sorry but that link is useless, wtf does it even mean, onshore wind has a 84 score, offshore has 14 lol wtf, is that taking costs into the consideration? its so random, i mean educating girls ffs -_-
Geotermal, wind and solar are only viable in specific places and have very high costs for energy production unviable for poor countries which will be the problem, what energy switzerland uses is meaningless for global CO2 production.
Solar has better cost than the other two but it has a massive major drawback, just like wind the energy production isn't constant, which means you require batteries millions and millions of batteries that degrate overtime, lithium would be the new petroleum the ammount of mining required to create all the panels and batteries is beyond anything mankind has seen so far.
If we were discussing the merits of different energy sources then fine, we would be talking about the right subject but when you tell me that what we actually need to do is end capitalism and educate girls then I laugn and stop listening.
looks like we have to change the economic system quite drastically although a plant rich diet is ranked as the #1 solution in terms of individual choice.
That is also wrong, the #1 individual choice in regards to CO2 production is not reproducing, by far.
On January 09 2020 06:38 Baalim wrote:
So the rich countries that have high suicide rate is because of capitalism, poor countries that have high suicide rate is also because of capitalism lol.
You say that as if it is ridiculous implying that in 'rich capitalist countries' everyone is rich which is obviously not true and the gap has been increasing by the minute
Still, I wouldn't be one to say capitalism is the sole factor for increasing suicide rates in 'modern' society (would be quite naive), but it definitely plays a role
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 09 2020 09:57. Posts 5296
On January 09 2020 02:35 Stroggoz wrote:
I'm not sure about those countries, although looking it up the 3 countries you cite were all subjected to market reforms (structural adjustment) from 1988-1991. but inequality is a global phenomenon and capitalism is just something that exists everywhere, except for countries like cuba and north korea, and a few otthers. It's manifested in different ways of course, the global south have been subjected to march harsher capitalism reform than the rest of the world. (could call it structural adjustment, or austerity which is what the austrian economists trumpet as a solution despite that it's never worked out of hundreds of examples and that it isn't supported in theory either). the World bank and IMF, to a large extent, have decided what economic policies have been in africa, latin america (up until 2002~) , and most of asia. (not south korea, taiwan, hong kong, singapore, china, or japan.) Greece were the recent targets of capitalism being rammed down their throat. They don't make top 34 on that list however studies show suicide rates did rampantly increase under austerity. It is misleading to cite wikipedia data entries without understanding global political economy beforehand, nor even citing the original research on 'deaths of despair'. It's very easy to see why russia is near the top of the list, the 1990's saw one of the greatest economic crisis in history for russia, bought on by the mass privitizations. They're still are suffering from the effects of that. There are of course other factors outside of economics. Japan and korea are both rich countries with an oppressive work/school culture.
So the rich countries that have high suicide rate is because of capitalism, poor countries that have high suicide rate is also because of capitalism lol.
This is a dishonest way to think, having a conclusion and trying to connect dots with a nearly 0 statistical corelation to try to prove it, you can even see Finland ranking higer than the US, and that isn't some exeption to a statistical trend in fact its quite consistent with no coorelation whatsoever.
If the premise were "income inequality is one of the many factors that drive suicide" then fine it looks reasonable but then we would have to evaluate it in comparison with overall not just relative income, then estabilsh a coorelation with capitalism and if all goes well then it would show up that things as simple as the weather have a greater impact on suicide rates.
No dishonesty on my part. you misunderstand the point of my post.
I was pointing out how the other countries on the list have been subject to harsh capitalism reform. From what i understood you were trying to refute loco by make an argument based on the other countries being less capitalist than america when they arn't, they've had the free market rammed down their throats.
I basically think the abstract from the study that i quoted is correct, i have no reason not to beleive it. Also a slight correction; i mean greece had austerity ramed down their throats, not capitalism.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 09 2020 10:06. Posts 5296
On January 09 2020 06:38 Baalim wrote:
So the rich countries that have high suicide rate is because of capitalism, poor countries that have high suicide rate is also because of capitalism lol.
You say that as if it is ridiculous implying that in 'rich capitalist countries' everyone is rich which is obviously not true and the gap has been increasing by the minute
Still, I wouldn't be one to say capitalism is the sole factor for increasing suicide rates in 'modern' society (would be quite naive), but it definitely plays a role
yeah, there are all sorts of factors, modern society is complex. The development of things like social media and the internet, and social atomization are all factors that have been studied as well i think.
You can examine very specific cases of high suicide and see a definite cause though. Like the quater of a million or so farmers that suicided in rural india since the 90's, there was someone that studied that closely. (vandana shiva), and she basically concluded that the monopoly rents collected from genetically modified cotton were driving farmers into poverty, debt peonage and then suicide. Also there was less price stability for cash crops than what they farmed beforehand, (grains). And then the case that deaton studied was largely because uneducated white males essentially lost economically over the last generation.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 09 2020 10:56. Posts 5296
sorry but that link is useless, wtf does it even mean, onshore wind has a 84 score, offshore has 14 lol wtf, is that taking costs into the consideration? its so random, i mean educating girls ffs -_-
Geotermal, wind and solar are only viable in specific places and have very high costs for energy production unviable for poor countries which will be the problem, what energy switzerland uses is meaningless for global CO2 production.
Solar has better cost than the other two but it has a massive major drawback, just like wind the energy production isn't constant, which means you require batteries millions and millions of batteries that degrate overtime, lithium would be the new petroleum the ammount of mining required to create all the panels and batteries is beyond anything mankind has seen so far.
If we were discussing the merits of different energy sources then fine, we would be talking about the right subject but when you tell me that what we actually need to do is end capitalism and educate girls then I laugn and stop listening.
looks like we have to change the economic system quite drastically although a plant rich diet is ranked as the #1 solution in terms of individual choice.
That is also wrong, the #1 individual choice in regards to CO2 production is not reproducing, by far.
In some places in the world wind and hydro is cheaper than fossil fuel. small scale hydro is not expensive in India. So yes it is dependent, the study obviously takes that into account. I havn't seen any studies say that we would have to mine the earth more than ever before to mass produce the amount of solar energy required, lol. I'd be interested in looking into any study that compares the secondary emission costs of making nuclear power, solar polar, wind turbines, ect.
On January 07 2020 23:24 Baalim wrote:
Also stop pretending you give a shit about climate change, you don't, its your excuse to change the economial system.
the fuck is this supposed to be?
Pretty simple, the left rants about climate change because they use it as a proxy to attack capitalism, Loco has said that the only way to stop climate change is to destroy capitalism.
Isn't it convenient when your belielf is not only the morally superior in any concievable way, but also it will literally save the world? That is precisely the same way he sees veganism and why he despises centrism, dogma requires denouncing complexity, compromise and nuance (ironically sincne he loves the word), he is among the truth bearers, the saviors of the world.
It's absolute fucking nonsense and it implies a dishonesty in position that makes it pointless to have any discussion. If I thought capitalism had the best mechanisms for handling climate change, I would be a die hard capitalist, but the way I see capitalism function, where the focus is not on giving people a more equitable slice of the pie, but increasing the size of the pie, is one that in many ways hinges on exploitation of nature in a way that nature can no longer handle, and it's starting to be pretty self evident. The whole 'only a madman can believe in infinite growth in a finite world' - kind of thing. I do believe that capitalism is far better suited at increasing the size of the pie - I just don't see that as a tenable goal any longer. (At the very least in western developed countries. )
Ecological concerns is a very frequent reason for people to be socialist. And the reason why many capitalists are climate deniers is that they themselves realize that the goals of capitalism are in conflict with preservation of the environment. I mean, I do think it's possible to internally be a capitalist that cares about the environment, but then you've made a personal amendment to capitalism. Socialism has ecological concerns as one of the cornerstones - it aims to increase living standards without increasing consumption. (This is also why socialists tend to be more culture-minded too - consuming culture has fewer environmental consequences than most other forms of consumption (even if streaming requires a lot of energy. )
lol POKER
1
LemOn[5thF] Czech Republic. Jan 09 2020 14:31. Posts 15163
Isn't this why communism has never worked? Because people inherently want more, believe tomorrow's going to be better and that they have control over their destiny and at least believe their personal pie will get bigger?
In socialism people went after power, got things under the table and through shadow economy, we had a saying hear who doesn't steal steals from his family - the whole system hasn't worked.
Haven't they tried to force a system from the top down a system that was incompatible with people?
You need people to stop wanting their lives to be better so you have true equality and as you say, stop wanting the pie to increase surely from the bottom up?
You think people are ready for that?
Would you be personally ready for that?
Should people in China be ready for their pie not to increase when on AVERAGE the GDP at Purchasing Power Parity per capita of US is 3.5x higher?
I'm a person in mainland China - even if we re-establish socialist economy and globe decides to do so, re-distribute wealth and US does the same their people will have 3.5x more. We already do 2x more pollution than them sure, but how am I supposed to be contempt with having 3.5x less than them when they could get it themselves through their own industrial and technological revolutions in the past?
Jordan was clearly too overqualified for this interview.
:D
Last edit: 09/01/2020 16:32
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jan 09 2020 17:35. Posts 3093
On January 09 2020 13:31 LemOn[5thF] wrote:
Isn't this why communism has never worked? Because people inherently want more, believe tomorrow's going to be better and that they have control over their destiny and at least believe their personal pie will get bigger?
In socialism people went after power, got things under the table and through shadow economy, we had a saying hear who doesn't steal steals from his family - the whole system hasn't worked.
Haven't they tried to force a system from the top down a system that was incompatible with people?
You need people to stop wanting their lives to be better so you have true equality and as you say, stop wanting the pie to increase surely from the bottom up?
You think people are ready for that?
Would you be personally ready for that?
Should people in China be ready for their pie not to increase when on AVERAGE the GDP at Purchasing Power Parity per capita of US is 3.5x higher?
I'm a person in mainland China - even if we re-establish socialist economy and globe decides to do so, re-distribute wealth and US does the same their people will have 3.5x more. We already do 2x more pollution than them sure, but how am I supposed to be contempt with having 3.5x less than them when they could get it themselves through their own industrial and technological revolutions in the past?
Man, I'm not arguing for a forced global overtaking of the planet with established baselines for 'necessary amount of material belongings to be reasonably happy distributed to all people but no people get more than that!!'.
When I argue against capitalism / for socialism, I'm arguing two main points: Firstly, western consumption habits are really wasteful and we consume too much of items that our planet cannot sustain current consumption levels of (be it clothes, travelling, meat, maybe electronics. I love at least two of these, so it's not like I want to consume less myself, I just recognize that if I don't want to further contribute to climate change, which I greatly fear, then I need to consume less than I actually want to consume). Secondly, capitalism has concentrated far too much wealth in the hands of far too few, and left far too many with far too little. The latter problem is one where I am sure you can argue that using the forces of capitalism to increase the pie while having some additional redistributive measures is a nice way of dealing with it, but the former, the one where society actively pushes us to consume more than we need to consume because The Economy depends on it, where economic growth is considered the ultimate sign of social process, that is a problem I feel is actively destroying the planet. This is where I believe we, as in, the societies we are all part of, need to undergo some type of change of mentality where we stop highlighting competition and designate people as winners and losers and rather try to focus more on cooperation to make everybody feel as winners (because much of consumption is driven by a 'competition to have more stuff and experience more things').
If you think 'but that goes against human nature', I think 'bs', because the best element of human nature is the ability to learn from experience, both our own and others, theorize around how we want things to be, and utilize that knowledge to form communities that reward behavior that differ from the behavior that best befitted individual hunter gatherer humans. It's not like I think the grand socialist revolution has any chance at happening anytime remotely soon, but I want to, for example, apply more critical pedagogy in education (type Freire). I also reject the idea that humans wanting more than their fellow man is an inherent trait among humans, because I don't. I want to have enough for myself, and then I want others to have equally much.
That global inequality is a big problem and that development countries cannot 'get to our level' without further dooming the planet isn't something I have a solution for. But I definitely don't think we can, in any way, argue 'you guys can't get to our level of pollution per capita cause that fucks up the climate', rather we need to reduce our level to one that is sustainable, and then make that argument. While China is already at european levels, american emissions are still twice that, so there's plenty of room for improvement.
lol POKER
1
LemOn[5thF] Czech Republic. Jan 09 2020 18:07. Posts 15163
I also reject the idea that humans wanting more than their fellow man is an inherent trait among humans, because I don't. I want to have enough for myself, and then I want others to have equally much.
That's a really bold clam I'd say
Our societies are built on aggression and expansive mindset - that's been ingrained over so many years in our dna
it's been just barely hundreds of years that borders even settled in the west
Every single socialist country has had that mindset as well globally, maybe that was the problem in the first place
Just look at almost any baby siblings and see the human nature, it's going to take loads of generations to rewrite default instincts
We're changing the environment way faster than natural evolution can keep up with.
I agree with schooling
I mean we did have 40 years of schooling where working class and state were the heroes, people grew up in the schooling system but the second it went away from top down the same people in former communist countries have high corruption levels etc.
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jan 09 2020 18:12. Posts 3093
I wrote per capita.
lol POKER
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jan 09 2020 18:14. Posts 3093
I also think there are many examples of things you can find that are 'ingrained in our dna' that you're still gonna be considered a fucking savage if you do. I think greed is about as natural as rape is.
lol POKER
1
LemOn[5thF] Czech Republic. Jan 09 2020 18:15. Posts 15163
You need to relate that to actual GDP per capita surely though
and even then it's going to be hard to compare because of different energy/pollution production as industry composition is different between countries
93% Sure!
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jan 09 2020 18:35. Posts 3093
(2014 numbers to be fair, some changes have happened).
Obviously theres a big relation between gdp per capita and emissions (which if anything adds value to the idea that capitalism is not ecologically friendly), but there are also discrepancies. Norway is a rich (higher income per capita than the us going by this chart), sparsely populated (means long travelling distances, we are world champions of travelling by plane within Norway), cold (means lots of electricity used for heating), oil producing nation (which obviously pollutes a lot). And we are still finding ourselves at 60% of american emissions per capita. Denmark, a country with nearly the same wealth as the US, but where it's not sparsely populated or as cold or as oil producing, is at 60% of Norway again. The american per capita emissions are not an unavoidable consequence of wealth, they are a combination of many factors where 'the people and politicians overwhelmingly havent been giving much of a fuck' is one of the biggest. I also think american emissions have dropped quite a bit since 2014 but again, thats like giving the 400kg obese guy credit for losing 100 kg.
On January 09 2020 08:56 Spitfiree wrote:
You say that as if it is ridiculous implying that in 'rich capitalist countries' everyone is rich which is obviously not true and the gap has been increasing by the minute
Still, I wouldn't be one to say capitalism is the sole factor for increasing suicide rates in 'modern' society (would be quite naive), but it definitely plays a role
Everyone is rich in comparison to the median in the world, a poor person in Canada is richer than your a middle class person in the 3rd world, but of couse relative wealth is also important because our psyches see how we fair against our peers rather than our objective well being.
Income inequality can be bad, but this is a list from the most to least unequal in regards of income"
So even if you ignore absolute wealth there isnt a clear correlation between capitalism and income inequality as you can see agove those countries don't have free markets, quite the contrary they have mercantilist economies and a lot of corruption, these two have a much closer statistical relationship with income inequality than capitalism (corruption and state intervention in the economy).
For example, Venezuela ranks 25th in income inequality while the US ranks 56th
No dishonesty on my part. you misunderstand the point of my post.
I was pointing out how the other countries on the list have been subject to harsh capitalism reform. From what i understood you were trying to refute loco by make an argument based on the other countries being less capitalist than america when they arn't, they've had the free market rammed down their throats.
I basically think the abstract from the study that i quoted is correct, i have no reason not to beleive it. Also a slight correction; i mean greece had austerity ramed down their throats, not capitalism.
If capitalism was the main driving force for suicide you would see a close to 1 correlation between suicide rates and free market indexes.
Reducing public spending could lead to higher suicide rates, nothing out of the ordinary then, althought that doesnt say much if you are running on deficit and need to pay back, its just stating the obvious that you are doing better while spending loans than when paying them.
On January 09 2020 09:56 Stroggoz wrote:
if you read the links, education of girls reduces population growth. The costs are not 'very high', for wind and solar. https://gyazo.com/b284dfbd4b302fba78342453ceb79646
In some places in the world wind and hydro is cheaper than fossil fuel. small scale hydro is not expensive in India. So yes it is dependent, the study obviously takes that into account. I havn't seen any studies say that we would have to mine the earth more than ever before to mass produce the amount of solar energy required, lol. I'd be interested in looking into any study that compares the secondary emission costs of making nuclear power, solar polar, wind turbines, ect.
Then call it population control not "educating women" , having 1 less child is 42 times more effective in reducing CO2 emissions than all the other personal measures you can take combined., you don't need to sell me the idea of stopping exponential growht on a 7 billion population, you would be preaching to the choir.
Hydro can be cheaper indeed, I've read articles that claim they are even more destrutive than coal, the ecological impact of a dam stopping the fow of a river devastates entire ecosystems for thousands of miles, its seems like an interesting topic I'm not educated enough to have a strong opinion about but what is important is that its not available for many parts of the world, they can only power completely very irrigated countries like Norway, Canada, Greenland etc.
That data is absolute trash, I would blindly bet my entire roll that is not the median yield of an eolic energy generator I'll give them the benefit of doubt of chery picking a wind turbine at the top of a mountain the middle of a hurricaine -_-, obviously we use fossil fuels because they are the cheapest way to create energy.
The world requires about 200 Terawatts every hour, the ammount of batteries required to hold this energy potential for the many hours we don't have sunlight is absolutely insane, it would be mankinds biggest infrastructural endeavor and developing countries especially the ones who dont give a fuck like China aren't going three times the price of energy.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 10 2020 02:13. Posts 5296
On January 09 2020 08:56 Spitfiree wrote:
You say that as if it is ridiculous implying that in 'rich capitalist countries' everyone is rich which is obviously not true and the gap has been increasing by the minute
Still, I wouldn't be one to say capitalism is the sole factor for increasing suicide rates in 'modern' society (would be quite naive), but it definitely plays a role
Everyone is rich in comparison to the median in the world, a poor person in Canada is richer than your a middle class person in the 3rd world, but of couse relative wealth is also important because our psyches see how we fair against our peers rather than our objective well being.
Income inequality can be bad, but this is a list from the most to least unequal in regards of income"
So even if you ignore absolute wealth there isnt a clear correlation between capitalism and income inequality as you can see agove those countries don't have free markets, quite the contrary they have mercantilist economies and a lot of corruption, these two have a much closer statistical relationship with income inequality than capitalism (corruption and state intervention in the economy).
For example, Venezuela ranks 25th in income inequality while the US ranks 56th
South africa opened itself up to international capitalism under nelson mandella in 1996 under the 'growth, employment and redistribution' policy, very similar to the structural adjustment programs the rest of africa was subjected to. Haiti got subjected to structural adjustment in the earl 1980's. The US overthrew the government of haiti in 1994, 2004, to keep more progressive politicians (aristede), from putting in proggressive economic policies. Venenzeula, also had very high inequality thanks to the IMF's structural adjustment programs. Highly capitalist country, although inequality was reduced under chavez's reforms, and now it's a disaster under maduro. Very amusing how you pick venezeula out of clear ideological reasons and ignore that they were a capitalist paradise up to 2002, and basically chavez hardly even changed much, though there was a reduction in inequality.
'mercantilism', is that a joke? You couldn't be more clueless about government policy in relation to inequality if you tried to be.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On January 09 2020 11:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's absolute fucking nonsense and it implies a dishonesty in position that makes it pointless to have any discussion. If I thought capitalism had the best mechanisms for handling climate change, I would be a die hard capitalist, but the way I see capitalism function, where the focus is not on giving people a more equitable slice of the pie, but increasing the size of the pie, is one that in many ways hinges on exploitation of nature in a way that nature can no longer handle, and it's starting to be pretty self evident. The whole 'only a madman can believe in infinite growth in a finite world' - kind of thing. I do believe that capitalism is far better suited at increasing the size of the pie - I just don't see that as a tenable goal any longer. (At the very least in western developed countries. )
Ecological concerns is a very frequent reason for people to be socialist. And the reason why many capitalists are climate deniers is that they themselves realize that the goals of capitalism are in conflict with preservation of the environment. I mean, I do think it's possible to internally be a capitalist that cares about the environment, but then you've made a personal amendment to capitalism. Socialism has ecological concerns as one of the cornerstones - it aims to increase living standards without increasing consumption. (This is also why socialists tend to be more culture-minded too - consuming culture has fewer environmental consequences than most other forms of consumption (even if streaming requires a lot of energy. )
Loco claims that civilization will cease to exist as we know it in 20 years unless climate change is stopped and literally the only way to stop it is to destroy capitalism.
These aren't the words of a man concerned about climate change and its potential dangers and solutions, these are the words of a man with one goal that uses climate change hysteria as a tool to pursue his goal.
Capitalism simply fullfills demand, plant the seeds for conscious consuming, circular economy, culture and capitalism will provide it, I assume you are a conscious consumer, you try to minimze your ecological impact, the suffering of people and animals etc, so what I want in this world is people in through their own volition act more like you so capitalism will be reshaped, what I don't want are individual or collective tyrants what is the best for society, the world and yourself.
) 
