we have at our disposal... from their computers and air conditioning.  Plus, when you actually allow property rights and the free market to actually work, it is rationed by the price system, while not impoverishing the globe, and I would argue that there is a much greater incentive to protect and act rationally with private as opposed to public land, for obvious reasons.  

Let's say that I even give you the scenario where there really is man-made global warming, and we've already used most of what the earth has to give us (both of which are completely and utterly bogus).  Shouldn't we then be working even harder, therefore using more natural resources in order to create the technology necessary to be able to run the globe "sustainably?"  Or are we just going to have to take these severe cuts in our living standards until we aren't using as much resources or creating as much pollution as your completely arbitrary standards would allow?

[blixa]

It's also crazy to think that we rape the planet, especially while you're reaping the benefits of this "rape" with your computer and lack of starvation and all that.

So what ? Should I blame myself for not living in the third world ?

I'm just saying that environmental socialists with that kind of attitude are pretty much saying that it'd be better for people to take extremely severe cuts in their standards of living in the richer countries and for the poorer countries to be condemned to starvation than it is for us to use the resources we have at our disposal... from their computers and air conditioning.  Plus, when you actually allow property rights and the free market to actually work, it is rationed by the price system, while not impoverishing the globe, and I would argue that there is a much greater incentive to protect and act rationally with private as opposed to public land, for obvious reasons. 

Let's say that I even give you the scenario where there really is man-made global warming, and we've already used most of what the earth has to give us (both of which are completely and utterly bogus).  Shouldn't we then be working even harder, therefore using more natural resources in order to create the technology necessary to be able to run the globe "sustainably?"  Or are we just going to have to take these severe cuts in our living standards until we aren't using as much resources or creating as much pollution as your completely arbitrary standards would allow?

are you saying that we are not responsible for global warming? i'm not attacking you either. i'm just simply asking.

[alvarezbassist17]

Not only that, I'm also saying that it's a giant scare to drum up support for these energy-rationing policies and favoring of certain industries and companies that are absolutely not viable and take even more of the supposedly "dirty" resources to be made so.  Cases in point: plant-based ethanol, windmills and all of the batteries and extra infrastructure as well as subsidies they require, and electric cars.  Like seriously, even if you do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whatever, the point is that because the technology isn't there to make them viable and because they will perpetually require subsidies, a positive net amount of CO2 is created because the energy to produce all of these things and then subsidize them is also going to have to come from somewhere.  I know that's very complicated to think about, but it's a real fallacy in the whole clean energy thing that nobody thinks about.

Another point: because you have the government subsidizing the industries which it thinks is "green," it actually crowds out investment that could go into some revolutionary technology that would solve this whole issue.  Plus, it's all based on the assumption that it's not in anyone's interest to find a completely clean source of energy.  My best guess is you could probably sell it, because nobody really wants to drill for oil or mine for coal, but the plain fact is, for the moment, we have to in order to progress to the point where we don't.

But yeah, I can source you with some good anti-global warming reading that is scholarly and not based upon any sort of conspiracy, I've posted a few links before n shit.  I just get really ornery about the way that the whole issue is being handled by governments around the world, even if you think every claim Al Gore makes is gold.  Just pure, unadulterated socialism that's going to get us nowhere but Povertytown.

[blixa]

do you have an article that would be worth reading?

i don't agree with you (SHOCKERZ), but i'd be interested in reading it.

i don't like al gore if that helps hahaha. i'd take bob brown over him any day.

[alvarezbassist17]

Here's a few references, just pick one that sounds interesting to you:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

I also like this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

I did some cursory reading on Bob Brown, and I really couldn't see any difference between him and Al Gore; care to enlighten me?

Also, where do you disagree with me on the global warming issue, and why are you for using socialistic tactics to fight it?

[blixa]

cheers. i'll read some when i've semi-written half of my paper. i shouldn't even be here right now. i remember reading this article a while ago:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219743320.html

the only thing you need to know about bob brown is that he is sincere in his belief in climate change and the environment. i believe it is our responsibility to be kinder to our earth. i know skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and uncritically embrace any argument, opinion piece, blog or study that refutes global warming. i'm open to both sides of the argument, but i get a real sense of being attacked from the anti-global warming campaigners as opposed to being informed on what they believe to be happening to our environment. we should be more environmentally friendly like driving our cars less, being more aware of where our food comes from, recycling etc. this is the simple stuff that if we all did we would be better off for. there are companies out there that are serious polluters and i think something has to be done about that.

i'm extremely against the logging of forests in tasmania, especially unprotected forests. brown has been a supporter and a fighter for these forests. i've heard him talk about it when i was very young and standing on my tippy toes in the back of a packed lecture room. i've been with him since then. here's a really good interview he did a while back:
http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_future/Transcripts/s878503.htm

even if you don't agree with him, he's just the most remarkable environmentalist. i admire him immensely as a politician. he's very straight up and forward, which is a rare trait in any government.

and we disagree on the basic fact that i believe in global warming and i believe that we are in part largely to blame for it. i also support the emissions trading scheme. when a majority of scientists make a claim, they tend to be correct. at the very least it is worth giving very serious consideration to the possibility and implications of their claims since they do put a great deal of thought and research into their claims.

you think i'm a socialist? hmmm.

[tarkil]

Another point: because you have the government subsidizing the industries which it thinks is "green," it actually crowds out investment that could go into some revolutionary technology that would solve this whole issue.  Plus, it's all based on the assumption that it's not in anyone's interest to find a completely clean source of energy.  My best guess is you could probably sell it, because nobody really wants to drill for oil or mine for coal, but the plain fact is, for the moment, we have to in order to progress to the point where we don't.

Quick question about what you just said, which is always the weakness I find in your arguments.
First of all, as you know, I wholeheartedly agree with "free market" (or whatever it's called) theory. I'm convinced that the best theoretical way to come to an efficient solution is through free market, innovation etc.
Nonetheless, and here comes my question / remark, I think this is unfortunately only true in a theoretical world where every one strives towards long term interest.
Which is not the case (at all) today in my opinion.

To think back on the example you just used : imagine corporation A, a world leading corporation in petroleum. They are immensely wealthy. Now, also take corporation B, a small company, with very innovative people, aiming to discover some cheap and green energy. Obviously they have no money.
Let's imagine several scenarios :
- A will struggle with their money so that B does not become successful, because it would lead them out of business. There's no way B can compete with such a powerful (i.e. wealthy, with influence in government power circles, etc.) company. No innovation there unfortunately.
- One could imagine that A would do that research themselves, because they will be long term winners. That would be where theory is different that reality to me. In reality, why would A spend unlimited amounts of money on R&D with no immediate (nor sure) payoff, where they can just do what they do everyday, and earn shitloads of money. One could object that if they don't do it, some of their rivals will do it because it will give them the high hand in their struggle. That's not happening though because imo, all this world of powerful corporations is biased, and everyone will prefer short term, sure gains. And as long as no one is moving towards another direction, well, no one else will do it because everyone's happy of their short term money, which they can keep improving by finding other petroleum fields, etc. etc.
- Finally you could imagine that some kind of high level business angel (Warren Buffett style) could create a corporation like B I was talking about in the 1st scenario.
Because they would have the necessary means to struggle with A. But why would they do it ? You don't go at war likely with such big corporations... Plus, most of the time, all the administrators of worldwide corporations are a small crowd, and if some people from company C belongs to ExCo of company D, you'll have people of D in C ExCo, etc.
This is what makes this sphere of the world very biased, and free market hypothesis, where all actors strive for their own long term wealth / wellness maximization cannot apply.
I hope that one day it will, cause that's the day where mankind will grow out of its fucking shitbox, but I don't see this happening any time soon.


Anyway, these are my opinions, I am not saying that I'm the holder of truth or anything, that's just how I see things based on what I saw and read and thought about in my life... And yeah, I'm quite pessimistic on men....   

[Variable]

I could farm enough corn on the rest of the planet-texas to sustain humanity.  Assuming I had robots. 

[deftones86]

anyone seen wall-e? thats how we are going to end up fat and sitting in floating lay-z-boys. and far as global warming goes thats bull shit. Cap and trade is going to be big business coming soon. because everyone thinks the world will end. Its all about money and control. well not money but wealth and yes there is a diffrence.

[Variable]

Another point: because you have the government subsidizing the industries which it thinks is "green," it actually crowds out investment that could go into some revolutionary technology that would solve this whole issue.  Plus, it's all based on the assumption that it's not in anyone's interest to find a completely clean source of energy.  My best guess is you could probably sell it, because nobody really wants to drill for oil or mine for coal, but the plain fact is, for the moment, we have to in order to progress to the point where we don't.

Quick question about what you just said, which is always the weakness I find in your arguments.
First of all, as you know, I wholeheartedly agree with "free market" (or whatever it's called) theory. I'm convinced that the best theoretical way to come to an efficient solution is through free market, innovation etc.
Nonetheless, and here comes my question / remark, I think this is unfortunately only true in a theoretical world where every one strives towards long term interest.
Which is not the case (at all) today in my opinion.

To think back on the example you just used : imagine corporation A, a world leading corporation in petroleum. They are immensely wealthy. Now, also take corporation B, a small company, with very innovative people, aiming to discover some cheap and green energy. Obviously they have no money.
Let's imagine several scenarios :
- A will struggle with their money so that B does not become successful, because it would lead them out of business. There's no way B can compete with such a powerful (i.e. wealthy, with influence in government power circles, etc.) company. No innovation there unfortunately.
- One could imagine that A would do that research themselves, because they will be long term winners. That would be where theory is different that reality to me. In reality, why would A spend unlimited amounts of money on R&D with no immediate (nor sure) payoff, where they can just do what they do everyday, and earn shitloads of money. One could object that if they don't do it, some of their rivals will do it because it will give them the high hand in their struggle. That's not happening though because imo, all this world of powerful corporations is biased, and everyone will prefer short term, sure gains. And as long as no one is moving towards another direction, well, no one else will do it because everyone's happy of their short term money, which they can keep improving by finding other petroleum fields, etc. etc.
- Finally you could imagine that some kind of high level business angel (Warren Buffett style) could create a corporation like B I was talking about in the 1st scenario.
Because they would have the necessary means to struggle with A. But why would they do it ? You don't go at war likely with such big corporations... Plus, most of the time, all the administrators of worldwide corporations are a small crowd, and if some people from company C belongs to ExCo of company D, you'll have people of D in C ExCo, etc.
This is what makes this sphere of the world very biased, and free market hypothesis, where all actors strive for their own long term wealth / wellness maximization cannot apply.
I hope that one day it will, cause that's the day where mankind will grow out of its fucking shitbox, but I don't see this happening any time soon.


Anyway, these are my opinions, I am not saying that I'm the holder of truth or anything, that's just how I see things based on what I saw and read and thought about in my life... And yeah, I'm quite pessimistic on men....  

I don't have a lot of time to do better research for you, but your scenario C has already happened.  It has also been killed multiple times by government intervention.  Here is an article on T Boone Pickens energy plan getting shot down by bailouts.  It actually does a horrible job explaining the plan and how it all got fucked up (beyond some unreasonable expectations of T Boone ).  I'm not saying that I support this plan or anything.  However it is an example of your last example happening in real life.  He had a lot of press and support for a while.  But his effort has been slowed down A LOT by the failing economy.  

http://www.alternet.org/environment/100806/how_t._boone_pickens'_energy_plan_just_got_killed/?page=2

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

You asked why someone would go to war with the oil industry to start a business like this?  It's called an untapped Market.  Same reason Steve Jobs went to war with IBM.  Consumers want clean and renewable energy, but no one is offering it to them ( very readily anyways ) So if someone could create a business that offers efficient solar, wind, geothermic, wave, or tidal energy to consumers as an economic, and efficient energy alternative to fossil fuels, they would probably be bigger than Exxon very quickly.  Someone just has to have the vision and balls to do it.  And of course it helps when government doesn't get in the way and shoot them down.

[alvarezbassist17]

Yeah, I totally agree with what Trey said, but there's a few more aspects to the whole problem.  Because the global economy is so shitty, and more specifically in the US we have a shitty economy coupled with a government that is sucking up every last bit of credit it can get its hands on, the amount of private investment out there is extremely crippled.  When you add to that the fact that the government has taken up the responsibility of subsidizing the industries that it considers most "green," the disincentives mount like crazy because they are both taking resources away from voluntary or private efforts to fix these problems and taking up the cause of investing for us, displacing the private efforts that might be viable.  And because of the fact that it's the government investing, the money is invested for a political return, rather than an economic return.  99.99% of the time, they're not trying to create viable industries, they're trying to buy votes, no matter what party you're referring to.  So even if they had the discretion to invest wherever they wanted, there's no way they're going to invest in the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world, working on shit in their garage.  They're going to invest where the unions are strongest and where they have the most potential for buying votes.  Obama's stimulus is an excellent empirical example, and I could provide you with plenty of links to stories of where that money's gone.

There is also the technology and physics factor.  There is literally nothing available with the kind of energy density of fossil fuels at the moment.  So your argument to me sounds kind of like saying that the free market doesn't work because people haven't invested enough for us to have a battery that can power an iPhone for more than 12 hours.  Say this situation was just as important as our fossil fuel situation.  Judging by the massive increase in technology in the last few years, would you then say that nobody would ever invest the resources to make a better battery?  Or would you just trust that one day the technology would be there and it would be in Apple's best interests to use it?  It's the same thing: no matter how many resources are diverted to wherever, things that aren't viable with current technology are not going to be until breakthroughs are made and the best way to spur breakthroughs is to allow for free markets, as well as letting people keep what they earn.

Also, you have to take into account the principle of regime uncertainty.  Because everyone is scared by the violation of property rights and massive inflation, we are getting not only the lack of investment, but also this short-term mindset you are referring to.  Because the governmental situation around the aggregate world is so uncertain, everybody is investing for short-term returns.  This is not only a function of over-regulation, but is also a function of a lack of sound money and property rights.  No one can soundly plan for the future, so they must get everything they can right now.  I mean I can see how you would assume that behavior in our current market, but I think it's very clear that we couldn't be much further from a free market at the moment.

Oh and I also did want to point out that people and companies have invested in technology for cleaner cars, coal, etc. when they could have just either put out less or made engines smaller to conform to emissions standards.

[blixa]

what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.