Chemical sea-water desalination
Are there any known/designable liquid chemicals that can be added to sea-water that would absorb water into its molecular composition whilst density dispersing the saline impurities to enable seawater desalination an affordable means of obtaining clean drinking water?
QUOTE (momentito+Jan 8 2008, 09:47 AM)
Chemical sea-water desalination
Are there any known/designable liquid chemicals that can be added to sea-water that would absorb water into its molecular composition whilst density dispersing the saline impurities to enable seawater desalination an affordable means of obtaining clean drinking water?
yes there is, and already invented, new tablets have been made that enable ANY liquid , let it be pee, to transform into drinkable water
click here to see the website
also here
these websites may be lies, but i have seen a vid on tv!!!
Are there any known/designable liquid chemicals that can be added to sea-water that would absorb water into its molecular composition whilst density dispersing the saline impurities to enable seawater desalination an affordable means of obtaining clean drinking water?
yes there is, and already invented, new tablets have been made that enable ANY liquid , let it be pee, to transform into drinkable water
click here to see the website
also here
these websites may be lies, but i have seen a vid on tv!!!
Vacuum solar desalination.
In coastal desert regions where temperatures are high, water could be evaporatively distilled with the heat of sunlight shinning into plastic tanks of seawater in a vacuum. With zero atmospheric pressure the water would boil very quickly with solar power. The steam would be condensed in a water refinery as clean drinking water.
In coastal desert regions where temperatures are high, water could be evaporatively distilled with the heat of sunlight shinning into plastic tanks of seawater in a vacuum. With zero atmospheric pressure the water would boil very quickly with solar power. The steam would be condensed in a water refinery as clean drinking water.
I prefer the "Waterworld" method...ha... 
QUOTE (einstienear+Jan 8 2008, 03:09 AM)
yes there is, and already invented, new tablets have been made that enable ANY liquid , let it be pee, to transform into drinkable water
click here to see the website
also here
these websites may be lies, but i have seen a vid on tv!!!
let it be pee???
hehe, a great thing to have if your lost in the desert I suppose?
click here to see the website
also here
these websites may be lies, but i have seen a vid on tv!!!
let it be pee???
hehe, a great thing to have if your lost in the desert I suppose?
When in times of trouble...Mother Mary comes to me....there will be an answer....let it pee ...let it pee lol
~~~when ye find yourselves in times of trouble...mother Mary comforts thee! bringing words of wisdom...let it peeeee~ let it pee!thanks for the laugh...and to think I was off looking for something to bring back on the water desalination in Milolii Hawaii. How boring am I?
You are making buns? Ferry funny!
Distillation by sun heat can be a very simple means of getting a little bit of drinking water on a lifeboat.
To get more significant amounts, optimized units work at several pressures (hence temperatures) so that the condensation heat of distilled water evaporates sea water at a somewhat lower pressure. You need heat from the Sun only once.
Planning such a project generally involves producing also electricity and home heating from the steam.
However, distillation methods are always expensive, because water absorbs an awful lot of heat to vaporize.
All modern processes use reverse osmosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis
as it takes far less energy since the water isn't vaporized.
Alas, even reverse osmosis is expensive. Some of Spain's tourist cities (on the Costa Lotta) use it to feed (¿apastecer?) homes, as this is a requisite to attract tourists. Adelaide, in Australia, has such plans. But agriculture can't rely on this - emirates do have some farms, but profitability isn't their prime goal.
Distillation by sun heat can be a very simple means of getting a little bit of drinking water on a lifeboat.
To get more significant amounts, optimized units work at several pressures (hence temperatures) so that the condensation heat of distilled water evaporates sea water at a somewhat lower pressure. You need heat from the Sun only once.
Planning such a project generally involves producing also electricity and home heating from the steam.
However, distillation methods are always expensive, because water absorbs an awful lot of heat to vaporize.
All modern processes use reverse osmosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis
as it takes far less energy since the water isn't vaporized.
Alas, even reverse osmosis is expensive. Some of Spain's tourist cities (on the Costa Lotta) use it to feed (¿apastecer?) homes, as this is a requisite to attract tourists. Adelaide, in Australia, has such plans. But agriculture can't rely on this - emirates do have some farms, but profitability isn't their prime goal.
Milolii uses solar to desalinize about 1000 gallons a day for the small fishing village.
http://www.ibiblio.org/london/permaculture...2/msg02525.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/london/permaculture...2/msg02525.html
Whoever invents the cheap simple method on a large scale will rule the world. Water availability will eventually be our greatest challenge. "Global Warming" will be a non sequitur. If ever a scientist wanted to make a pile of money, this is it.
Milolii: Nice project.
However, complete computations support the idea of converting sunlight to electricity by a thermal means, and use the electricity in reverse osmosis.
Not quite as direct and elegant... But better efficiency per m2 and per $.
There are also projects to produce electricity from temperature differences between surface and depth in the oceans (tested in Hawaii as well, I think). Many of the processes make fresh water as a by-product, which is seen as a decisive advantage.
One stupid obstacle is that as soon as you have pumped cool water from deep in the ocean, people don't let you use it to produce electricity: they want it immediately to keep the air and the lobsters cool in their restaurants.
However, complete computations support the idea of converting sunlight to electricity by a thermal means, and use the electricity in reverse osmosis.
Not quite as direct and elegant... But better efficiency per m2 and per $.
There are also projects to produce electricity from temperature differences between surface and depth in the oceans (tested in Hawaii as well, I think). Many of the processes make fresh water as a by-product, which is seen as a decisive advantage.
One stupid obstacle is that as soon as you have pumped cool water from deep in the ocean, people don't let you use it to produce electricity: they want it immediately to keep the air and the lobsters cool in their restaurants.
we use desalination plants here. good value for yen per water unit. recommended they are please. You must try.
QUOTE (einstienear+Jan 8 2008, 10:09 AM)
yes there is, and already invented, new tablets have been made that enable ANY liquid , let it be pee, to transform into drinkable water
these websites may be lies, but i have seen a vid on tv!!!
Where did you find info, that these tablets will make FRESH water from SEA water?
these websites may be lies, but i have seen a vid on tv!!!
Where did you find info, that these tablets will make FRESH water from SEA water?
Forget chemicals - generally speaking, dry places are areas which receive lots of solar energy. Why not utilise this energy to evaporate pure H2O from saline source, condense, and pump to where required?
In the most recent issue of Discover magazine they show the price of fresh water versus desalinated water. They show the price curves moving towards each other steadily over time. In fact, they show them nearly approaching each other in the present time.
I was really curious if this was an accurate bit of reporting, or hyperbole. But if it is accurate reporting it means that we are already at the point where it makes sense. A small amount of research right now indicates that they were probably ignoring the distribution costs for the desalinated water, and counting distribution costs for rain/pumped water, so it was not entirely honest.
googling today it appears the cost of 1 cubic meter of drinking water depends on the country. In some countries, the cost is about 2 bucks for this meter of water, and the cost of desalinating is 0.5 bucks for that meter if it is in a suitable location.
It appears the 2 bucks is largely for distribution costs of the original meter of water. Thus, we can see that it already is pretty cost effective- at least in Germany, it is only increasing the price by around 12%
In the United States, it roughly doubles the cost of the water to desalinate it. So it is all a matter of price. As the available supply of fresh water diminishes, more and more will be desalinated.
Regarding the current prices of seawater desalination, let’s take, for example, the SOREK project of 150,000,000 m3/year recently awarded to the IDE technologies (Israel). The contracted water price is below US$0.57 per cubic meter! Another feature of this mega-project is nearly zero discharge of chemicals with the brine back to sea. To mitigate the impact of higher salinity on marine life, specially designed brine dissipation system is designed. For the last 5 years desalination industry has made a great technological leap and is considered by me now very reliable, flexible and a friendly one. Next challenge is to make desalination technology AFFORDABLE. This is a task of the pimansoft project.
Isn't their some chemical method to convert the salt in the water to something that can be filtered out of it? Since biological organisms require salt, why not allow something to grow in the water and then filter that out? Do this several times and you would remove significant amounts of salt or no?
What is the point of desalination of sea water anyway when you can move upstream and drink treated river water instead?
What is the point of desalination of sea water anyway when you can move upstream and drink treated river water instead?
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Mar 11 2008, 03:21 AM)
...All modern processes use reverse osmosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis
as it takes far less energy since the water isn't vaporized....
Alas, even reverse osmosis is expensive...
Yes, and nanotechnology shows promise in further enhancing the RO process.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 19 2009, 02:08 PM)
Isn't their some chemical method to convert the salt in the water to something that can be filtered out of it? Since biological organisms require salt, why not allow something to grow in the water and then filter that out? Do this several times and you would remove significant amounts of salt or no?
Not a bad idea, but there would be no way to remove enough salt to make the water drinkable.
I guess you've never been to or heard of a little city called Los Angeles. The city has drained several nearby lakes and the Colorado river in pursuit of water.
Not a bad idea, but there would be no way to remove enough salt to make the water drinkable.
QUOTE
What is the point of desalination of sea water anyway when you can move upstream and drink treated river water instead?
I guess you've never been to or heard of a little city called Los Angeles. The city has drained several nearby lakes and the Colorado river in pursuit of water.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 19 2009, 10:57 PM)
Not a bad idea, but there would be no way to remove enough salt to make the water drinkable.
Well, then maybe people should use sea water for cooking and reserve fresh water for drinking. Also, there is a sound-wave technology that was developed for cleaning dishes and showering I read about a few years ago. I haven't heard anything lately, though. I wonder if that was a scam.
Maybe they should move to the Mississippi river. I heard that one was overflowing a few years ago.
There's also some great lakes with lots of water they could move to. The problem is that people like living in certain areas and they don't want to move away so others can enjoy a less-stressed water supply.
Probably everyone who lives in a resource-stressed area should get a temporary visa and have to move somewhere else after a few years. That would make it much easier to control population in such areas. If you create a class of people who are allowed to be permanent residents, everyone struggles to acquire that classification.
Well, then maybe people should use sea water for cooking and reserve fresh water for drinking. Also, there is a sound-wave technology that was developed for cleaning dishes and showering I read about a few years ago. I haven't heard anything lately, though. I wonder if that was a scam.
QUOTE
I guess you've never been to or heard of a little city called Los Angeles. The city has drained several nearby lakes and the Colorado river in pursuit of water.
Maybe they should move to the Mississippi river. I heard that one was overflowing a few years ago.
There's also some great lakes with lots of water they could move to. The problem is that people like living in certain areas and they don't want to move away so others can enjoy a less-stressed water supply.
Probably everyone who lives in a resource-stressed area should get a temporary visa and have to move somewhere else after a few years. That would make it much easier to control population in such areas. If you create a class of people who are allowed to be permanent residents, everyone struggles to acquire that classification.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 19 2009, 06:18 PM)
Well, then maybe people should use sea water for cooking and reserve fresh water for drinking. Also, there is a sound-wave technology that was developed for cleaning dishes and showering I read about a few years ago. I haven't heard anything lately, though. I wonder if that was a scam.
Another impractical solution. Now houses have to be plumbed for hot salty water, cold salty water, hot fresh water and cold fresh water? No thanks.
This is what I mean when I say that you don't think about what you say. That is a completely stupid solution, especially when you previously suggested that people living in New Orleans should move out of New Orleans. Which is it?
This is what I mean when I say that you don't think about what you say. That is a completely stupid solution, especially when you previously suggested that people living in New Orleans should move out of New Orleans. Which is it?
There's also some great lakes with lots of water they could move to. The problem is that people like living in certain areas and they don't want to move away so others can enjoy a less-stressed water supply.
You simply can't move a city. End of story. Stop suggesting that as a solution.
W.T.F? Where do you come up with these stupid solutions?
Here's the solution: Desalinate the f*cking ocean water. It's not that hard.
Another impractical solution. Now houses have to be plumbed for hot salty water, cold salty water, hot fresh water and cold fresh water? No thanks.
QUOTE
Maybe they should move to the Mississippi river. I heard that one was overflowing a few years ago.
This is what I mean when I say that you don't think about what you say. That is a completely stupid solution, especially when you previously suggested that people living in New Orleans should move out of New Orleans. Which is it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe they should move to the Mississippi river. I heard that one was overflowing a few years ago. |
This is what I mean when I say that you don't think about what you say. That is a completely stupid solution, especially when you previously suggested that people living in New Orleans should move out of New Orleans. Which is it?
There's also some great lakes with lots of water they could move to. The problem is that people like living in certain areas and they don't want to move away so others can enjoy a less-stressed water supply.
You simply can't move a city. End of story. Stop suggesting that as a solution.
QUOTE
Probably everyone who lives in a resource-stressed area should get a temporary visa and have to move somewhere else after a few years. That would make it much easier to control population in such areas. If you create a class of people who are allowed to be permanent residents, everyone struggles to acquire that classification.
W.T.F? Where do you come up with these stupid solutions?
Here's the solution: Desalinate the f*cking ocean water. It's not that hard.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 19 2009, 11:43 PM)
Another impractical solution. Now houses have to be plumbed for hot salty water, cold salty water, hot fresh water and cold fresh water? No thanks.
Who said anything about plumbing. I just meant bottling it. Of course, that would require shipping it to houses, or people going to the beach to eat.
When did I say that? Migration is the simplest and most efficient solution for most resource problems. People can walk long distances over extended periods of time. How do you think native Americans got from Asia to the Americas?
When did I say that? Migration is the simplest and most efficient solution for most resource problems. People can walk long distances over extended periods of time. How do you think native Americans got from Asia to the Americas?
Here's the solution: Desalinate the f*cking ocean water. It's not that hard.
I'm not against desalination. I just don't see a practical way to construct evaporators large enough to make it energy/cost efficient, even if solar energy is used to evaporate the water itself.
How big are the collectors going to have to be? What are they made out of, aluminum roof panels suspended over tide pools? Do they then drip into fresh-water reservoirs? How many m2 of aluminum roof panels do you think it would take to generate enough fresh water to supply a large number of households? You'd have to cover the entire beach with aluminum panels. Then how would you get the water to flow to households that are higher up? Pumping? What energy do you use to pump all that water up to the residential areas?
It sounds like a costly, inefficient, and barely effective solution compared with moving the people to a better fresh water supply.
Who said anything about plumbing. I just meant bottling it. Of course, that would require shipping it to houses, or people going to the beach to eat.
QUOTE
This is what I mean when I say that you don't think about what you say. That is a completely stupid solution, especially when you previously suggested that people living in New Orleans should move out of New Orleans. Which is it?
When did I say that? Migration is the simplest and most efficient solution for most resource problems. People can walk long distances over extended periods of time. How do you think native Americans got from Asia to the Americas?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is what I mean when I say that you don't think about what you say. That is a completely stupid solution, especially when you previously suggested that people living in New Orleans should move out of New Orleans. Which is it? |
When did I say that? Migration is the simplest and most efficient solution for most resource problems. People can walk long distances over extended periods of time. How do you think native Americans got from Asia to the Americas?
Here's the solution: Desalinate the f*cking ocean water. It's not that hard.
I'm not against desalination. I just don't see a practical way to construct evaporators large enough to make it energy/cost efficient, even if solar energy is used to evaporate the water itself.
How big are the collectors going to have to be? What are they made out of, aluminum roof panels suspended over tide pools? Do they then drip into fresh-water reservoirs? How many m2 of aluminum roof panels do you think it would take to generate enough fresh water to supply a large number of households? You'd have to cover the entire beach with aluminum panels. Then how would you get the water to flow to households that are higher up? Pumping? What energy do you use to pump all that water up to the residential areas?
It sounds like a costly, inefficient, and barely effective solution compared with moving the people to a better fresh water supply.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 19 2009, 06:58 PM)
Who said anything about plumbing. I just meant bottling it. Of course, that would require shipping it to houses, or people going to the beach to eat.
Yeah, still not practical.
buahahhahahahaaha! How stupid can you be? We're not hunter-gatherers anymore. You can't just arrive at a new city and settle down! That is not efficient by any stretch of the imagination.
buahahhahahahaaha! How stupid can you be? We're not hunter-gatherers anymore. You can't just arrive at a new city and settle down! That is not efficient by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not against desalination. I just don't see a practical way to construct evaporators large enough to make it energy/cost efficient, even if solar energy is used to evaporate the water itself.
Water is a commodity. The cheapest method will always prevail. If water prices go up, then other prices will go down (like real estate). Drought disasters only occur when there is no economic interest in providing water to those who need it. If there was a real drought, there is no question that hundreds of companies would leap into action to provide water to those who will pay extra money for more water.
Are you saying that is too hard? You are not an economist. You are not an accountant. You are not a businessman. You fail at capitalism.
Are you saying that is too hard? You are not an economist. You are not an accountant. You are not a businessman. You fail at capitalism.
It sounds like a costly, inefficient, and barely effective solution compared with moving the people to a better fresh water supply.
You fail at capitalism.
Yeah, still not practical.
QUOTE
Migration is the simplest and most efficient solution for most resource problems. People can walk long distances over extended periods of time. How do you think native Americans got from Asia to the Americas?
buahahhahahahaaha! How stupid can you be? We're not hunter-gatherers anymore. You can't just arrive at a new city and settle down! That is not efficient by any stretch of the imagination.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Migration is the simplest and most efficient solution for most resource problems. People can walk long distances over extended periods of time. How do you think native Americans got from Asia to the Americas? |
buahahhahahahaaha! How stupid can you be? We're not hunter-gatherers anymore. You can't just arrive at a new city and settle down! That is not efficient by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not against desalination. I just don't see a practical way to construct evaporators large enough to make it energy/cost efficient, even if solar energy is used to evaporate the water itself.
Water is a commodity. The cheapest method will always prevail. If water prices go up, then other prices will go down (like real estate). Drought disasters only occur when there is no economic interest in providing water to those who need it. If there was a real drought, there is no question that hundreds of companies would leap into action to provide water to those who will pay extra money for more water.
QUOTE
How big are the collectors going to have to be? What are they made out of, aluminum roof panels suspended over tide pools? Do they then drip into fresh-water reservoirs? How many m2 of aluminum roof panels do you think it would take to generate enough fresh water to supply a large number of households? You'd have to cover the entire beach with aluminum panels. Then how would you get the water to flow to households that are higher up? Pumping? What energy do you use to pump all that water up to the residential areas?
Are you saying that is too hard? You are not an economist. You are not an accountant. You are not a businessman. You fail at capitalism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How big are the collectors going to have to be? What are they made out of, aluminum roof panels suspended over tide pools? Do they then drip into fresh-water reservoirs? How many m2 of aluminum roof panels do you think it would take to generate enough fresh water to supply a large number of households? You'd have to cover the entire beach with aluminum panels. Then how would you get the water to flow to households that are higher up? Pumping? What energy do you use to pump all that water up to the residential areas? |
Are you saying that is too hard? You are not an economist. You are not an accountant. You are not a businessman. You fail at capitalism.
It sounds like a costly, inefficient, and barely effective solution compared with moving the people to a better fresh water supply.
You fail at capitalism.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 12:09 AM)
Water is a commodity. The cheapest method will always prevail. If water prices go up, then other prices will go down (like real estate). Drought disasters only occur when there is no economic interest in providing water to those who need it. If there was a real drought, there is no question that hundreds of companies would leap into action to provide water to those who will pay extra money for more water.
Are you saying that is too hard? You are not an economist. You are not an accountant. You are not a businessman. You fail at capitalism.
You fail at capitalism.
Sure, you can buy water at 60 cents/gallon at the supermarket and flush your toilet for $3/flush. How sustainable will that be within most people's budgets though?
I don't fail at capitalism. You fail to discuss the economic details of what you are talking about. That makes you the failure.
Are you saying that is too hard? You are not an economist. You are not an accountant. You are not a businessman. You fail at capitalism.
You fail at capitalism.
Sure, you can buy water at 60 cents/gallon at the supermarket and flush your toilet for $3/flush. How sustainable will that be within most people's budgets though?
I don't fail at capitalism. You fail to discuss the economic details of what you are talking about. That makes you the failure.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 19 2009, 08:02 PM)
Sure, you can buy water at 60 cents/gallon at the supermarket and flush your toilet for $3/flush. How sustainable will that be within most people's budgets though?
Where did you get that number? Did you just make it up? I thought so.
Prices depend as much on supply as they depend on demand.
If no-one can afford $.60/gallon water, then no-one will sell $.60/gallon water.
Prices increase slowly anyways; if people can't afford it, they will move out on their own. You don't understand economics, that's not my fault.
Making sh*t up does not count as "discussing details."
A decade ago, people would have thought that $3/gallon gasoline would mean the end of the internal combustion engine. People get used to prices as they change. Mass relocation is a recipe for starvation and death. Please study economics, for your sake and the sake of those who have to listen to you.
Where did you get that number? Did you just make it up? I thought so.
Prices depend as much on supply as they depend on demand.
If no-one can afford $.60/gallon water, then no-one will sell $.60/gallon water.
Prices increase slowly anyways; if people can't afford it, they will move out on their own. You don't understand economics, that's not my fault.
QUOTE
I don't fail at capitalism. You fail to discuss the economic details of what you are talking about. That makes you the failure.
Making sh*t up does not count as "discussing details."
A decade ago, people would have thought that $3/gallon gasoline would mean the end of the internal combustion engine. People get used to prices as they change. Mass relocation is a recipe for starvation and death. Please study economics, for your sake and the sake of those who have to listen to you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 01:24 AM)
Where did you get that number?
the local supermarket.
I looked up relocation in my economics textbook but there was nothing about starvation and death. Maybe my textbook is outdated.
the local supermarket.
QUOTE
Mass relocation is a recipe for starvation and death. Please study economics, for your sake and the sake of those who have to listen to you.
I looked up relocation in my economics textbook but there was nothing about starvation and death. Maybe my textbook is outdated.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 19 2009, 08:42 PM)
the local supermarket.
If you live in a city, you already pay for water based on usage. Do you really think that those companies would sacrifice profits by being lazy and not finding new methods of getting water. These companies plan in advance. They know if a shortage is coming, and they plan accordingly by opening new desalination plants. If that is expensive, then a slight water rate increase should cover it. Water in the supermarket is expensive because it is generally cleaner than tap water and because it comes in fancy plastic containers.
Given, my sentences were talking about different subjects, but a quick read up on the Trail of Tears should jog your memory.
If you live in a city, you already pay for water based on usage. Do you really think that those companies would sacrifice profits by being lazy and not finding new methods of getting water. These companies plan in advance. They know if a shortage is coming, and they plan accordingly by opening new desalination plants. If that is expensive, then a slight water rate increase should cover it. Water in the supermarket is expensive because it is generally cleaner than tap water and because it comes in fancy plastic containers.
QUOTE
I looked up relocation in my economics textbook but there was nothing about starvation and death. Maybe my textbook is outdated.
Given, my sentences were talking about different subjects, but a quick read up on the Trail of Tears should jog your memory.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 01:53 AM)
If you live in a city, you already pay for water based on usage. Do you really think that those companies would sacrifice profits by being lazy and not finding new methods of getting water. These companies plan in advance. They know if a shortage is coming, and they plan accordingly by opening new desalination plants. If that is expensive, then a slight water rate increase should cover it. Water in the supermarket is expensive because it is generally cleaner than tap water and because it comes in fancy plastic containers.
And because numerous managers and shareholders like to make lots of money.
Desalinization would have to produce enough water to fulfill demand. Coastal land is not cheap, and you'll need a lot to do it by solar power.
I thought of the trail of tears. But do you realize how many people have successfully migrated in just the past century or so?
And because numerous managers and shareholders like to make lots of money.
Desalinization would have to produce enough water to fulfill demand. Coastal land is not cheap, and you'll need a lot to do it by solar power.
QUOTE
Given, my sentences were talking about different subjects, but a quick read up on the Trail of Tears should jog your memory.
I thought of the trail of tears. But do you realize how many people have successfully migrated in just the past century or so?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 19 2009, 09:28 PM)
And because numerous managers and shareholders like to make lots of money.
See: Capitalism
There is a desert around LA. Maybe you didn't know this.
There is a desert around LA. Maybe you didn't know this.
I thought of the trail of tears. But do you realize how many people have successfully migrated in just the past century or so?
Really? Please give examples, preferably ones that don't involve human rights violations.
See: Capitalism
QUOTE
Desalinization would have to produce enough water to fulfill demand. Coastal land is not cheap, and you'll need a lot to do it by solar power.
There is a desert around LA. Maybe you didn't know this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Desalinization would have to produce enough water to fulfill demand. Coastal land is not cheap, and you'll need a lot to do it by solar power. |
There is a desert around LA. Maybe you didn't know this.
I thought of the trail of tears. But do you realize how many people have successfully migrated in just the past century or so?
Really? Please give examples, preferably ones that don't involve human rights violations.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 03:30 AM)
See: Capitalism
It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism. The point is that an expensive green technology doesn't prevent waste in the social network that profits off of it.
I can't think of anyone who hasn't lived in more than one city in their lives.
It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism. The point is that an expensive green technology doesn't prevent waste in the social network that profits off of it.
QUOTE
Really? Please give examples, preferably ones that don't involve human rights violations.
I can't think of anyone who hasn't lived in more than one city in their lives.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 19 2009, 11:47 PM)
It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism. The point is that an expensive green technology doesn't prevent waste in the social network that profits off of it.
Your point being?
Nice side-step.
You and I both know we are not talking about individual, voluntary relocation. We are talking about large scale, involuntary relocation.
I can't figure out what your ideal is. All you do is complain about injustice, but you are completely unable to present a realistic solution to your problems.
Your point being?
QUOTE
I can't think of anyone who hasn't lived in more than one city in their lives.
Nice side-step.
You and I both know we are not talking about individual, voluntary relocation. We are talking about large scale, involuntary relocation.
I can't figure out what your ideal is. All you do is complain about injustice, but you are completely unable to present a realistic solution to your problems.
[QUOTE=flyingbuttressman,Dec 20 2009, 04:58 AM] Your point being? [/quote]
My point being that if you pay lots of money for something green that allows the recipients of the money to spend it on lots of things that burn fossil fuel, the total carbon footprint of the green thing you bought is greater than if you spent a fraction of that money buying something that is less energy-efficient because the little money you spent on the less efficient thing cannot buy as much CO2-producing consumption as the more expensive green thing does.
[quote]Nice side-step.[/quote]
You and I both know we are not talking about individual, voluntary relocation. We are talking about large scale, involuntary relocation.
I can't figure out what your ideal is. All you do is complain about injustice, but you are completely unable to present a realistic solution to your problems.[/quote]
If loads of people move away from LA to places where their is more fresh-water available with less processing, I don't think it matters if they do it voluntarily and individually or involuntarily and collectively. To be honest, I don't think that voluntary/involuntary and individual/collective are true dichotomies.
In practice, a free market will increase the price of fresh-water as it becomes scarcer or more work and energy is required to produce it. People financially stressed to pay a high water-bill would then search for places to move where they could pay much less for water. I learned the term for this is "structured choice." It means that people make voluntary choices, but their choices are a response to situational constraints, such as budget limitations and high-prices.
The scale of relocation as individual (small) or collective (large) is also a vague distinction. Individuals always relocate on their own. However, they often do so as a response to conditions that influence others as well. If water-bills quadruple within a short period of time in LA, there will probably be more than one individual looking for someplace else to move. If some city on a river somewhere advertises that it has many empty houses selling for very low prices, or many jobs or other economic opportunities that have been identified, multiple individuals leaving LA might choose to move to that city on the river.
That doesn't mean that every individual moving out of LA might not move to a different city. Whether many or few move and whether they move to the same area or different areas, each individual still migrates individually. Calling it a mass-migration just serves to intimidate people who see themselves as individuals getting impinged upon by a collective-group. It's ultimately just a difference between applying a macro or a micro lens whether a social event is defined as individual or collective.
My point being that if you pay lots of money for something green that allows the recipients of the money to spend it on lots of things that burn fossil fuel, the total carbon footprint of the green thing you bought is greater than if you spent a fraction of that money buying something that is less energy-efficient because the little money you spent on the less efficient thing cannot buy as much CO2-producing consumption as the more expensive green thing does.
[quote]Nice side-step.[/quote]
You and I both know we are not talking about individual, voluntary relocation. We are talking about large scale, involuntary relocation.
I can't figure out what your ideal is. All you do is complain about injustice, but you are completely unable to present a realistic solution to your problems.[/quote]
If loads of people move away from LA to places where their is more fresh-water available with less processing, I don't think it matters if they do it voluntarily and individually or involuntarily and collectively. To be honest, I don't think that voluntary/involuntary and individual/collective are true dichotomies.
In practice, a free market will increase the price of fresh-water as it becomes scarcer or more work and energy is required to produce it. People financially stressed to pay a high water-bill would then search for places to move where they could pay much less for water. I learned the term for this is "structured choice." It means that people make voluntary choices, but their choices are a response to situational constraints, such as budget limitations and high-prices.
The scale of relocation as individual (small) or collective (large) is also a vague distinction. Individuals always relocate on their own. However, they often do so as a response to conditions that influence others as well. If water-bills quadruple within a short period of time in LA, there will probably be more than one individual looking for someplace else to move. If some city on a river somewhere advertises that it has many empty houses selling for very low prices, or many jobs or other economic opportunities that have been identified, multiple individuals leaving LA might choose to move to that city on the river.
That doesn't mean that every individual moving out of LA might not move to a different city. Whether many or few move and whether they move to the same area or different areas, each individual still migrates individually. Calling it a mass-migration just serves to intimidate people who see themselves as individuals getting impinged upon by a collective-group. It's ultimately just a difference between applying a macro or a micro lens whether a social event is defined as individual or collective.
Please stop.
Why do I even try?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 07:26 PM)
Why do I even try?
what?
what?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 03:45 PM)
what?
It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who redefines their argument and makes up facts every time they are faced with criticism.
It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who redefines their argument and makes up facts every time they are faced with criticism.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 08:54 PM)
It is impossible to have a conversation with someone who redefines their argument and makes up facts every time they are faced with criticism.
How do you get off calling clarification "redefinition?" You seem to be assuming that your interpretation of what I wrote supercedes what I was trying to convey to you by writing it.
If you would rather argue with the interpretation you pin on me, I think that's called strawman arguing.
I have no problem with dealing with criticism and revising my concepts and points when I make mistakes. You just haven't shown me any mistake I've made yet.
You're the one who let your nominal assumptions about individual versus collective migration impede critical thought about the realities involved. Then, when I point it out and explain how the reality is never actually collective or individual, you avoid the discussion by shifting critique to my discussion-style.
That is called ad hominem arguing. Strawmen and ad hominem arguments are both things you should want to avoid in a rational discussion.
How do you get off calling clarification "redefinition?" You seem to be assuming that your interpretation of what I wrote supercedes what I was trying to convey to you by writing it.
If you would rather argue with the interpretation you pin on me, I think that's called strawman arguing.
I have no problem with dealing with criticism and revising my concepts and points when I make mistakes. You just haven't shown me any mistake I've made yet.
You're the one who let your nominal assumptions about individual versus collective migration impede critical thought about the realities involved. Then, when I point it out and explain how the reality is never actually collective or individual, you avoid the discussion by shifting critique to my discussion-style.
That is called ad hominem arguing. Strawmen and ad hominem arguments are both things you should want to avoid in a rational discussion.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 02:12 PM)
My point being that if you pay lots of money for something green that allows the recipients of the money to spend it on lots of things that burn fossil fuel, the total carbon footprint of the green thing you bought is greater than if you spent a fraction of that money buying something that is less energy-efficient because the little money you spent on the less efficient thing cannot buy as much CO2-producing consumption as the more expensive green thing does.
Green-washing is a fairly pointless endeavor, because there is no oversight as to whether companies live up to their claims. That's why cap-and-trade is a good idea, because we know where the pollution is coming from, so those sources can figure out how to limit waste. There is no point in regulating things on the consumer end.
We aren't on the same wavelength here. These problems don't occur overnight. If water becomes a problem in LA, the population will SLOWLY decline and an equilibrium will be reached. Of all resources, water is not a hard one to transport or refine through desalination. The cost isn't as much as you think it is when you spread it out over a population.
BTW, involuntary relocation is a human rights violation in itself.
We aren't on the same wavelength here. These problems don't occur overnight. If water becomes a problem in LA, the population will SLOWLY decline and an equilibrium will be reached. Of all resources, water is not a hard one to transport or refine through desalination. The cost isn't as much as you think it is when you spread it out over a population.
BTW, involuntary relocation is a human rights violation in itself.
In practice, a free market will increase the price of fresh-water as it becomes scarcer or more work and energy is required to produce it. People financially stressed to pay a high water-bill would then search for places to move where they could pay much less for water. I learned the term for this is "structured choice." It means that people make voluntary choices, but their choices are a response to situational constraints, such as budget limitations and high-prices.
At the same time, higher productions results in lower cost per unit. Also, people adapt to high prices if they increase gradually. This isn't like "look, my water bill is now $500 higher than last month's!"
The distinction lies with the capacity of the receiving location. A city can only handle so many new residents.
The distinction lies with the capacity of the receiving location. A city can only handle so many new residents.
If water-bills quadruple within a short period of time in LA, there will probably be more than one individual looking for someplace else to move.
Completely made-up scenario.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
That doesn't mean that every individual moving out of LA might not move to a different city. Whether many or few move and whether they move to the same area or different areas, each individual still migrates individually. Calling it a mass-migration just serves to intimidate people who see themselves as individuals getting impinged upon by a collective-group. It's ultimately just a difference between applying a macro or a micro lens whether a social event is defined as individual or collective.
Completely besides the point.
See? I can critique your mountains of nonsense, but it just takes unnecessary time and effort when a simple insult can do the same job.
See? I can critique your mountains of nonsense, but it just takes unnecessary time and effort when a simple insult can do the same job.
It would be even easier if we could post pictures.
Green-washing is a fairly pointless endeavor, because there is no oversight as to whether companies live up to their claims. That's why cap-and-trade is a good idea, because we know where the pollution is coming from, so those sources can figure out how to limit waste. There is no point in regulating things on the consumer end.
QUOTE
If loads of people move away from LA to places where their is more fresh-water available with less processing, I don't think it matters if they do it voluntarily and individually or involuntarily and collectively. To be honest, I don't think that voluntary/involuntary and individual/collective are true dichotomies.
We aren't on the same wavelength here. These problems don't occur overnight. If water becomes a problem in LA, the population will SLOWLY decline and an equilibrium will be reached. Of all resources, water is not a hard one to transport or refine through desalination. The cost isn't as much as you think it is when you spread it out over a population.
BTW, involuntary relocation is a human rights violation in itself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If loads of people move away from LA to places where their is more fresh-water available with less processing, I don't think it matters if they do it voluntarily and individually or involuntarily and collectively. To be honest, I don't think that voluntary/involuntary and individual/collective are true dichotomies. |
We aren't on the same wavelength here. These problems don't occur overnight. If water becomes a problem in LA, the population will SLOWLY decline and an equilibrium will be reached. Of all resources, water is not a hard one to transport or refine through desalination. The cost isn't as much as you think it is when you spread it out over a population.
BTW, involuntary relocation is a human rights violation in itself.
In practice, a free market will increase the price of fresh-water as it becomes scarcer or more work and energy is required to produce it. People financially stressed to pay a high water-bill would then search for places to move where they could pay much less for water. I learned the term for this is "structured choice." It means that people make voluntary choices, but their choices are a response to situational constraints, such as budget limitations and high-prices.
At the same time, higher productions results in lower cost per unit. Also, people adapt to high prices if they increase gradually. This isn't like "look, my water bill is now $500 higher than last month's!"
QUOTE
The scale of relocation as individual (small) or collective (large) is also a vague distinction. Individuals always relocate on their own. However, they often do so as a response to conditions that influence others as well.
The distinction lies with the capacity of the receiving location. A city can only handle so many new residents.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The scale of relocation as individual (small) or collective (large) is also a vague distinction. Individuals always relocate on their own. However, they often do so as a response to conditions that influence others as well. |
The distinction lies with the capacity of the receiving location. A city can only handle so many new residents.
If water-bills quadruple within a short period of time in LA, there will probably be more than one individual looking for someplace else to move.
Completely made-up scenario.
QUOTE
If some city on a river somewhere advertises that it has many empty houses selling for very low prices, or many jobs or other economic opportunities that have been identified, multiple individuals leaving LA might choose to move to that city on the river.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If some city on a river somewhere advertises that it has many empty houses selling for very low prices, or many jobs or other economic opportunities that have been identified, multiple individuals leaving LA might choose to move to that city on the river. |
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
That doesn't mean that every individual moving out of LA might not move to a different city. Whether many or few move and whether they move to the same area or different areas, each individual still migrates individually. Calling it a mass-migration just serves to intimidate people who see themselves as individuals getting impinged upon by a collective-group. It's ultimately just a difference between applying a macro or a micro lens whether a social event is defined as individual or collective.
Completely besides the point.
See? I can critique your mountains of nonsense, but it just takes unnecessary time and effort when a simple insult can do the same job.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 09:53 PM)
See? I can critique your mountains of nonsense, but it just takes unnecessary time and effort when a simple insult can do the same job.
It would be even easier if we could post pictures.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 09:53 PM)
Green-washing is a fairly pointless endeavor, because there is no oversight as to whether companies live up to their claims. That's why cap-and-trade is a good idea, because we know where the pollution is coming from, so those sources can figure out how to limit waste. There is no point in regulating things on the consumer end.
Cap-and-trade is itself a form of greenwashing at the inter-governmental level. Economies that import a great deal of the industrial products consumed are able to sell their pollution rights to the economies that produce those industrial products. The result is that consumers in the post-industrial economies get MORE purchasing power, which puts MORE pressure on industrial economies to produce more for them, which are in greater need of the money to pay for their rights to produce more and emit more CO2.
It basically puts post-industrial consumers in the position to demand more and gives them more power when industrialists respond to their subsidized demand. A better strategy to reduce CO2 output would be to cap consumption and shipping rights and then allow governments where less is consumed to sell their consumption rights to those where more is consumed. That way you're taking money away from those that spend it, which is what drives the demand for industries that burn fossil fuel to compete for the money spent.
Even when you consider the daily amount of water consumed per capita not just for personal use but for all the businesses that individuals patronize? If you can explain to me a desalination system and include in your explanation the volume of water produced per unit land area used, I could consider the cost and viability. Currently, I can only imagine covering beaches with aluminum panels to catch evaporating tide-pools. Then I wonder about how to pump the water uphill to its various destinations.
Even when you consider the daily amount of water consumed per capita not just for personal use but for all the businesses that individuals patronize? If you can explain to me a desalination system and include in your explanation the volume of water produced per unit land area used, I could consider the cost and viability. Currently, I can only imagine covering beaches with aluminum panels to catch evaporating tide-pools. Then I wonder about how to pump the water uphill to its various destinations.
BTW, involuntary relocation is a human rights violation in itself.
Involuntary relocation is only bad to the extent that it is unequally distributed. If everyone in a given metropolitan area received temporary residential permits, which expired after a certain number of years, then everyone would be in the same boat and would plan accordingly.
What's unethical is the current migration controls in which some people are given more privileged status than others, whose residency may be limited in duration or rights or both. There should not be a distinction between natives and non-natives when it comes to limiting the population of a given area. As long as some people are prevented from migrating to certain areas, I think everyone should be limited in their stay in a limited-residency area. What basis is there for respecting the human rights of some not be involuntarily relocated and denying those rights for others? And don't claim that everyone has an original place of residency because people re-settle in new areas all the time and make them home.
You're treating a city like it's a fixed collective. It's not. A city is a collection of individuals and individual businesses. If a certain water-source can only supply so many gallons per day and no more, then it would be true that the water utility is limited in the number of total usage it could handle. But there are ways to mitigate that, by recycling water for different usages, for example. If reclaimed water is used for things other than drinking, cooking, and bathing, you only need to use potable water for those purposes. Eventually, I would agree with you that resources get stressed and there becomes a need to either relocate or pursue new technologies and lifestyle cultures to mitigate increasing scarcity.
You're treating a city like it's a fixed collective. It's not. A city is a collection of individuals and individual businesses. If a certain water-source can only supply so many gallons per day and no more, then it would be true that the water utility is limited in the number of total usage it could handle. But there are ways to mitigate that, by recycling water for different usages, for example. If reclaimed water is used for things other than drinking, cooking, and bathing, you only need to use potable water for those purposes. Eventually, I would agree with you that resources get stressed and there becomes a need to either relocate or pursue new technologies and lifestyle cultures to mitigate increasing scarcity.
Completely made-up scenario.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Completely besides the point.
See? I can critique your mountains of nonsense, but it just takes unnecessary time and effort when a simple insult can do the same job.
Nonsense. If you had the grounds to rationally critique my points and examples you would. You result to insults when you want to avoid putting your arguments up for critique.
Cap-and-trade is itself a form of greenwashing at the inter-governmental level. Economies that import a great deal of the industrial products consumed are able to sell their pollution rights to the economies that produce those industrial products. The result is that consumers in the post-industrial economies get MORE purchasing power, which puts MORE pressure on industrial economies to produce more for them, which are in greater need of the money to pay for their rights to produce more and emit more CO2.
It basically puts post-industrial consumers in the position to demand more and gives them more power when industrialists respond to their subsidized demand. A better strategy to reduce CO2 output would be to cap consumption and shipping rights and then allow governments where less is consumed to sell their consumption rights to those where more is consumed. That way you're taking money away from those that spend it, which is what drives the demand for industries that burn fossil fuel to compete for the money spent.
QUOTE
We aren't on the same wavelength here. These problems don't occur overnight. If water becomes a problem in LA, the population will SLOWLY decline and an equilibrium will be reached. Of all resources, water is not a hard one to transport or refine through desalination. The cost isn't as much as you think it is when you spread it out over a population.
Even when you consider the daily amount of water consumed per capita not just for personal use but for all the businesses that individuals patronize? If you can explain to me a desalination system and include in your explanation the volume of water produced per unit land area used, I could consider the cost and viability. Currently, I can only imagine covering beaches with aluminum panels to catch evaporating tide-pools. Then I wonder about how to pump the water uphill to its various destinations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We aren't on the same wavelength here. These problems don't occur overnight. If water becomes a problem in LA, the population will SLOWLY decline and an equilibrium will be reached. Of all resources, water is not a hard one to transport or refine through desalination. The cost isn't as much as you think it is when you spread it out over a population. |
Even when you consider the daily amount of water consumed per capita not just for personal use but for all the businesses that individuals patronize? If you can explain to me a desalination system and include in your explanation the volume of water produced per unit land area used, I could consider the cost and viability. Currently, I can only imagine covering beaches with aluminum panels to catch evaporating tide-pools. Then I wonder about how to pump the water uphill to its various destinations.
BTW, involuntary relocation is a human rights violation in itself.
Involuntary relocation is only bad to the extent that it is unequally distributed. If everyone in a given metropolitan area received temporary residential permits, which expired after a certain number of years, then everyone would be in the same boat and would plan accordingly.
What's unethical is the current migration controls in which some people are given more privileged status than others, whose residency may be limited in duration or rights or both. There should not be a distinction between natives and non-natives when it comes to limiting the population of a given area. As long as some people are prevented from migrating to certain areas, I think everyone should be limited in their stay in a limited-residency area. What basis is there for respecting the human rights of some not be involuntarily relocated and denying those rights for others? And don't claim that everyone has an original place of residency because people re-settle in new areas all the time and make them home.
QUOTE
The distinction lies with the capacity of the receiving location. A city can only handle so many new residents.
You're treating a city like it's a fixed collective. It's not. A city is a collection of individuals and individual businesses. If a certain water-source can only supply so many gallons per day and no more, then it would be true that the water utility is limited in the number of total usage it could handle. But there are ways to mitigate that, by recycling water for different usages, for example. If reclaimed water is used for things other than drinking, cooking, and bathing, you only need to use potable water for those purposes. Eventually, I would agree with you that resources get stressed and there becomes a need to either relocate or pursue new technologies and lifestyle cultures to mitigate increasing scarcity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The distinction lies with the capacity of the receiving location. A city can only handle so many new residents. |
You're treating a city like it's a fixed collective. It's not. A city is a collection of individuals and individual businesses. If a certain water-source can only supply so many gallons per day and no more, then it would be true that the water utility is limited in the number of total usage it could handle. But there are ways to mitigate that, by recycling water for different usages, for example. If reclaimed water is used for things other than drinking, cooking, and bathing, you only need to use potable water for those purposes. Eventually, I would agree with you that resources get stressed and there becomes a need to either relocate or pursue new technologies and lifestyle cultures to mitigate increasing scarcity.
Completely made-up scenario.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Completely besides the point.
See? I can critique your mountains of nonsense, but it just takes unnecessary time and effort when a simple insult can do the same job.
Nonsense. If you had the grounds to rationally critique my points and examples you would. You result to insults when you want to avoid putting your arguments up for critique.
I'm f*cking done with you. You are the stupidest person I have ever had a conversation with. Congrats!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 11:37 PM)
I'm f*cking done with you. You are the stupidest person I have ever had a conversation with. Congrats!
I guess that means you've hit bottom digging in your kiddie pool of rational argumentation and discussion. Maybe time to add some depth.
I guess that means you've hit bottom digging in your kiddie pool of rational argumentation and discussion. Maybe time to add some depth.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 06:49 PM)
I guess that means you've hit bottom digging in your kiddie pool of rational argumentation and discussion. Maybe time to add some depth.
No, it is my patience with you that has hit rock bottom. Please take note that it is you, not I, that has been suspended multiple times for posting meaningless bullcrap.
No, it is my patience with you that has hit rock bottom. Please take note that it is you, not I, that has been suspended multiple times for posting meaningless bullcrap.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 20 2009, 11:56 PM)
No, it is my patience with you that has hit rock bottom. Please take note that it is you, not I, that has been suspended multiple times for posting meaningless bullcrap.
More ad hominem reasoning to avoid the content of our discussion?
More ad hominem reasoning to avoid the content of our discussion?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 07:09 PM)
More ad hominem reasoning to avoid the content of our discussion?
Keep telling yourself that.
Keep telling yourself that.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 21 2009, 12:14 AM)
Keep telling yourself that.
I guess that means you don't know what an ad hominem attack is.
I guess that means you don't know what an ad hominem attack is.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 07:38 PM)
I guess that means you don't know what an ad hominem attack is.
Don't use words you don't understand.
I didn't say that your words are meaningless because you said them - that would be Ad Hominem.
I said that you are worthless because you said those words. See the difference?
Wiki
Don't use words you don't understand.
I didn't say that your words are meaningless because you said them - that would be Ad Hominem.
I said that you are worthless because you said those words. See the difference?
QUOTE
An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false
Wiki
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 21 2009, 12:55 AM)
Don't use words you don't understand.
I didn't say that your words are meaningless because you said them - that would be Ad Hominem.
I said that you are worthless because you said those words. See the difference?
Wiki
You're still addressing qualities about the speaker instead of addressing the content of the speech.
I didn't say that your words are meaningless because you said them - that would be Ad Hominem.
I said that you are worthless because you said those words. See the difference?
Wiki
You're still addressing qualities about the speaker instead of addressing the content of the speech.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 08:13 PM)
You're still addressing qualities about the speaker instead of addressing the content of the speech.
And I'm saying that it is pointless to argue with you since you are unwilling to communicate in an intelligent or rational way.
And I'm saying that it is pointless to argue with you since you are unwilling to communicate in an intelligent or rational way.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 21 2009, 01:23 AM)
And I'm saying that it is pointless to argue with you since you are unwilling to communicate in an intelligent or rational way.
That's just not true. I think you're only saying that because you want the rationality to occur at the level of language instead of reality. You got upset when I started talking about the difference between large-scale and small-scale migration as a perspectival difference. You wanted to discuss migration as if there was an actual difference between large-scale and small-scale other than the scale of perspective.
Then you accuse me of being irrational for pointing out that you are basing your whole argument on a nominal distinction?
That's just not true. I think you're only saying that because you want the rationality to occur at the level of language instead of reality. You got upset when I started talking about the difference between large-scale and small-scale migration as a perspectival difference. You wanted to discuss migration as if there was an actual difference between large-scale and small-scale other than the scale of perspective.
Then you accuse me of being irrational for pointing out that you are basing your whole argument on a nominal distinction?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 09:13 PM)
That's just not true. I think you're only saying that because you want the rationality to occur at the level of language instead of reality. You got upset when I started talking about the difference between large-scale and small-scale migration as a perspectival difference. You wanted to discuss migration as if there was an actual difference between large-scale and small-scale other than the scale of perspective.
Then you accuse me of being irrational for pointing out that you are basing your whole argument on a nominal distinction?
There is a difference between a thousand people a year and a million people a year, yes? The distinction comes into play when surrounding cities have to take in that many people. Where will they work? Where will they live? Why don't you ever think about the implications of things you suggest? Plus, you advocated the possibility of mandatory relocation like it was NOT a massive violation of human rights. This leads me to believe that you are either completely ignorant of history, or you are an evil human being who delights in human suffering.
We have yet to see any mass migration in history come because of an increase in cost of living. Mass (voluntary) migrations occur because there is no more work to be found in that location, or there is a surplus of jobs to be found in a new location. You are creating an artificial, unrealistic scenario, and then you invoke fascist strategies to deal with the problem. This seems to be typical of discussions with you.
Let me diagram it for you:
Artificial crisis -> Massive overreaction -> Ignore alternatives -> Violations of human rights -> Completely impractical solution
Maybe you don't see it quite like that, but if you knew the slightest bit about human nature, history or economics, you would see how that is accurate.
Then you accuse me of being irrational for pointing out that you are basing your whole argument on a nominal distinction?
There is a difference between a thousand people a year and a million people a year, yes? The distinction comes into play when surrounding cities have to take in that many people. Where will they work? Where will they live? Why don't you ever think about the implications of things you suggest? Plus, you advocated the possibility of mandatory relocation like it was NOT a massive violation of human rights. This leads me to believe that you are either completely ignorant of history, or you are an evil human being who delights in human suffering.
We have yet to see any mass migration in history come because of an increase in cost of living. Mass (voluntary) migrations occur because there is no more work to be found in that location, or there is a surplus of jobs to be found in a new location. You are creating an artificial, unrealistic scenario, and then you invoke fascist strategies to deal with the problem. This seems to be typical of discussions with you.
Let me diagram it for you:
Artificial crisis -> Massive overreaction -> Ignore alternatives -> Violations of human rights -> Completely impractical solution
Maybe you don't see it quite like that, but if you knew the slightest bit about human nature, history or economics, you would see how that is accurate.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 21 2009, 02:24 AM)
There is a difference between a thousand people a year and a million people a year, yes? The distinction comes into play when surrounding cities have to take in that many people. Where will they work? Where will they live? Why don't you ever think about the implications of things you suggest? Plus, you advocated the possibility of mandatory relocation like it was NOT a massive violation of human rights. This leads me to believe that you are either completely ignorant of history, or you are an evil human being who delights in human suffering.
On the macro level there is a difference between 1000/year and 1000000/year. At the individual level, each migration is a personal affair influenced by external factors such as economic opportunities, housing availability, and resource availability.
There are two ways of looking at migration and economics:
#1 = free individuals interact economically
#2 = the economy as a macro-scale machine in which individuals are mice in a maze
You seem to prefer #2 but in reality no one is more than an individual negotiating economics with other individuals. Yes, there are institutions and the ability for individuals to invoke macro-level thinking to exercise social power, but you are not doing anything more than attempting to exercise such power yourself by invoking mass-migration as an attempt to undermine the fact that individuals always make choices and act as individuals, regardless of who else is doing the same thing at the same time. You say I delight in human suffering, but I think it is you who delights in deindividualizing humans.
Many businesses/factories have migrated to lower-wage economies because the cost of production and doing business is lower. Those migrations didn't involve people? Only equipment and knowledge?
Unemployment is the same thing as an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is relative to your income. If your income goes down, things become more expensive relative to your decreased income or your unemployment pay or your savings. Also, you don't think that people have been motivated to migrate by increasing housing prices, insurance rates, taxes, etc.? Of course, I'm sure you're going to say that these were individual migrations and not mass migrations. You have yet to explain how you differentiate individuals from masses except as a shift in scaling perspective.
Many businesses/factories have migrated to lower-wage economies because the cost of production and doing business is lower. Those migrations didn't involve people? Only equipment and knowledge?
Unemployment is the same thing as an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is relative to your income. If your income goes down, things become more expensive relative to your decreased income or your unemployment pay or your savings. Also, you don't think that people have been motivated to migrate by increasing housing prices, insurance rates, taxes, etc.? Of course, I'm sure you're going to say that these were individual migrations and not mass migrations. You have yet to explain how you differentiate individuals from masses except as a shift in scaling perspective.
Let me diagram it for you:
Artificial crisis -> Massive overreaction -> Ignore alternatives -> Violations of human rights -> Completely impractical solution
I see how this is a problem. I just don't see what the artificial crisis you're talking about is or what the alternatives or impractical solutions are? I'm not saying people have to move to a better water source; I'm saying that if water-resources are under stress to the point of needing to desalinate, it might be just as good for people to move to a better water source. And then I think it would be unfair if some people ended up under pressure to move while others were securely privileged to remain. If some people have to move, let everyone. It's only fair.
How is it not a violation of human rights to restrict the migration patterns of some people in favor of privileging others to have a secure "homeland?" You must be one of the people who claims that migration is a violation of the human rights of those who claim the longest lineage in a place. People's human rights are being violated by curtailing their migration rights, not the other way around.
On the macro level there is a difference between 1000/year and 1000000/year. At the individual level, each migration is a personal affair influenced by external factors such as economic opportunities, housing availability, and resource availability.
There are two ways of looking at migration and economics:
#1 = free individuals interact economically
#2 = the economy as a macro-scale machine in which individuals are mice in a maze
You seem to prefer #2 but in reality no one is more than an individual negotiating economics with other individuals. Yes, there are institutions and the ability for individuals to invoke macro-level thinking to exercise social power, but you are not doing anything more than attempting to exercise such power yourself by invoking mass-migration as an attempt to undermine the fact that individuals always make choices and act as individuals, regardless of who else is doing the same thing at the same time. You say I delight in human suffering, but I think it is you who delights in deindividualizing humans.
QUOTE
We have yet to see any mass migration in history come because of an increase in cost of living. Mass (voluntary) migrations occur because there is no more work to be found in that location, or there is a surplus of jobs to be found in a new location. You are creating an artificial, unrealistic scenario, and then you invoke fascist strategies to deal with the problem. This seems to be typical of discussions with you.
Many businesses/factories have migrated to lower-wage economies because the cost of production and doing business is lower. Those migrations didn't involve people? Only equipment and knowledge?
Unemployment is the same thing as an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is relative to your income. If your income goes down, things become more expensive relative to your decreased income or your unemployment pay or your savings. Also, you don't think that people have been motivated to migrate by increasing housing prices, insurance rates, taxes, etc.? Of course, I'm sure you're going to say that these were individual migrations and not mass migrations. You have yet to explain how you differentiate individuals from masses except as a shift in scaling perspective.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have yet to see any mass migration in history come because of an increase in cost of living. Mass (voluntary) migrations occur because there is no more work to be found in that location, or there is a surplus of jobs to be found in a new location. You are creating an artificial, unrealistic scenario, and then you invoke fascist strategies to deal with the problem. This seems to be typical of discussions with you. |
Many businesses/factories have migrated to lower-wage economies because the cost of production and doing business is lower. Those migrations didn't involve people? Only equipment and knowledge?
Unemployment is the same thing as an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is relative to your income. If your income goes down, things become more expensive relative to your decreased income or your unemployment pay or your savings. Also, you don't think that people have been motivated to migrate by increasing housing prices, insurance rates, taxes, etc.? Of course, I'm sure you're going to say that these were individual migrations and not mass migrations. You have yet to explain how you differentiate individuals from masses except as a shift in scaling perspective.
Let me diagram it for you:
Artificial crisis -> Massive overreaction -> Ignore alternatives -> Violations of human rights -> Completely impractical solution
I see how this is a problem. I just don't see what the artificial crisis you're talking about is or what the alternatives or impractical solutions are? I'm not saying people have to move to a better water source; I'm saying that if water-resources are under stress to the point of needing to desalinate, it might be just as good for people to move to a better water source. And then I think it would be unfair if some people ended up under pressure to move while others were securely privileged to remain. If some people have to move, let everyone. It's only fair.
How is it not a violation of human rights to restrict the migration patterns of some people in favor of privileging others to have a secure "homeland?" You must be one of the people who claims that migration is a violation of the human rights of those who claim the longest lineage in a place. People's human rights are being violated by curtailing their migration rights, not the other way around.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 20 2009, 09:50 PM)
You seem to prefer #2 but in reality no one is more than an individual negotiating economics with other individuals. Yes, there are institutions and the ability for individuals to invoke macro-level thinking to exercise social power, but you are not doing anything more than attempting to exercise such power yourself by invoking mass-migration as an attempt to undermine the fact that individuals always make choices and act as individuals, regardless of who else is doing the same thing at the same time. You say I delight in human suffering, but I think it is you who delights in deindividualizing humans.
That is completely NOT the issue. It is so far from actually BEING the issue, that I have no choice to throw my head back and laugh at your stupidity. WHO CARES what your emotional problems are with micro vs macro? I certainly don't.
Businesses can relocate whenever they want to, but they rarely take their workforce with them. They might offer a job to those who want to move with the company, but they aren't going to subsidize the moving process for individuals.
Businesses can relocate whenever they want to, but they rarely take their workforce with them. They might offer a job to those who want to move with the company, but they aren't going to subsidize the moving process for individuals.
Unemployment is the same thing as an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is relative to your income. If your income goes down, things become more expensive relative to your decreased income or your unemployment pay or your savings. Also, you don't think that people have been motivated to migrate by increasing housing prices, insurance rates, taxes, etc.? Of course, I'm sure you're going to say that these were individual migrations and not mass migrations. You have yet to explain how you differentiate individuals from masses except as a shift in scaling perspective.
If the cost of living goes up, then people might quit lower-paying jobs if they don't increase wages to compensate. Wages depend greatly on location. A city's economy is an economic organism. An increase in the price of water isn't going to cause significant depopulation. It doesn't matter whether I'm talking about individuals or groups. People are very predictable in large groups, while an individual is much more unpredictable. This is because the group serves as an average of all the possible behaviors. You are simply trying to throw an emotional wrench into a rational argument.
What does this mean? Are you implying that if poor people have to move, rich people should have to as well? Your problem is that you are extremely vague, and you hint at being a communist while denying that you are one.
What does this mean? Are you implying that if poor people have to move, rich people should have to as well? Your problem is that you are extremely vague, and you hint at being a communist while denying that you are one.
How is it not a violation of human rights to restrict the migration patterns of some people in favor of privileging others to have a secure "homeland?" You must be one of the people who claims that migration is a violation of the human rights of those who claim the longest lineage in a place. People's human rights are being violated by curtailing their migration rights, not the other way around.
I'm not talking about preventing people from moving. I'm saying that people usually don't want to move, even if their quality of life decreases. I'm not saying that people should be prevented from moving, or even from moving en-masse. I am saying that the situation described would not result in the crisis you imagine. YOU are the one talking about forced migrations, not me.
That is completely NOT the issue. It is so far from actually BEING the issue, that I have no choice to throw my head back and laugh at your stupidity. WHO CARES what your emotional problems are with micro vs macro? I certainly don't.
QUOTE
Many businesses/factories have migrated to lower-wage economies because the cost of production and doing business is lower. Those migrations didn't involve people? Only equipment and knowledge?
Businesses can relocate whenever they want to, but they rarely take their workforce with them. They might offer a job to those who want to move with the company, but they aren't going to subsidize the moving process for individuals.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Many businesses/factories have migrated to lower-wage economies because the cost of production and doing business is lower. Those migrations didn't involve people? Only equipment and knowledge? |
Businesses can relocate whenever they want to, but they rarely take their workforce with them. They might offer a job to those who want to move with the company, but they aren't going to subsidize the moving process for individuals.
Unemployment is the same thing as an increase in the cost of living. The cost of living is relative to your income. If your income goes down, things become more expensive relative to your decreased income or your unemployment pay or your savings. Also, you don't think that people have been motivated to migrate by increasing housing prices, insurance rates, taxes, etc.? Of course, I'm sure you're going to say that these were individual migrations and not mass migrations. You have yet to explain how you differentiate individuals from masses except as a shift in scaling perspective.
If the cost of living goes up, then people might quit lower-paying jobs if they don't increase wages to compensate. Wages depend greatly on location. A city's economy is an economic organism. An increase in the price of water isn't going to cause significant depopulation. It doesn't matter whether I'm talking about individuals or groups. People are very predictable in large groups, while an individual is much more unpredictable. This is because the group serves as an average of all the possible behaviors. You are simply trying to throw an emotional wrench into a rational argument.
QUOTE
And then I think it would be unfair if some people ended up under pressure to move while others were securely privileged to remain. If some people have to move, let everyone. It's only fair.
What does this mean? Are you implying that if poor people have to move, rich people should have to as well? Your problem is that you are extremely vague, and you hint at being a communist while denying that you are one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And then I think it would be unfair if some people ended up under pressure to move while others were securely privileged to remain. If some people have to move, let everyone. It's only fair. |
What does this mean? Are you implying that if poor people have to move, rich people should have to as well? Your problem is that you are extremely vague, and you hint at being a communist while denying that you are one.
How is it not a violation of human rights to restrict the migration patterns of some people in favor of privileging others to have a secure "homeland?" You must be one of the people who claims that migration is a violation of the human rights of those who claim the longest lineage in a place. People's human rights are being violated by curtailing their migration rights, not the other way around.
I'm not talking about preventing people from moving. I'm saying that people usually don't want to move, even if their quality of life decreases. I'm not saying that people should be prevented from moving, or even from moving en-masse. I am saying that the situation described would not result in the crisis you imagine. YOU are the one talking about forced migrations, not me.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 21 2009, 04:26 AM)
If the cost of living goes up, then people might quit lower-paying jobs if they don't increase wages to compensate. Wages depend greatly on location. A city's economy is an economic organism. An increase in the price of water isn't going to cause significant depopulation. It doesn't matter whether I'm talking about individuals or groups. People are very predictable in large groups, while an individual is much more unpredictable. This is because the group serves as an average of all the possible behaviors. You are simply trying to throw an emotional wrench into a rational argument.
I would say it is an instrument of emotional protection or distancing when they prefer to use the macro level to study human life. The fact is that extrapolating anything from macro analyses to the relevant level of predicting and explaining events in the lives of individuals is vague at best and confounding at worst. So unless you are able to zoom in and analyze social life on the trans-individual micro level of networks of interactions, you conclusions are going to be skewed and misrepresentative of reality as it takes place at the individual level on which people actually live and act.
I wouldn't say that a city is an organism. I would say that it is modeled as an organism by people who want to exercise top-down control. A city is a place where individuals come together to interact and exchange resources. Wages depend on location partly because businesses have to offer competitive wages to keep employees if those employees can change jobs for better wages. Of course, the higher wages are driven by competition, the less competitive each business becomes with respect to other businesses where wages are kept low. So during economic recession, businesses that pay higher wages go bankrupt faster.
Right, but some people automatically move with the business to get things started at the new location, unless it was just sold and they pack up everything in boxes and ship it to the new owners. Then the individuals who want to relocate to work with the company in the new location do. Where were we disagreeing again?
Right, but some people automatically move with the business to get things started at the new location, unless it was just sold and they pack up everything in boxes and ship it to the new owners. Then the individuals who want to relocate to work with the company in the new location do. Where were we disagreeing again?
What does this mean? Are you implying that if poor people have to move, rich people should have to as well? Your problem is that you are extremely vague, and you hint at being a communist while denying that you are one.
So now if I say that wealth shouldn't entitle people to every possible privilege and better civil rights, I am a communist? Communism is about revoking private property and everyone contributing to a common wealth of resources. I'm not for that. Besides, even in communism some people get to live in Moscow and some have to work on the farms. All I'm saying is that if the population of an area has to be limited because of resource limitations, then residence permits should be governed so that everyone gets a temporary permit. Otherwise people would exploit each other's will to be one of the chosen residents and something more like a mafia social club than a free market would emerge.
many people globally don't want to move all the time but economic pressures and visa limitations motivate them to anyway. The problem is that there are a certain number of people who have the privilege of not having to worry about visa limitations or economic pressures to migrate, so they have the luxury of not having to move when they don't want to. I'm saying why should these people not have their residency limited the same as the people who have to get visas? I'm basically saying let's get rid of the whole distinction between migrant and native and just treat everyone as migrants so that everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve wherever they go.
The only people I don't think should have to move every so often are people who farm or have some other connection to specific land resources. People who just live by shopping and going to an office can migrate every 5 years or so, can't they? That would give everyone a chance to live everywhere instead of having some place where people always want to move but never can because the cost of living is too high or because jobs are hard to get.
I would say it is an instrument of emotional protection or distancing when they prefer to use the macro level to study human life. The fact is that extrapolating anything from macro analyses to the relevant level of predicting and explaining events in the lives of individuals is vague at best and confounding at worst. So unless you are able to zoom in and analyze social life on the trans-individual micro level of networks of interactions, you conclusions are going to be skewed and misrepresentative of reality as it takes place at the individual level on which people actually live and act.
I wouldn't say that a city is an organism. I would say that it is modeled as an organism by people who want to exercise top-down control. A city is a place where individuals come together to interact and exchange resources. Wages depend on location partly because businesses have to offer competitive wages to keep employees if those employees can change jobs for better wages. Of course, the higher wages are driven by competition, the less competitive each business becomes with respect to other businesses where wages are kept low. So during economic recession, businesses that pay higher wages go bankrupt faster.
QUOTE
Businesses can relocate whenever they want to, but they rarely take their workforce with them. They might offer a job to those who want to move with the company, but they aren't going to subsidize the moving process for individuals.
Right, but some people automatically move with the business to get things started at the new location, unless it was just sold and they pack up everything in boxes and ship it to the new owners. Then the individuals who want to relocate to work with the company in the new location do. Where were we disagreeing again?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Businesses can relocate whenever they want to, but they rarely take their workforce with them. They might offer a job to those who want to move with the company, but they aren't going to subsidize the moving process for individuals. |
Right, but some people automatically move with the business to get things started at the new location, unless it was just sold and they pack up everything in boxes and ship it to the new owners. Then the individuals who want to relocate to work with the company in the new location do. Where were we disagreeing again?
What does this mean? Are you implying that if poor people have to move, rich people should have to as well? Your problem is that you are extremely vague, and you hint at being a communist while denying that you are one.
So now if I say that wealth shouldn't entitle people to every possible privilege and better civil rights, I am a communist? Communism is about revoking private property and everyone contributing to a common wealth of resources. I'm not for that. Besides, even in communism some people get to live in Moscow and some have to work on the farms. All I'm saying is that if the population of an area has to be limited because of resource limitations, then residence permits should be governed so that everyone gets a temporary permit. Otherwise people would exploit each other's will to be one of the chosen residents and something more like a mafia social club than a free market would emerge.
QUOTE
I'm not talking about preventing people from moving. I'm saying that people usually don't want to move, even if their quality of life decreases. I'm not saying that people should be prevented from moving, or even from moving en-masse. I am saying that the situation described would not result in the crisis you imagine. YOU are the one talking about forced migrations, not me.
many people globally don't want to move all the time but economic pressures and visa limitations motivate them to anyway. The problem is that there are a certain number of people who have the privilege of not having to worry about visa limitations or economic pressures to migrate, so they have the luxury of not having to move when they don't want to. I'm saying why should these people not have their residency limited the same as the people who have to get visas? I'm basically saying let's get rid of the whole distinction between migrant and native and just treat everyone as migrants so that everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve wherever they go.
The only people I don't think should have to move every so often are people who farm or have some other connection to specific land resources. People who just live by shopping and going to an office can migrate every 5 years or so, can't they? That would give everyone a chance to live everywhere instead of having some place where people always want to move but never can because the cost of living is too high or because jobs are hard to get.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 21 2009, 01:36 PM)
I would say it is an instrument of emotional protection or distancing when they prefer to use the macro level to study human life. The fact is that extrapolating anything from macro analyses to the relevant level of predicting and explaining events in the lives of individuals is vague at best and confounding at worst. So unless you are able to zoom in and analyze social life on the trans-individual micro level of networks of interactions, you conclusions are going to be skewed and misrepresentative of reality as it takes place at the individual level on which people actually live and act.
Bullcrap. You obviously don't understand statistics.
A city is run by elected officials. Welcome to democracy. Stop whining. You are the one who consistently advocates command economy policies.
A city is run by elected officials. Welcome to democracy. Stop whining. You are the one who consistently advocates command economy policies.
So now if I say that wealth shouldn't entitle people to every possible privilege and better civil rights, I am a communist? Communism is about revoking private property and everyone contributing to a common wealth of resources. I'm not for that. Besides, even in communism some people get to live in Moscow and some have to work on the farms. All I'm saying is that if the population of an area has to be limited because of resource limitations, then residence permits should be governed so that everyone gets a temporary permit. Otherwise people would exploit each other's will to be one of the chosen residents and something more like a mafia social club than a free market would emerge.
You just described the USSR. The USSR was a bad example of Communism. A true Communist society is a classless society. There are no rich or poor. Resources are produced for the common good instead of economic gain. There is no currency. Hint: Commune-ism.
See: Totalitarianism.
You can't tell people where to live. EVER. Unless of course you are ok with ripping up and burning the constitution.
Bullcrap. You obviously don't understand statistics.
QUOTE
I wouldn't say that a city is an organism. I would say that it is modeled as an organism by people who want to exercise top-down control.
A city is run by elected officials. Welcome to democracy. Stop whining. You are the one who consistently advocates command economy policies.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I wouldn't say that a city is an organism. I would say that it is modeled as an organism by people who want to exercise top-down control. |
A city is run by elected officials. Welcome to democracy. Stop whining. You are the one who consistently advocates command economy policies.
So now if I say that wealth shouldn't entitle people to every possible privilege and better civil rights, I am a communist? Communism is about revoking private property and everyone contributing to a common wealth of resources. I'm not for that. Besides, even in communism some people get to live in Moscow and some have to work on the farms. All I'm saying is that if the population of an area has to be limited because of resource limitations, then residence permits should be governed so that everyone gets a temporary permit. Otherwise people would exploit each other's will to be one of the chosen residents and something more like a mafia social club than a free market would emerge.
You just described the USSR. The USSR was a bad example of Communism. A true Communist society is a classless society. There are no rich or poor. Resources are produced for the common good instead of economic gain. There is no currency. Hint: Commune-ism.
QUOTE
The only people I don't think should have to move every so often are people who farm or have some other connection to specific land resources. People who just live by shopping and going to an office can migrate every 5 years or so, can't they? That would give everyone a chance to live everywhere instead of having some place where people always want to move but never can because the cost of living is too high or because jobs are hard to get.
See: Totalitarianism.
You can't tell people where to live. EVER. Unless of course you are ok with ripping up and burning the constitution.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 21 2009, 01:36 PM)
I'm saying why should these people not have their residency limited the same as the people who have to get visas? I'm basically saying let's get rid of the whole distinction between migrant and native and just treat everyone as migrants so that everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve wherever they go.
The only people I don't think should have to move every so often are people who farm or have some other connection to specific land resources. People who just live by shopping and going to an office can migrate every 5 years or so, can't they? That would give everyone a chance to live everywhere instead of having some place where people always want to move but never can because the cost of living is too high or because jobs are hard to get.
People don't want to move every five years because they have family, friends, job, associations etc etc where they live.
Moving to another place is quite traumatic actually and is one of the most stressful things you can do.
Arthur
The only people I don't think should have to move every so often are people who farm or have some other connection to specific land resources. People who just live by shopping and going to an office can migrate every 5 years or so, can't they? That would give everyone a chance to live everywhere instead of having some place where people always want to move but never can because the cost of living is too high or because jobs are hard to get.
People don't want to move every five years because they have family, friends, job, associations etc etc where they live.
Moving to another place is quite traumatic actually and is one of the most stressful things you can do.
Arthur
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 21 2009, 06:36 PM)
Communism is about revoking private property and everyone contributing to a common wealth of resources. I'm not for that. ...
...The only people I don't think should have to move every so often are people who farm or have some other connection to specific land resources. People who just live by shopping and going to an office can migrate every 5 years or so, can't they? That would give everyone a chance to live everywhere instead of having some place where people always want to move but never can because the cost of living is too high or because jobs are hard to get.
So how do you enact your master plan if you dont revoke private property?
Honestly your posts are staggeringly stupid.
Edit to add:And how is this not an example of people exercising top-down control, which you claim to be so much against?
...The only people I don't think should have to move every so often are people who farm or have some other connection to specific land resources. People who just live by shopping and going to an office can migrate every 5 years or so, can't they? That would give everyone a chance to live everywhere instead of having some place where people always want to move but never can because the cost of living is too high or because jobs are hard to get.
So how do you enact your master plan if you dont revoke private property?
Honestly your posts are staggeringly stupid.
Edit to add:And how is this not an example of people exercising top-down control, which you claim to be so much against?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 21 2009, 07:00 PM)
Bullcrap. You obviously don't understand statistics.
I understand statistics all too well. You can't use the internal logic of statistics to validate the fit between a statistical model and the reality the model presumes to represent. Doing that requires critical theorizing, a skill that many statisticians lack and compensate for by vehemently defending the rigor of their statistical procedures and findings.
Of course it's not. Elected officials exercise a certain amount of influence but a city is a summation term for numerous decentralized interactions and events, of which the elected officials play a varying role in some but not all.
Of course it's not. Elected officials exercise a certain amount of influence but a city is a summation term for numerous decentralized interactions and events, of which the elected officials play a varying role in some but not all.
You just described the USSR. The USSR was a bad example of Communism. A true Communist society is a classless society. There are no rich or poor. Resources are produced for the common good instead of economic gain. There is no currency. Hint: Commune-ism.
As far as I know, communist theory only requires that individuals contribute as much labor as they can to the common good and that they take as little as they can from it so that more will be available for others. Where it gets vague is what to do when people covertly act in their personal interests instead of the interest of social good.
Technically, in order to have truly classless society, everyone would have to work in agriculture AND industry AND education, interchangeably. Otherwise certain people would be farmers so that the teachers could eat and consume the goods produced by industrial workers, etc. Division of labor creates class-status differentiation, even if everyone has equal access to the fruits of everyone else's labor.
Migration and non-citizen rights under the constitution is a big issue that people try to avoid because its one that would prevent the denial of citizenship to applicants. The supreme court recently found that terror suspects have the same rights of the accused as citizen-suspects. Eventually I believe it will be found that anyone holding any citizenship anywhere has the right to appeal to the US constitution as a universal document of inalienable (human) rights. It's just that people fight this because they want the world to be divided into mutually exclusive nations and states with differential political and economic governance.
Because of nationalism and border-control, many peopleare currently being told where to live. The question is whether this is going to grow to become universal restriction on migration or whether migration will become a universal responsibility that cannot be relegated to a relative minority of people.
I understand statistics all too well. You can't use the internal logic of statistics to validate the fit between a statistical model and the reality the model presumes to represent. Doing that requires critical theorizing, a skill that many statisticians lack and compensate for by vehemently defending the rigor of their statistical procedures and findings.
QUOTE
A city is run by elected officials. Welcome to democracy. Stop whining. You are the one who consistently advocates command economy policies
Of course it's not. Elected officials exercise a certain amount of influence but a city is a summation term for numerous decentralized interactions and events, of which the elected officials play a varying role in some but not all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A city is run by elected officials. Welcome to democracy. Stop whining. You are the one who consistently advocates command economy policies |
Of course it's not. Elected officials exercise a certain amount of influence but a city is a summation term for numerous decentralized interactions and events, of which the elected officials play a varying role in some but not all.
You just described the USSR. The USSR was a bad example of Communism. A true Communist society is a classless society. There are no rich or poor. Resources are produced for the common good instead of economic gain. There is no currency. Hint: Commune-ism.
As far as I know, communist theory only requires that individuals contribute as much labor as they can to the common good and that they take as little as they can from it so that more will be available for others. Where it gets vague is what to do when people covertly act in their personal interests instead of the interest of social good.
Technically, in order to have truly classless society, everyone would have to work in agriculture AND industry AND education, interchangeably. Otherwise certain people would be farmers so that the teachers could eat and consume the goods produced by industrial workers, etc. Division of labor creates class-status differentiation, even if everyone has equal access to the fruits of everyone else's labor.
QUOTE
See: Totalitarianism.
You can't tell people where to live. EVER. Unless of course you are ok with ripping up and burning the constitution.
You can't tell people where to live. EVER. Unless of course you are ok with ripping up and burning the constitution.
Migration and non-citizen rights under the constitution is a big issue that people try to avoid because its one that would prevent the denial of citizenship to applicants. The supreme court recently found that terror suspects have the same rights of the accused as citizen-suspects. Eventually I believe it will be found that anyone holding any citizenship anywhere has the right to appeal to the US constitution as a universal document of inalienable (human) rights. It's just that people fight this because they want the world to be divided into mutually exclusive nations and states with differential political and economic governance.
Because of nationalism and border-control, many peopleare currently being told where to live. The question is whether this is going to grow to become universal restriction on migration or whether migration will become a universal responsibility that cannot be relegated to a relative minority of people.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 21 2009, 02:31 PM)
I understand statistics all too well. You can't use the internal logic of statistics to validate the fit between a statistical model and the reality the model presumes to represent. Doing that requires critical theorizing, a skill that many statisticians lack and compensate for by vehemently defending the rigor of their statistical procedures and findings.
Thank you for proving my point.
HAHAHAHAHHA! I should have expecting something like this coming from you. You who thinks he can be an expert in whatever field he wants. Following this model would mean the end of civilization within a few years. Do you really want to have a factory worker growing your food? Do you really want a farmer building your ipod? This is only possible with interchangeable unskilled laborers. In essence, you would turn everyone into an unskilled laborer. Good job!
HAHAHAHAHHA! I should have expecting something like this coming from you. You who thinks he can be an expert in whatever field he wants. Following this model would mean the end of civilization within a few years. Do you really want to have a factory worker growing your food? Do you really want a farmer building your ipod? This is only possible with interchangeable unskilled laborers. In essence, you would turn everyone into an unskilled laborer. Good job!
Because of nationalism and border-control, many peopleare currently being told where to live. The question is whether this is going to grow to become universal restriction on migration or whether migration will become a universal responsibility that cannot be relegated to a relative minority of people.
Being a citizen of one country and being prevented from moving to another is not a violation of rights. You can't just come into a country and get all the benefits of citizenship if you have not contributed to that nation's prosperity through taxes and other means. Another retarded idea from light (really really far down) the tunnel.
Thank you for proving my point.
QUOTE
Technically, in order to have truly classless society, everyone would have to work in agriculture AND industry AND education, interchangeably. Otherwise certain people would be farmers so that the teachers could eat and consume the goods produced by industrial workers, etc. Division of labor creates class-status differentiation, even if everyone has equal access to the fruits of everyone else's labor.
HAHAHAHAHHA! I should have expecting something like this coming from you. You who thinks he can be an expert in whatever field he wants. Following this model would mean the end of civilization within a few years. Do you really want to have a factory worker growing your food? Do you really want a farmer building your ipod? This is only possible with interchangeable unskilled laborers. In essence, you would turn everyone into an unskilled laborer. Good job!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Technically, in order to have truly classless society, everyone would have to work in agriculture AND industry AND education, interchangeably. Otherwise certain people would be farmers so that the teachers could eat and consume the goods produced by industrial workers, etc. Division of labor creates class-status differentiation, even if everyone has equal access to the fruits of everyone else's labor. |
HAHAHAHAHHA! I should have expecting something like this coming from you. You who thinks he can be an expert in whatever field he wants. Following this model would mean the end of civilization within a few years. Do you really want to have a factory worker growing your food? Do you really want a farmer building your ipod? This is only possible with interchangeable unskilled laborers. In essence, you would turn everyone into an unskilled laborer. Good job!
Because of nationalism and border-control, many peopleare currently being told where to live. The question is whether this is going to grow to become universal restriction on migration or whether migration will become a universal responsibility that cannot be relegated to a relative minority of people.
Being a citizen of one country and being prevented from moving to another is not a violation of rights. You can't just come into a country and get all the benefits of citizenship if you have not contributed to that nation's prosperity through taxes and other means. Another retarded idea from light (really really far down) the tunnel.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 21 2009, 07:18 PM)
So how do you enact your master plan if you dont revoke private property?
Don't start painting me dictator by using words like "master plan." This is an idea expressed in an open democratic forum, not a fleet of tanks rolling into your neighborhood.
To answer your question, though, I would say that banks, which hold mortgages, may be able to be regulated to allow name exchanges on mortgages so that people can trade properties in different locations. This way you keep your privately owned mortgage (which is actually what you own, not the property itself) and relocate it to another property somewhere else.
People who do not have a mortgage on their property could also trade properties with someone else or do a certain amount of farming on their property to get a land-attachment status to exempt them from having to relocate.
I don't appreciate this comment. The only reason I'm posting such a speculative idea is because I don't think it is fair that many people want to live someplace like LA, but less and less can afford to because the cost of living increases as natural resources become overtaxed and scarce. I think it would be far fairer for anyone who wants one to get a temporary residence permit than for many people to have to compete financially for a privilege that others are simply entitled to.
I don't appreciate this comment. The only reason I'm posting such a speculative idea is because I don't think it is fair that many people want to live someplace like LA, but less and less can afford to because the cost of living increases as natural resources become overtaxed and scarce. I think it would be far fairer for anyone who wants one to get a temporary residence permit than for many people to have to compete financially for a privilege that others are simply entitled to.
Edit to add:And how is this not an example of people exercising top-down control, which you claim to be so much against?
It is, but it is top-down power intended to check and balance another top-down power, namely that used by some people to secure the privilege of permanent residency in an area with population restrictions. People should always be free from top-down control, but for that to happen people have to resist exercising controlling power against others. If you're driving someone to move to another city by overpaying for scarce water, then shouldn't you eventually be required to move somewhere where water is less scarce to prevent inflation from usurping other people's economic freedom?
Don't start painting me dictator by using words like "master plan." This is an idea expressed in an open democratic forum, not a fleet of tanks rolling into your neighborhood.
To answer your question, though, I would say that banks, which hold mortgages, may be able to be regulated to allow name exchanges on mortgages so that people can trade properties in different locations. This way you keep your privately owned mortgage (which is actually what you own, not the property itself) and relocate it to another property somewhere else.
People who do not have a mortgage on their property could also trade properties with someone else or do a certain amount of farming on their property to get a land-attachment status to exempt them from having to relocate.
QUOTE
Honestly your posts are staggeringly stupid.
I don't appreciate this comment. The only reason I'm posting such a speculative idea is because I don't think it is fair that many people want to live someplace like LA, but less and less can afford to because the cost of living increases as natural resources become overtaxed and scarce. I think it would be far fairer for anyone who wants one to get a temporary residence permit than for many people to have to compete financially for a privilege that others are simply entitled to.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Honestly your posts are staggeringly stupid. |
I don't appreciate this comment. The only reason I'm posting such a speculative idea is because I don't think it is fair that many people want to live someplace like LA, but less and less can afford to because the cost of living increases as natural resources become overtaxed and scarce. I think it would be far fairer for anyone who wants one to get a temporary residence permit than for many people to have to compete financially for a privilege that others are simply entitled to.
Edit to add:And how is this not an example of people exercising top-down control, which you claim to be so much against?
It is, but it is top-down power intended to check and balance another top-down power, namely that used by some people to secure the privilege of permanent residency in an area with population restrictions. People should always be free from top-down control, but for that to happen people have to resist exercising controlling power against others. If you're driving someone to move to another city by overpaying for scarce water, then shouldn't you eventually be required to move somewhere where water is less scarce to prevent inflation from usurping other people's economic freedom?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 21 2009, 02:46 PM)
Don't start painting me dictator by using words like "master plan." This is an idea expressed in an open democratic forum, not a fleet of tanks rolling into your neighborhood.
Oh, but you know you want to.
*facepalm*
That's not how mortgages work.
*facepalm*
That's not how mortgages work.
People who do not have a mortgage on their property could also trade properties with someone else or do a certain amount of farming on their property to get a land-attachment status to exempt them from having to relocate.
Here's that farming reference again. You really do enjoy communism don't you?
There is such a thing as a stupid idea. You are overflowing with them.
You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't require a solution. If you want to move to LA, educate yourself, get a better job, save up money and buy a house! See? Not that hard.
There is such a thing as a stupid idea. You are overflowing with them.
You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't require a solution. If you want to move to LA, educate yourself, get a better job, save up money and buy a house! See? Not that hard.
If you're driving someone to move to another city by overpaying for scarce water, then shouldn't you eventually be required to move somewhere where water is less scarce to prevent inflation from usurping other people's economic freedom?
No. No-one should be required to do anything like that. Economic freedom is the last thing on your mind. Economic freedom = fewer laws regulating the economy, not more.
It is, but it is top-down power intended to check and balance another top-down power, namely that used by some people to secure the privilege of permanent residency in an area with population restrictions.
I see. So youre ok with top down power, so long as youre the one in power.
Edit to add: If I own my property, its not a "privilege" to live there, its my right.
Oh, but you know you want to.
QUOTE
To answer your question, though, I would say that banks, which hold mortgages, may be able to be regulated to allow name exchanges on mortgages so that people can trade properties in different locations. This way you keep your privately owned mortgage (which is actually what you own, not the property itself) and relocate it to another property somewhere else.
*facepalm*
That's not how mortgages work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To answer your question, though, I would say that banks, which hold mortgages, may be able to be regulated to allow name exchanges on mortgages so that people can trade properties in different locations. This way you keep your privately owned mortgage (which is actually what you own, not the property itself) and relocate it to another property somewhere else. |
*facepalm*
That's not how mortgages work.
People who do not have a mortgage on their property could also trade properties with someone else or do a certain amount of farming on their property to get a land-attachment status to exempt them from having to relocate.
Here's that farming reference again. You really do enjoy communism don't you?
QUOTE
I don't appreciate this comment. The only reason I'm posting such a speculative idea is because I don't think it is fair that many people want to live someplace like LA, but less and less can afford to because the cost of living increases as natural resources become overtaxed and scarce. I think it would be far fairer for anyone who wants one to get a temporary residence permit than for many people to have to compete financially for a privilege that others are simply entitled to.
There is such a thing as a stupid idea. You are overflowing with them.
You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't require a solution. If you want to move to LA, educate yourself, get a better job, save up money and buy a house! See? Not that hard.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't appreciate this comment. The only reason I'm posting such a speculative idea is because I don't think it is fair that many people want to live someplace like LA, but less and less can afford to because the cost of living increases as natural resources become overtaxed and scarce. I think it would be far fairer for anyone who wants one to get a temporary residence permit than for many people to have to compete financially for a privilege that others are simply entitled to. |
There is such a thing as a stupid idea. You are overflowing with them.
You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't require a solution. If you want to move to LA, educate yourself, get a better job, save up money and buy a house! See? Not that hard.
If you're driving someone to move to another city by overpaying for scarce water, then shouldn't you eventually be required to move somewhere where water is less scarce to prevent inflation from usurping other people's economic freedom?
No. No-one should be required to do anything like that. Economic freedom is the last thing on your mind. Economic freedom = fewer laws regulating the economy, not more.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 21 2009, 07:46 PM)
It is, but it is top-down power intended to check and balance another top-down power, namely that used by some people to secure the privilege of permanent residency in an area with population restrictions.
I see. So youre ok with top down power, so long as youre the one in power.
Edit to add: If I own my property, its not a "privilege" to live there, its my right.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 21 2009, 02:50 AM)
On the macro level there is a difference between 1000/year and 1000000/year. At the individual level, each migration is a personal affair influenced by external factors such as economic opportunities, housing availability, and resource availability.
So you say at an individual level it makes no difference to the individual whether there are available resources at the new location or not?
That moving out west for example is the same independent of there being housing, food, and jobs available?
And when you say mortgage I think you mean title.
A mortgage is debt. A title is ownership.
And you can't eliminate unfairness. All you can do is spread it around and that creates more and more unfairness.
So you say at an individual level it makes no difference to the individual whether there are available resources at the new location or not?
That moving out west for example is the same independent of there being housing, food, and jobs available?
And when you say mortgage I think you mean title.
A mortgage is debt. A title is ownership.
And you can't eliminate unfairness. All you can do is spread it around and that creates more and more unfairness.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 21 2009, 07:53 PM)
Oh, but you know you want to.
No, I want democracy where rationality and reason are not ignored in individual decentralized decision-making. I am just trying to contribute to rationality and reason.
I just think it would be easier to modify current mortgages than create an entirely new system of property-ownership regulation.
I just think it would be easier to modify current mortgages than create an entirely new system of property-ownership regulation.
Here's that farming reference again. You really do enjoy communism don't you?
Farming only happens in communism? My impression is that free market republican capitalism developed with yeoman farming, in which individuals/families were responsible for producing most of what they consumed themselves. This system was gradually replaced by a macro-network of trading between slave-plantations and industrial factories. Both of those institutions reduce economic individualism. Marx viewed collective labor as sewing the seeds for communist collectivization of everything. I think a republic of free yeoman farmers would be better, and considering the current crisis in industrialism, it would be a lot greener too.
The only reason I gave it as an example of not having to move, though, is because someone who is used to farming a particular climate would have more trouble adjusting to a new climate than someone who just has a job and shops for things they consume.
What we were discussing was what would happen if potable water became a scarce resource. If that would happen, competition would ensue to reside in the area. People would exploit this competition in the distribution of all sorts of resources from residential property to jobs. Rather than allowing the free market to become a corrupt game of cashing in on an unattainable dream of living someplace where there is more demand than supply, it would be more reasonable to create a certain number of limited residence permits and allow no one to live in the area more than a certain period of time.
I'm not saying eliminate the free market. Just make it about producing real things, not about buying and selling limited access to resources in a market where demand is constantly exceeding supply.
What we were discussing was what would happen if potable water became a scarce resource. If that would happen, competition would ensue to reside in the area. People would exploit this competition in the distribution of all sorts of resources from residential property to jobs. Rather than allowing the free market to become a corrupt game of cashing in on an unattainable dream of living someplace where there is more demand than supply, it would be more reasonable to create a certain number of limited residence permits and allow no one to live in the area more than a certain period of time.
I'm not saying eliminate the free market. Just make it about producing real things, not about buying and selling limited access to resources in a market where demand is constantly exceeding supply.
No. No-one should be required to do anything like that. Economic freedom is the last thing on your mind. Economic freedom = fewer laws regulating the economy, not more.
Not true, feudalism including plantation slavery were both economic systems that thrived under economic lawlessness. Free market capitalism has specific foundations that must be guaranteed by laws if necessary in order for market behaviors to occur freely. Once actors and firms in a free market start to exercise certain kinds of power over others, it undermines market freedoms and allows for anti-competitive behaviors, (relative) monopolies, and oligopolistic collusion on price and other aspects of business.
No, I want democracy where rationality and reason are not ignored in individual decentralized decision-making. I am just trying to contribute to rationality and reason.
QUOTE
*facepalm*
That's not how mortgages work.
That's not how mortgages work.
I just think it would be easier to modify current mortgages than create an entirely new system of property-ownership regulation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| *facepalm* That's not how mortgages work. |
I just think it would be easier to modify current mortgages than create an entirely new system of property-ownership regulation.
Here's that farming reference again. You really do enjoy communism don't you?
Farming only happens in communism? My impression is that free market republican capitalism developed with yeoman farming, in which individuals/families were responsible for producing most of what they consumed themselves. This system was gradually replaced by a macro-network of trading between slave-plantations and industrial factories. Both of those institutions reduce economic individualism. Marx viewed collective labor as sewing the seeds for communist collectivization of everything. I think a republic of free yeoman farmers would be better, and considering the current crisis in industrialism, it would be a lot greener too.
The only reason I gave it as an example of not having to move, though, is because someone who is used to farming a particular climate would have more trouble adjusting to a new climate than someone who just has a job and shops for things they consume.
QUOTE
There is such a thing as a stupid idea. You are overflowing with them.
You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't require a solution. If you want to move to LA, educate yourself, get a better job, save up money and buy a house! See? Not that hard.
You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't require a solution. If you want to move to LA, educate yourself, get a better job, save up money and buy a house! See? Not that hard.
What we were discussing was what would happen if potable water became a scarce resource. If that would happen, competition would ensue to reside in the area. People would exploit this competition in the distribution of all sorts of resources from residential property to jobs. Rather than allowing the free market to become a corrupt game of cashing in on an unattainable dream of living someplace where there is more demand than supply, it would be more reasonable to create a certain number of limited residence permits and allow no one to live in the area more than a certain period of time.
I'm not saying eliminate the free market. Just make it about producing real things, not about buying and selling limited access to resources in a market where demand is constantly exceeding supply.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is such a thing as a stupid idea. You are overflowing with them. You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't require a solution. If you want to move to LA, educate yourself, get a better job, save up money and buy a house! See? Not that hard. |
What we were discussing was what would happen if potable water became a scarce resource. If that would happen, competition would ensue to reside in the area. People would exploit this competition in the distribution of all sorts of resources from residential property to jobs. Rather than allowing the free market to become a corrupt game of cashing in on an unattainable dream of living someplace where there is more demand than supply, it would be more reasonable to create a certain number of limited residence permits and allow no one to live in the area more than a certain period of time.
I'm not saying eliminate the free market. Just make it about producing real things, not about buying and selling limited access to resources in a market where demand is constantly exceeding supply.
No. No-one should be required to do anything like that. Economic freedom is the last thing on your mind. Economic freedom = fewer laws regulating the economy, not more.
Not true, feudalism including plantation slavery were both economic systems that thrived under economic lawlessness. Free market capitalism has specific foundations that must be guaranteed by laws if necessary in order for market behaviors to occur freely. Once actors and firms in a free market start to exercise certain kinds of power over others, it undermines market freedoms and allows for anti-competitive behaviors, (relative) monopolies, and oligopolistic collusion on price and other aspects of business.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 21 2009, 09:21 PM)
Edit to add: If I own my property, its not a "privilege" to live there, its my right.
Then how are banks able to foreclose on property? How are governments able to confiscate and auction off property with so many years of unpaid taxes? Is that their privilege or right?
Apparently property ownership is not as inalienable a right in the supposedly capitalist free market than some would like to believe.
Then how are banks able to foreclose on property? How are governments able to confiscate and auction off property with so many years of unpaid taxes? Is that their privilege or right?
Apparently property ownership is not as inalienable a right in the supposedly capitalist free market than some would like to believe.
QUOTE (buttershug+Dec 23 2009, 11:37 AM)
So you say at an individual level it makes no difference to the individual whether there are available resources at the new location or not?
That moving out west for example is the same independent of there being housing, food, and jobs available?
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that macro/micro is a distinction of perspective, not a substantive distinction. The same factors influencing individuals appear differently when rendered at macro or micro level.
Mortgages are registered in such a way that lenders can foreclose, which makes ownership contingent. Mortgaged property is "pretend" ownership. It's more like a form of renting where the tenant takes responsibility for the upkeep of the property and any profits or losses derived from the sale.
Mortgages are registered in such a way that lenders can foreclose, which makes ownership contingent. Mortgaged property is "pretend" ownership. It's more like a form of renting where the tenant takes responsibility for the upkeep of the property and any profits or losses derived from the sale.
And you can't eliminate unfairness. All you can do is spread it around and that creates more and more unfairness.
Interesting comment. Unfortunately, without applying it I can't evaluate whether I agree or not.
That moving out west for example is the same independent of there being housing, food, and jobs available?
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that macro/micro is a distinction of perspective, not a substantive distinction. The same factors influencing individuals appear differently when rendered at macro or micro level.
QUOTE
And when you say mortgage I think you mean title.
A mortgage is debt. A title is ownership.
A mortgage is debt. A title is ownership.
Mortgages are registered in such a way that lenders can foreclose, which makes ownership contingent. Mortgaged property is "pretend" ownership. It's more like a form of renting where the tenant takes responsibility for the upkeep of the property and any profits or losses derived from the sale.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And when you say mortgage I think you mean title. A mortgage is debt. A title is ownership. |
Mortgages are registered in such a way that lenders can foreclose, which makes ownership contingent. Mortgaged property is "pretend" ownership. It's more like a form of renting where the tenant takes responsibility for the upkeep of the property and any profits or losses derived from the sale.
And you can't eliminate unfairness. All you can do is spread it around and that creates more and more unfairness.
Interesting comment. Unfortunately, without applying it I can't evaluate whether I agree or not.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 08:45 AM)
No, I want democracy where rationality and reason are not ignored in individual decentralized decision-making. I am just trying to contribute to rationality and reason.
lol, yeah right.
Communism is about making all people equal. People are not equal. It is the job of our government to ensure that inequalities are not discriminated against, but total equality is a fairy tale.
Some want to farm, some want to write software. You can't make people do what they don't want to.
Communism is about making all people equal. People are not equal. It is the job of our government to ensure that inequalities are not discriminated against, but total equality is a fairy tale.
Some want to farm, some want to write software. You can't make people do what they don't want to.
What we were discussing was what would happen if potable water became a scarce resource. If that would happen, competition would ensue to reside in the area. People would exploit this competition in the distribution of all sorts of resources from residential property to jobs. Rather than allowing the free market to become a corrupt game of cashing in on an unattainable dream of living someplace where there is more demand than supply, it would be more reasonable to create a certain number of limited residence permits and allow no one to live in the area more than a certain period of time.
Your solution is inhumane and fascist. What else can be said?
You don't understand capitalism. Limited resources are an important part of the game.
You don't understand capitalism. Limited resources are an important part of the game.
Not true, feudalism including plantation slavery were both economic systems that thrived under economic lawlessness. Free market capitalism has specific foundations that must be guaranteed by laws if necessary in order for market behaviors to occur freely. Once actors and firms in a free market start to exercise certain kinds of power over others, it undermines market freedoms and allows for anti-competitive behaviors, (relative) monopolies, and oligopolistic collusion on price and other aspects of business.
Feudalism is not lawlessness. It is the law. Serve your lord or die. That's a law. That's exactly the kinds of laws that capitalism seeks to avoid. Capitalism is about excellence. The best corporations will win. The best people will find the best jobs. If you are the best at management in your company, someday you will be CEO. The government has laws governing monopolies, and sometimes they don't go far enough, but your foolish, anti-capitalist solutions are a step back towards feudalism.
lol, yeah right.
QUOTE
Farming only happens in communism? My impression is that free market republican capitalism developed with yeoman farming, in which individuals/families were responsible for producing most of what they consumed themselves. This system was gradually replaced by a macro-network of trading between slave-plantations and industrial factories. Both of those institutions reduce economic individualism. Marx viewed collective labor as sewing the seeds for communist collectivization of everything. I think a republic of free yeoman farmers would be better, and considering the current crisis in industrialism, it would be a lot greener too.
Communism is about making all people equal. People are not equal. It is the job of our government to ensure that inequalities are not discriminated against, but total equality is a fairy tale.
Some want to farm, some want to write software. You can't make people do what they don't want to.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Farming only happens in communism? My impression is that free market republican capitalism developed with yeoman farming, in which individuals/families were responsible for producing most of what they consumed themselves. This system was gradually replaced by a macro-network of trading between slave-plantations and industrial factories. Both of those institutions reduce economic individualism. Marx viewed collective labor as sewing the seeds for communist collectivization of everything. I think a republic of free yeoman farmers would be better, and considering the current crisis in industrialism, it would be a lot greener too. |
Communism is about making all people equal. People are not equal. It is the job of our government to ensure that inequalities are not discriminated against, but total equality is a fairy tale.
Some want to farm, some want to write software. You can't make people do what they don't want to.
What we were discussing was what would happen if potable water became a scarce resource. If that would happen, competition would ensue to reside in the area. People would exploit this competition in the distribution of all sorts of resources from residential property to jobs. Rather than allowing the free market to become a corrupt game of cashing in on an unattainable dream of living someplace where there is more demand than supply, it would be more reasonable to create a certain number of limited residence permits and allow no one to live in the area more than a certain period of time.
Your solution is inhumane and fascist. What else can be said?
QUOTE
I'm not saying eliminate the free market. Just make it about producing real things, not about buying and selling limited access to resources in a market where demand is constantly exceeding supply.
You don't understand capitalism. Limited resources are an important part of the game.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not saying eliminate the free market. Just make it about producing real things, not about buying and selling limited access to resources in a market where demand is constantly exceeding supply. |
You don't understand capitalism. Limited resources are an important part of the game.
Not true, feudalism including plantation slavery were both economic systems that thrived under economic lawlessness. Free market capitalism has specific foundations that must be guaranteed by laws if necessary in order for market behaviors to occur freely. Once actors and firms in a free market start to exercise certain kinds of power over others, it undermines market freedoms and allows for anti-competitive behaviors, (relative) monopolies, and oligopolistic collusion on price and other aspects of business.
Feudalism is not lawlessness. It is the law. Serve your lord or die. That's a law. That's exactly the kinds of laws that capitalism seeks to avoid. Capitalism is about excellence. The best corporations will win. The best people will find the best jobs. If you are the best at management in your company, someday you will be CEO. The government has laws governing monopolies, and sometimes they don't go far enough, but your foolish, anti-capitalist solutions are a step back towards feudalism.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 01:50 PM)
Then how are banks able to foreclose on property? How are governments able to confiscate and auction off property with so many years of unpaid taxes? Is that their privilege or right?
Apparently property ownership is not as inalienable a right in the supposedly capitalist free market than some would like to believe.
How are banks able to foreclose on property? Is that a serious question? This is exactly why you have no credibility. And this is why its a waste of time to engage you in a discussion.
Banks cant foreclose if I dont have a mortgage. Get it? If I own it, what does the bank have to do with it? Stupid. If you dont pay your taxes, yes you might loose your property--taxes are not voluntary.
But why didnt you mention eminent domain?
But the original response was to your comment about the "privilege of permanent residency".
And the entire discussion has taken place because of your absurdly naive alternative to desalination,
Honestly, what an incredibly stupid thing to say. Are you really so clueless that you have no knowledge of the history of human conflict centered around resources? Let them eat cake, isnt that right light in the tunnel?
Apparently property ownership is not as inalienable a right in the supposedly capitalist free market than some would like to believe.
How are banks able to foreclose on property? Is that a serious question? This is exactly why you have no credibility. And this is why its a waste of time to engage you in a discussion.
Banks cant foreclose if I dont have a mortgage. Get it? If I own it, what does the bank have to do with it? Stupid. If you dont pay your taxes, yes you might loose your property--taxes are not voluntary.
But why didnt you mention eminent domain?
But the original response was to your comment about the "privilege of permanent residency".
And the entire discussion has taken place because of your absurdly naive alternative to desalination,
QUOTE
What is the point of desalination of sea water anyway when you can move upstream and drink treated river water instead?
Honestly, what an incredibly stupid thing to say. Are you really so clueless that you have no knowledge of the history of human conflict centered around resources? Let them eat cake, isnt that right light in the tunnel?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 23 2009, 02:29 PM)
Communism is about making all people equal. People are not equal. It is the job of our government to ensure that inequalities are not discriminated against, but total equality is a fairy tale.
Some want to farm, some want to write software. You can't make people do what they don't want to.
There is a difference between equality and common ownership. Equality implies distribution. Communism prescribes distribution on the basis of need and labor on the basis of ability. People don't have to be equal to participate in communism, only dedicated. My main problem with communism is that people are rarely dedicated, and they tend to abuse the power of commonality to tell other people what to do.
Yeoman farming isn't about equality. It's about people being responsible for producing what they consume. You don't have to make people do what they don't want to. When the price of food is very high, they take up farming on their own.
What's inhumane is to drive up demand to live someplace and then allow people to exploit the desire of others to live there. And where did you get the idea to use the word, "fascist" here? Did you mean to use it meaningfully or did you just throw it in to sound dramatic?
What's inhumane is to drive up demand to live someplace and then allow people to exploit the desire of others to live there. And where did you get the idea to use the word, "fascist" here? Did you mean to use it meaningfully or did you just throw it in to sound dramatic?
You don't understand capitalism. Limited resources are an important part of the game.
Although many people treat it like a game, capitalism is not supposed to be a game. It is a system for rationing scarce resources and motivate people to save rather than consume resources so that they will be less scarce. Once people start recognizing and exploiting the ability to promote scarcity in order to create profit-markets where there is no need for them, capitalism becomes a caricature of the utilitarian system it was supposed to be.
In the sense that corporations act as individuals competing with each other, they are a valid expression of market freedom. The problem is that for a corporation (or plantation) to behave as an integrated individual, actual individual humans are limited in their economic freedom. So corporatism is not actually a free market institution, it is an instrument that limits and plans the economic activities of individuals in order to coordinate them without actual free market negotiations between them.
My point with feudalism was that inalienable rights and freedoms were not recognized. The lord is free to exercise whatever law or power against subordinates he chooses. That is not what is meant by "free market capitalism." Have you ever heard of Adam Smith?
Some want to farm, some want to write software. You can't make people do what they don't want to.
There is a difference between equality and common ownership. Equality implies distribution. Communism prescribes distribution on the basis of need and labor on the basis of ability. People don't have to be equal to participate in communism, only dedicated. My main problem with communism is that people are rarely dedicated, and they tend to abuse the power of commonality to tell other people what to do.
Yeoman farming isn't about equality. It's about people being responsible for producing what they consume. You don't have to make people do what they don't want to. When the price of food is very high, they take up farming on their own.
QUOTE
Your solution is inhumane and fascist. What else can be said?
What's inhumane is to drive up demand to live someplace and then allow people to exploit the desire of others to live there. And where did you get the idea to use the word, "fascist" here? Did you mean to use it meaningfully or did you just throw it in to sound dramatic?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your solution is inhumane and fascist. What else can be said? |
What's inhumane is to drive up demand to live someplace and then allow people to exploit the desire of others to live there. And where did you get the idea to use the word, "fascist" here? Did you mean to use it meaningfully or did you just throw it in to sound dramatic?
You don't understand capitalism. Limited resources are an important part of the game.
Although many people treat it like a game, capitalism is not supposed to be a game. It is a system for rationing scarce resources and motivate people to save rather than consume resources so that they will be less scarce. Once people start recognizing and exploiting the ability to promote scarcity in order to create profit-markets where there is no need for them, capitalism becomes a caricature of the utilitarian system it was supposed to be.
QUOTE
Feudalism is not lawlessness. It is the law. Serve your lord or die. That's a law. That's exactly the kinds of laws that capitalism seeks to avoid. Capitalism is about excellence. The best corporations will win. The best people will find the best jobs. If you are the best at management in your company, someday you will be CEO. The government has laws governing monopolies, and sometimes they don't go far enough, but your foolish, anti-capitalist solutions are a step back towards feudalism.
In the sense that corporations act as individuals competing with each other, they are a valid expression of market freedom. The problem is that for a corporation (or plantation) to behave as an integrated individual, actual individual humans are limited in their economic freedom. So corporatism is not actually a free market institution, it is an instrument that limits and plans the economic activities of individuals in order to coordinate them without actual free market negotiations between them.
My point with feudalism was that inalienable rights and freedoms were not recognized. The lord is free to exercise whatever law or power against subordinates he chooses. That is not what is meant by "free market capitalism." Have you ever heard of Adam Smith?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 10:03 AM)
There is a difference between equality and common ownership. Equality implies distribution. Communism prescribes distribution on the basis of need and labor on the basis of ability. People don't have to be equal to participate in communism, only dedicated. My main problem with communism is that people are rarely dedicated, and they tend to abuse the power of commonality to tell other people what to do.
So you like the idea of communism, but you don't like the implementation?
Where do you get off thinking that only farmers produce consumables? What worker does not play an important part of their industry? Farming is for farmers. Should we require you to work in a textile factory to produce what you consume? Idiocy.
Where do you get off thinking that only farmers produce consumables? What worker does not play an important part of their industry? Farming is for farmers. Should we require you to work in a textile factory to produce what you consume? Idiocy.
What's inhumane is to drive up demand to live someplace and then allow people to exploit the desire of others to live there. And where did you get the idea to use the word, "fascist" here? Did you mean to use it meaningfully or did you just throw it in to sound dramatic?
It's not inhumane, it's capitalism and real estate. I used fascist because you advocate requiring people to move out of an area because you think that they have lived there long enough. That is totalitarian and fascist. Fascism means unlimited government control and the enforced lack of criticism, which you would require to go through with such an idiotic plan without being thrown out of office.
Look up Game Theory. Capitalism is not a system for rationing resources. That is completely idiotic. Capitalism is a system for generating capital.
Look up Game Theory. Capitalism is not a system for rationing resources. That is completely idiotic. Capitalism is a system for generating capital.
In the sense that corporations act as individuals competing with each other, they are a valid expression of market freedom. The problem is that for a corporation (or plantation) to behave as an integrated individual, actual individual humans are limited in their economic freedom. So corporatism is not actually a free market institution, it is an instrument that limits and plans the economic activities of individuals in order to coordinate them without actual free market negotiations between them.
Whining.
In feudalism, the lord IS the law. There was really no lawmaking body that he had to follow.
Current economic law can be summed up by "Do whatever you want, but don't cheat."
So you like the idea of communism, but you don't like the implementation?
QUOTE
Yeoman farming isn't about equality. It's about people being responsible for producing what they consume. You don't have to make people do what they don't want to. When the price of food is very high, they take up farming on their own.
Where do you get off thinking that only farmers produce consumables? What worker does not play an important part of their industry? Farming is for farmers. Should we require you to work in a textile factory to produce what you consume? Idiocy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yeoman farming isn't about equality. It's about people being responsible for producing what they consume. You don't have to make people do what they don't want to. When the price of food is very high, they take up farming on their own. |
Where do you get off thinking that only farmers produce consumables? What worker does not play an important part of their industry? Farming is for farmers. Should we require you to work in a textile factory to produce what you consume? Idiocy.
What's inhumane is to drive up demand to live someplace and then allow people to exploit the desire of others to live there. And where did you get the idea to use the word, "fascist" here? Did you mean to use it meaningfully or did you just throw it in to sound dramatic?
It's not inhumane, it's capitalism and real estate. I used fascist because you advocate requiring people to move out of an area because you think that they have lived there long enough. That is totalitarian and fascist. Fascism means unlimited government control and the enforced lack of criticism, which you would require to go through with such an idiotic plan without being thrown out of office.
QUOTE
Although many people treat it like a game, capitalism is not supposed to be a game. It is a system for rationing scarce resources and motivate people to save rather than consume resources so that they will be less scarce. Once people start recognizing and exploiting the ability to promote scarcity in order to create profit-markets where there is no need for them, capitalism becomes a caricature of the utilitarian system it was supposed to be.
Look up Game Theory. Capitalism is not a system for rationing resources. That is completely idiotic. Capitalism is a system for generating capital.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Although many people treat it like a game, capitalism is not supposed to be a game. It is a system for rationing scarce resources and motivate people to save rather than consume resources so that they will be less scarce. Once people start recognizing and exploiting the ability to promote scarcity in order to create profit-markets where there is no need for them, capitalism becomes a caricature of the utilitarian system it was supposed to be. |
Look up Game Theory. Capitalism is not a system for rationing resources. That is completely idiotic. Capitalism is a system for generating capital.
In the sense that corporations act as individuals competing with each other, they are a valid expression of market freedom. The problem is that for a corporation (or plantation) to behave as an integrated individual, actual individual humans are limited in their economic freedom. So corporatism is not actually a free market institution, it is an instrument that limits and plans the economic activities of individuals in order to coordinate them without actual free market negotiations between them.
Whining.
QUOTE
My point with feudalism was that inalienable rights and freedoms were not recognized. The lord is free to exercise whatever law or power against subordinates he chooses. That is not what is meant by "free market capitalism."
In feudalism, the lord IS the law. There was really no lawmaking body that he had to follow.
Current economic law can be summed up by "Do whatever you want, but don't cheat."
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 08:45 AM)
The only reason I gave it as an example of not having to move, though, is because someone who is used to farming a particular climate would have more trouble adjusting to a new climate than someone who just has a job and shops for things they consume.
Many jobs are not interchangeable.
If I work for in Washington for Boeing designing aircraft, I'm not likely to find an equivalent job in Des Moines.
If I work In Redmond for Microsoft supporting Windows 7, I'm not likely to find an equivalent job in Madison.
If I work for Northrop in LA doing carbon fiber layups for Stealth Fighters, I'm not likely to find equivalent work in Texas
If I work in a Steel Mill in Detroit, I'm not likely to find equivalent work in Florida where there are no steel mills.
If I'm a coal miner in Appalachia I'm not likely to find equivalent work in Maine.
If I'm a Fisherman out of Gloucester it's gonna be hard to find equivalent work in Nebraska.
If I work in the Film industry in LA I'm gonna have a hard time finding work in Knoxville.
If I'm a Brain Surgeon in NYC I'm going to have a hard time practicing in Clifton, ID (pop 262).
etc etc etc
You're basic assumption, that humans and their jobs are interchangeable parts is ludicrous.
Arthur
Many jobs are not interchangeable.
If I work for in Washington for Boeing designing aircraft, I'm not likely to find an equivalent job in Des Moines.
If I work In Redmond for Microsoft supporting Windows 7, I'm not likely to find an equivalent job in Madison.
If I work for Northrop in LA doing carbon fiber layups for Stealth Fighters, I'm not likely to find equivalent work in Texas
If I work in a Steel Mill in Detroit, I'm not likely to find equivalent work in Florida where there are no steel mills.
If I'm a coal miner in Appalachia I'm not likely to find equivalent work in Maine.
If I'm a Fisherman out of Gloucester it's gonna be hard to find equivalent work in Nebraska.
If I work in the Film industry in LA I'm gonna have a hard time finding work in Knoxville.
If I'm a Brain Surgeon in NYC I'm going to have a hard time practicing in Clifton, ID (pop 262).
etc etc etc
You're basic assumption, that humans and their jobs are interchangeable parts is ludicrous.
Arthur
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 10:03 AM)
Yeoman farming isn't about equality. It's about people being responsible for producing what they consume. You don't have to make people do what they don't want to. When the price of food is very high, they take up farming on their own.
It would appear that you have NEVER been on a working farm.
NO, people "don't take up farming on their own"
A farm is HARD WORK that takes specialized SKILLS and a decent amount of EXPENSIVE land.
Few people, who aren't already farmers, make this move.
The 20th century was characterized by just the opposite with the majority of small farms being consolidated into large factory type farms with high degrees of mechanization.
The rapid urbanization of the world’s population over the twentieth century is described in the 2005 Revision of the UN World Urbanization Prospects report. The global proportion of urban population rose dramatically from 13% (220 million) in 1900, to 29% (732 million) in 1950, to 49% (3.2 billion) in 2005. The same report projected that the figure is likely to rise to 60% (4.9 billion) by 2030
Arthur
It would appear that you have NEVER been on a working farm.
NO, people "don't take up farming on their own"
A farm is HARD WORK that takes specialized SKILLS and a decent amount of EXPENSIVE land.
Few people, who aren't already farmers, make this move.
The 20th century was characterized by just the opposite with the majority of small farms being consolidated into large factory type farms with high degrees of mechanization.
The rapid urbanization of the world’s population over the twentieth century is described in the 2005 Revision of the UN World Urbanization Prospects report. The global proportion of urban population rose dramatically from 13% (220 million) in 1900, to 29% (732 million) in 1950, to 49% (3.2 billion) in 2005. The same report projected that the figure is likely to rise to 60% (4.9 billion) by 2030
Arthur
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 08:57 AM)
Mortgages are registered in such a way that lenders can foreclose, which makes ownership contingent.
A Mortgage is a contract with a committment to pay the mortgage holder at a certain rate for a certain period of time. It's only contingent on the mortgagee making the payments.
If the payments are made the mortgage holder CAN'T foreclose.
There is nothing pretend about it.
Arthur
A Mortgage is a contract with a committment to pay the mortgage holder at a certain rate for a certain period of time. It's only contingent on the mortgagee making the payments.
If the payments are made the mortgage holder CAN'T foreclose.
There is nothing pretend about it.
Arthur
You've all made important and valid points. If there's one thing you've got figured out, it's that specialization and division of labor limit many people's mobility and economic freedom.
I just think that the complexity that has grown out of industrialism has become too great of a burden to infrastructure. Eventually roads are going to get too wide, shipping networks too vast, supply-chains too long. People are already up in arms about fossil fuel prices and CO2 emissions.
Culture has to evolve in a different direction, imo. I disagree that it's going to be communism. For one, communism is rather taboo. For another things, contrary to what many people believe communism is not about reducing industrialism but rather increasing it. In communism, the various corporations merge into a single large ubercorporation and production volume of everything goes up in order to expand wealth and consumption as far as possible.
I think a yeoman farming type republic model is the most likely choice for becoming greener and less collectivist at the same time. Since it is an American tradition, there is less chance of ideological resistance than there is to communism which is associated with the east block.
I don't expect that all industrialism will disappear, but I think industrial production will become increasingly decentralized. More local industry and more on-site production-consumption will be the only way to get fossil-fuel use and CO2 output down to the levels necessary to avoid destroying the planet.
The only other option would be large-scale population reductions, which would be the most fascist and disturbing of all.
I just think that the complexity that has grown out of industrialism has become too great of a burden to infrastructure. Eventually roads are going to get too wide, shipping networks too vast, supply-chains too long. People are already up in arms about fossil fuel prices and CO2 emissions.
Culture has to evolve in a different direction, imo. I disagree that it's going to be communism. For one, communism is rather taboo. For another things, contrary to what many people believe communism is not about reducing industrialism but rather increasing it. In communism, the various corporations merge into a single large ubercorporation and production volume of everything goes up in order to expand wealth and consumption as far as possible.
I think a yeoman farming type republic model is the most likely choice for becoming greener and less collectivist at the same time. Since it is an American tradition, there is less chance of ideological resistance than there is to communism which is associated with the east block.
I don't expect that all industrialism will disappear, but I think industrial production will become increasingly decentralized. More local industry and more on-site production-consumption will be the only way to get fossil-fuel use and CO2 output down to the levels necessary to avoid destroying the planet.
The only other option would be large-scale population reductions, which would be the most fascist and disturbing of all.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 03:49 PM)
You've all made important and valid points. If there's one thing you've got figured out, it's that specialization and division of labor limit many people's mobility and economic freedom.
What kind of firepower does it take to get sense to penetrate your noggin?
Infrastructure is fine. Internal combustion vehicles will phase themselves out eventually.
Infrastructure is fine. Internal combustion vehicles will phase themselves out eventually.
Culture has to evolve in a different direction, imo. I disagree that it's going to be communism. For one, communism is rather taboo. For another things, contrary to what many people believe communism is not about reducing industrialism but rather increasing it. In communism, the various corporations merge into a single large ubercorporation and production volume of everything goes up in order to expand wealth and consumption as far as possible.
By ubercorporation, I hope you mean government. Communism is only taboo until someone overthrows the system and installs it. That's what happened in just about every communist country.
Again with the farming fetish. No. Not everybody wants to farm. I don't want to farm. Farmers know how to farm. Let them farm.
Again with the farming fetish. No. Not everybody wants to farm. I don't want to farm. Farmers know how to farm. Let them farm.
I don't expect that all industrialism will disappear, but I think industrial production will become increasingly decentralized. More local industry and more on-site production-consumption will be the only way to get fossil-fuel use and CO2 output down to the levels necessary to avoid destroying the planet.
You don't think that giving up efficiency will cost (financially and environmentally) just as much if not more than transportation? You trade one inefficiency for a worse one. Why is it that you rule out newer, more efficient modes of transportation? Oh yeah! That's right, you already made your conclusion, and you will now defend in the face of all logic and facts.
Another straw man argument. Population decline is a naturally occurring phenomenon in Post-Industrialist societies. The US, Japan, and most of Scandinavia have declining populations (when you subtract immigration). The countries that have increasing populations are countries like India and China, which aren't quite up to the level of industry and infrastructure that the aforementioned countries have.
What kind of firepower does it take to get sense to penetrate your noggin?
QUOTE
I just think that the complexity that has grown out of industrialism has become too great of a burden to infrastructure. Eventually roads are going to get too wide, shipping networks too vast, supply-chains too long. People are already up in arms about fossil fuel prices and CO2 emissions.
Infrastructure is fine. Internal combustion vehicles will phase themselves out eventually.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I just think that the complexity that has grown out of industrialism has become too great of a burden to infrastructure. Eventually roads are going to get too wide, shipping networks too vast, supply-chains too long. People are already up in arms about fossil fuel prices and CO2 emissions. |
Infrastructure is fine. Internal combustion vehicles will phase themselves out eventually.
Culture has to evolve in a different direction, imo. I disagree that it's going to be communism. For one, communism is rather taboo. For another things, contrary to what many people believe communism is not about reducing industrialism but rather increasing it. In communism, the various corporations merge into a single large ubercorporation and production volume of everything goes up in order to expand wealth and consumption as far as possible.
By ubercorporation, I hope you mean government. Communism is only taboo until someone overthrows the system and installs it. That's what happened in just about every communist country.
QUOTE
I think a yeoman farming type republic model is the most likely choice for becoming greener and less collectivist at the same time. Since it is an American tradition, there is less chance of ideological resistance than there is to communism which is associated with the east block.
Again with the farming fetish. No. Not everybody wants to farm. I don't want to farm. Farmers know how to farm. Let them farm.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think a yeoman farming type republic model is the most likely choice for becoming greener and less collectivist at the same time. Since it is an American tradition, there is less chance of ideological resistance than there is to communism which is associated with the east block. |
Again with the farming fetish. No. Not everybody wants to farm. I don't want to farm. Farmers know how to farm. Let them farm.
I don't expect that all industrialism will disappear, but I think industrial production will become increasingly decentralized. More local industry and more on-site production-consumption will be the only way to get fossil-fuel use and CO2 output down to the levels necessary to avoid destroying the planet.
You don't think that giving up efficiency will cost (financially and environmentally) just as much if not more than transportation? You trade one inefficiency for a worse one. Why is it that you rule out newer, more efficient modes of transportation? Oh yeah! That's right, you already made your conclusion, and you will now defend in the face of all logic and facts.
QUOTE
The only other option would be large-scale population reductions, which would be the most fascist and disturbing of all.
Another straw man argument. Population decline is a naturally occurring phenomenon in Post-Industrialist societies. The US, Japan, and most of Scandinavia have declining populations (when you subtract immigration). The countries that have increasing populations are countries like India and China, which aren't quite up to the level of industry and infrastructure that the aforementioned countries have.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 23 2009, 10:01 PM)
Infrastructure is fine. Internal combustion vehicles will phase themselves out eventually.
There are traffic problems and public desire to build new roads and widen existing ones. The general attitude, in my observation, is that people who drive don't want to switch to other forms of mobility. I guess the solution currently is to limit population growth, judging by the spike in anti-natal ideology, but I think more could be achieved by changing commuting and shipping routes and getting more narrow vehicles on the road.
The reason I fetishize farming is because it is the basic commodity that people can produce for themselves, which installs the ideology that people are independent producers instead of dependent consumers. Of course people can't become 100% independent overnight, if ever. But if fossil-fuel use and CO2 emissions is going to be reduced, it might as well be slowly phased out, imo. That way there will be much more room to grow population-wise.
The reason I fetishize farming is because it is the basic commodity that people can produce for themselves, which installs the ideology that people are independent producers instead of dependent consumers. Of course people can't become 100% independent overnight, if ever. But if fossil-fuel use and CO2 emissions is going to be reduced, it might as well be slowly phased out, imo. That way there will be much more room to grow population-wise.
You don't think that giving up efficiency will cost (financially and environmentally) just as much if not more than transportation? You trade one inefficiency for a worse one. Why is it that you rule out newer, more efficient modes of transportation? Oh yeah! That's right, you already made your conclusion, and you will now defend in the face of all logic and facts.
I'm not so sure efficiency is lost in local production. Certainly it's not in food-service. I have worked in food service and I waste much less food cooking at home. Farming may be a different story, but my sense is that industrial-scale farming is best suited to things like corn, wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, or whatever else can be harvested by large machinery. Other crops, which must be harvested by hand, can better be worked by local consumers. I don't care if people do it at home or at local self-serve farms, coordinated by professional farmers. All I care about is that you cut out the motorized transport between farm and consumer. Save fuel-combustion for where it's absolutely necessary, so it will last longer.
Right, and this is the whole issue. As people living in industrialized economies gain the ability to develop, there is a good chance that they are going to be looking at how people live in Post-Industrial economies for lifestyle ideas. If everyone has a car and drives to work 5 days a week, and then drives longer distances on weekends for recreation, and then takes a couple long distance flights a year for business and pleasure, this same lifestyle will be increasingly sought in developing economies.
If, on the other hand, post-industrialism becomes identified with lower-consumption, return to local production-consumption but in more technologically advanced ways, then people in the developing world will aspire to that instead. I'm not saying that people in developing economies are mindless followers, but the grass being greener is something that affects everyone who is upwardly mobile. As long as post-industrial westerners are living like kings of the oil fields, this is going to seem like something to pursue.
There are traffic problems and public desire to build new roads and widen existing ones. The general attitude, in my observation, is that people who drive don't want to switch to other forms of mobility. I guess the solution currently is to limit population growth, judging by the spike in anti-natal ideology, but I think more could be achieved by changing commuting and shipping routes and getting more narrow vehicles on the road.
QUOTE
Again with the farming fetish. No. Not everybody wants to farm. I don't want to farm. Farmers know how to farm. Let them farm.
The reason I fetishize farming is because it is the basic commodity that people can produce for themselves, which installs the ideology that people are independent producers instead of dependent consumers. Of course people can't become 100% independent overnight, if ever. But if fossil-fuel use and CO2 emissions is going to be reduced, it might as well be slowly phased out, imo. That way there will be much more room to grow population-wise.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again with the farming fetish. No. Not everybody wants to farm. I don't want to farm. Farmers know how to farm. Let them farm. |
The reason I fetishize farming is because it is the basic commodity that people can produce for themselves, which installs the ideology that people are independent producers instead of dependent consumers. Of course people can't become 100% independent overnight, if ever. But if fossil-fuel use and CO2 emissions is going to be reduced, it might as well be slowly phased out, imo. That way there will be much more room to grow population-wise.
You don't think that giving up efficiency will cost (financially and environmentally) just as much if not more than transportation? You trade one inefficiency for a worse one. Why is it that you rule out newer, more efficient modes of transportation? Oh yeah! That's right, you already made your conclusion, and you will now defend in the face of all logic and facts.
I'm not so sure efficiency is lost in local production. Certainly it's not in food-service. I have worked in food service and I waste much less food cooking at home. Farming may be a different story, but my sense is that industrial-scale farming is best suited to things like corn, wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, or whatever else can be harvested by large machinery. Other crops, which must be harvested by hand, can better be worked by local consumers. I don't care if people do it at home or at local self-serve farms, coordinated by professional farmers. All I care about is that you cut out the motorized transport between farm and consumer. Save fuel-combustion for where it's absolutely necessary, so it will last longer.
QUOTE
Another straw man argument. Population decline is a naturally occurring phenomenon in Post-Industrialist societies. The US, Japan, and most of Scandinavia have declining populations (when you subtract immigration). The countries that have increasing populations are countries like India and China, which aren't quite up to the level of industry and infrastructure that the aforementioned countries have.
Right, and this is the whole issue. As people living in industrialized economies gain the ability to develop, there is a good chance that they are going to be looking at how people live in Post-Industrial economies for lifestyle ideas. If everyone has a car and drives to work 5 days a week, and then drives longer distances on weekends for recreation, and then takes a couple long distance flights a year for business and pleasure, this same lifestyle will be increasingly sought in developing economies.
If, on the other hand, post-industrialism becomes identified with lower-consumption, return to local production-consumption but in more technologically advanced ways, then people in the developing world will aspire to that instead. I'm not saying that people in developing economies are mindless followers, but the grass being greener is something that affects everyone who is upwardly mobile. As long as post-industrial westerners are living like kings of the oil fields, this is going to seem like something to pursue.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 10:25 PM)
There are traffic problems and public desire to build new roads and widen existing ones. The general attitude, in my observation, is that people who drive don't want to switch to other forms of mobility. , but I think more could be achieved by changing commuting and shipping routes and getting more narrow vehicles on the road.
The reason I fetishize farming is because it is the basic commodity that people can produce for themselves, which installs the ideology that people are independent producers instead of dependent consumers. Of course people can't become 100% independent overnight, if ever. But if fossil-fuel use and CO2 emissions is going to be reduced, it might as well be slowly phased out, imo. That way there will be much more room to grow population-wise.
I'm not so sure efficiency is lost in local production. Certainly it's not in food-service. I have worked in food service and I waste much less food cooking at home. Farming may be a different story, but my sense is that industrial-scale farming is best suited to things like corn, wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, or whatever else can be harvested by large machinery. Other crops, which must be harvested by hand, can better be worked by local consumers. I don't care if people do it at home or at local self-serve farms, coordinated by professional farmers. All I care about is that you cut out the motorized transport between farm and consumer.
Right, and this is the whole issue. As people living in industrialized economies gain the ability to develop, there is a good chance that they are going to be looking at how people live in Post-Industrial economies for lifestyle ideas. If everyone has a car and drives to work 5 days a week, and then drives longer distances on weekends for recreation, and then takes a couple long distance flights a year for business and pleasure, this same lifestyle will be increasingly sought in developing economies.
If, on the other hand, post-industrialism becomes identified with lower-consumption, return to local production-consumption but in more technologically advanced ways, then people in the developing world will aspire to that instead. I'm not saying that people in developing economies are mindless followers, but the grass being greener is something that affects everyone who is upwardly mobile. As long as post-industrial westerners are living like kings of the oil fields, this is going to seem like something to pursue.
Ill just pick a random absurdity.
The reason I fetishize farming is because it is the basic commodity that people can produce for themselves, which installs the ideology that people are independent producers instead of dependent consumers. Of course people can't become 100% independent overnight, if ever. But if fossil-fuel use and CO2 emissions is going to be reduced, it might as well be slowly phased out, imo. That way there will be much more room to grow population-wise.
I'm not so sure efficiency is lost in local production. Certainly it's not in food-service. I have worked in food service and I waste much less food cooking at home. Farming may be a different story, but my sense is that industrial-scale farming is best suited to things like corn, wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, or whatever else can be harvested by large machinery. Other crops, which must be harvested by hand, can better be worked by local consumers. I don't care if people do it at home or at local self-serve farms, coordinated by professional farmers. All I care about is that you cut out the motorized transport between farm and consumer.
Right, and this is the whole issue. As people living in industrialized economies gain the ability to develop, there is a good chance that they are going to be looking at how people live in Post-Industrial economies for lifestyle ideas. If everyone has a car and drives to work 5 days a week, and then drives longer distances on weekends for recreation, and then takes a couple long distance flights a year for business and pleasure, this same lifestyle will be increasingly sought in developing economies.
If, on the other hand, post-industrialism becomes identified with lower-consumption, return to local production-consumption but in more technologically advanced ways, then people in the developing world will aspire to that instead. I'm not saying that people in developing economies are mindless followers, but the grass being greener is something that affects everyone who is upwardly mobile. As long as post-industrial westerners are living like kings of the oil fields, this is going to seem like something to pursue.
Ill just pick a random absurdity.
QUOTE
All I care about is that you cut out the motorized transport between farm and consumer.
So how is that going to work in a city like new york or chicago?
That's your favorite absurdity?
I thought the contention that we could avoid road widening by
had to be the most absurd thing I've read in long time.
LOL
LITT we widen roads because we add LANES to handle the increasing volume of traffic, not because of the width of the vehicles.
Arthur
I thought the contention that we could avoid road widening by
QUOTE
getting more narrow vehicles on the road.
had to be the most absurd thing I've read in long time.
LOL
LITT we widen roads because we add LANES to handle the increasing volume of traffic, not because of the width of the vehicles.
Arthur
I picked it randomly.
I almost picked that one- I guess he plans on narrower trucks too.
I also liked the idea of crops hand-picked by locals. F-ck the migrant laborers, isnt that right light in the tunnel?
I almost picked that one- I guess he plans on narrower trucks too.
I also liked the idea of crops hand-picked by locals. F-ck the migrant laborers, isnt that right light in the tunnel?
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 23 2009, 07:56 PM)
I guess he plans on narrower trucks too.
Brilliant. We can use sidewalks instead of roads to move all our freight.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 23 2009, 05:25 PM)
There are traffic problems and public desire to build new roads and widen existing ones. The general attitude, in my observation, is that people who drive don't want to switch to other forms of mobility. I guess the solution currently is to limit population growth, judging by the spike in anti-natal ideology, but I think more could be achieved by changing commuting and shipping routes and getting more narrow vehicles on the road.
If you build it, they will come.
Take that idea and apply it to public transportation. I take a train to work every day. The train is practically full almost every day. Want to take traffic off the road? Invest in Light Rail.
Do you fantasize about the tractor or the irrigation system?
Do you fantasize about the tractor or the irrigation system?
I'm not so sure efficiency is lost in local production. Certainly it's not in food-service. I have worked in food service and I waste much less food cooking at home. Farming may be a different story, but my sense is that industrial-scale farming is best suited to things like corn, wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, or whatever else can be harvested by large machinery. Other crops, which must be harvested by hand, can better be worked by local consumers. I don't care if people do it at home or at local self-serve farms, coordinated by professional farmers. All I care about is that you cut out the motorized transport between farm and consumer. Save fuel-combustion for where it's absolutely necessary, so it will last longer.
You have again ruled out electric vehicles entirely. Do you really think that people would rather take up farming than buy an electric vehicle?
Again, you fail at economics. If everyone wants something rare, it becomes more expensive, and people will usually find something else that they want. When the price of gas goes up, people will drive less. Cause and effect.
Don't take it from me, ask anyone. You are ridiculously foolish.
If you build it, they will come.
Take that idea and apply it to public transportation. I take a train to work every day. The train is practically full almost every day. Want to take traffic off the road? Invest in Light Rail.
QUOTE
The reason I fetishize farming is because it is blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah (blah blah blah). Blah, blah blah blah, blah.
Do you fantasize about the tractor or the irrigation system?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The reason I fetishize farming is because it is blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah (blah blah blah). Blah, blah blah blah, blah. |
Do you fantasize about the tractor or the irrigation system?
I'm not so sure efficiency is lost in local production. Certainly it's not in food-service. I have worked in food service and I waste much less food cooking at home. Farming may be a different story, but my sense is that industrial-scale farming is best suited to things like corn, wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, or whatever else can be harvested by large machinery. Other crops, which must be harvested by hand, can better be worked by local consumers. I don't care if people do it at home or at local self-serve farms, coordinated by professional farmers. All I care about is that you cut out the motorized transport between farm and consumer. Save fuel-combustion for where it's absolutely necessary, so it will last longer.
You have again ruled out electric vehicles entirely. Do you really think that people would rather take up farming than buy an electric vehicle?
QUOTE
Right, and this is the whole issue. As people living in industrialized economies gain the ability to develop, there is a good chance that they are going to be looking at how people live in Post-Industrial economies for lifestyle ideas. If everyone has a car and drives to work 5 days a week, and then drives longer distances on weekends for recreation, and then takes a couple long distance flights a year for business and pleasure, this same lifestyle will be increasingly sought in developing economies.
Again, you fail at economics. If everyone wants something rare, it becomes more expensive, and people will usually find something else that they want. When the price of gas goes up, people will drive less. Cause and effect.
Don't take it from me, ask anyone. You are ridiculously foolish.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 24 2009, 12:04 AM)
Ill just pick a random absurdity.
So how is that going to work in a city like new york or chicago?
Either such cities will become elite classes that can afford exponentially higher food prices, or they will de-densify to the point that roof gardens and other compartmentalized gardening is sufficient to provide for the fresh vegetable demand of urban residents.
What's your solution? Let everything keep growing the way it is and just pray for a massive peaceful cultural change when more intense scarcity hits?
So how is that going to work in a city like new york or chicago?
Either such cities will become elite classes that can afford exponentially higher food prices, or they will de-densify to the point that roof gardens and other compartmentalized gardening is sufficient to provide for the fresh vegetable demand of urban residents.
What's your solution? Let everything keep growing the way it is and just pray for a massive peaceful cultural change when more intense scarcity hits?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 03:08 PM)
Either such cities will become elite classes that can afford exponentially higher food prices, or they will de-densify to the point that roof gardens and other compartmentalized gardening is sufficient to provide for the fresh vegetable demand of urban residents.
Which isn't going to happen.
Thanks to economics, those kinds of problems fix themselves. Your solutions violate the US constitution, so I would say that they probably won't happen.
Which isn't going to happen.
QUOTE
What's your solution? Let everything keep growing the way it is and just pray for a massive peaceful cultural change when more intense scarcity hits?
Thanks to economics, those kinds of problems fix themselves. Your solutions violate the US constitution, so I would say that they probably won't happen.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 24 2009, 12:56 AM)
I picked it randomly.
I almost picked that one- I guess he plans on narrower trucks too.
Narrow vehicles fit 2 side by side in a lane big enough for one car or truck. Obviously not everyone will switch to narrow-vehicles at once, but the more narrow-vehicles on the road, the less congestion occurs with the same amount of commuters. That's just one part of the solution anyway. Logistical changes in the proximity of home, work, and shopping are necessary to reduce the average distance and frequency of motorized travel.
Narrower trucks are possible for some things but wide and large trucks will continue to be necessary for larger items and loads.
Oh, so now using migrant workers as modern slaves is benevolence? Maybe you can become the patron saint of migrant labor and we can all pat ourselves on the back for giving our money to charitable growers who help the poor migrant laborers by giving them work.
I love the modern job-creation ethic. People can pay for any service because they're lazy and convince themselves that they're doing a good thing by creating more jobs and solving the tragic unemployment problems. I suppose you're also one of the people who intentionally litters to give someone a job as street sweeper? While you're at it, maybe you should refuse to wipe your own butt because you could give someone a job as a butt-wiper.
I almost picked that one- I guess he plans on narrower trucks too.
Narrow vehicles fit 2 side by side in a lane big enough for one car or truck. Obviously not everyone will switch to narrow-vehicles at once, but the more narrow-vehicles on the road, the less congestion occurs with the same amount of commuters. That's just one part of the solution anyway. Logistical changes in the proximity of home, work, and shopping are necessary to reduce the average distance and frequency of motorized travel.
Narrower trucks are possible for some things but wide and large trucks will continue to be necessary for larger items and loads.
QUOTE
I also liked the idea of crops hand-picked by locals. F-ck the migrant laborers, isnt that right light in the tunnel?
Oh, so now using migrant workers as modern slaves is benevolence? Maybe you can become the patron saint of migrant labor and we can all pat ourselves on the back for giving our money to charitable growers who help the poor migrant laborers by giving them work.
I love the modern job-creation ethic. People can pay for any service because they're lazy and convince themselves that they're doing a good thing by creating more jobs and solving the tragic unemployment problems. I suppose you're also one of the people who intentionally litters to give someone a job as street sweeper? While you're at it, maybe you should refuse to wipe your own butt because you could give someone a job as a butt-wiper.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 03:20 PM)
Narrow vehicles fit 2 side by side in a lane big enough for one car or truck. Obviously not everyone will switch to narrow-vehicles at once, but the more narrow-vehicles on the road, the less congestion occurs with the same amount of commuters. That's just one part of the solution anyway. Logistical changes in the proximity of home, work, and shopping are necessary to reduce the average distance and frequency of motorized travel.
Narrower trucks are possible for some things but wide and large trucks will continue to be necessary for larger items and loads.
Consider this my vote for stupidest LITT idea ever.
Migrant laborers can fall into two groups, people who can get other jobs but don't want to, and people who can't get other jobs.
People who fit the first case are rare, but that lifestyle is their choice.
People who fit the second case are probably immigrants, illegal or not. Working as a migrant laborer is almost always a step up from what they were used to. So: not slaves. There are much more unfair systems to criticize.
Migrant laborers can fall into two groups, people who can get other jobs but don't want to, and people who can't get other jobs.
People who fit the first case are rare, but that lifestyle is their choice.
People who fit the second case are probably immigrants, illegal or not. Working as a migrant laborer is almost always a step up from what they were used to. So: not slaves. There are much more unfair systems to criticize.
I love the modern job-creation ethic. People can pay for any service because they're lazy and convince themselves that they're doing a good thing by creating more jobs and solving the tragic unemployment problems. I suppose you're also one of the people who intentionally litters to give someone a job as street sweeper? While you're at it, maybe you should refuse to wipe your own butt because you could give someone a job as a butt-wiper.
If you're willing to pay for it, and someone is willing to do it for money, what is the problem? That's a simple business transaction. Your problem with that is nothing but moral masturbation. The cases where this kind of business goes wrong is where the employer takes steps that violate their worker's civil rights. Examples of this would include employing underage workers and failing to maintain a safe workplace among other things.
Narrower trucks are possible for some things but wide and large trucks will continue to be necessary for larger items and loads.
Consider this my vote for stupidest LITT idea ever.
QUOTE
Oh, so now using migrant workers as modern slaves is benevolence? Maybe you can become the patron saint of migrant labor and we can all pat ourselves on the back for giving our money to charitable growers who help the poor migrant laborers by giving them work.
Migrant laborers can fall into two groups, people who can get other jobs but don't want to, and people who can't get other jobs.
People who fit the first case are rare, but that lifestyle is their choice.
People who fit the second case are probably immigrants, illegal or not. Working as a migrant laborer is almost always a step up from what they were used to. So: not slaves. There are much more unfair systems to criticize.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh, so now using migrant workers as modern slaves is benevolence? Maybe you can become the patron saint of migrant labor and we can all pat ourselves on the back for giving our money to charitable growers who help the poor migrant laborers by giving them work. |
Migrant laborers can fall into two groups, people who can get other jobs but don't want to, and people who can't get other jobs.
People who fit the first case are rare, but that lifestyle is their choice.
People who fit the second case are probably immigrants, illegal or not. Working as a migrant laborer is almost always a step up from what they were used to. So: not slaves. There are much more unfair systems to criticize.
I love the modern job-creation ethic. People can pay for any service because they're lazy and convince themselves that they're doing a good thing by creating more jobs and solving the tragic unemployment problems. I suppose you're also one of the people who intentionally litters to give someone a job as street sweeper? While you're at it, maybe you should refuse to wipe your own butt because you could give someone a job as a butt-wiper.
If you're willing to pay for it, and someone is willing to do it for money, what is the problem? That's a simple business transaction. Your problem with that is nothing but moral masturbation. The cases where this kind of business goes wrong is where the employer takes steps that violate their worker's civil rights. Examples of this would include employing underage workers and failing to maintain a safe workplace among other things.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 08:20 PM)
While you're at it, maybe you should refuse to wipe your own butt because you could give someone a job as a butt-wiper.
That position is available, but the pay is crap.
That position is available, but the pay is crap.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 24 2009, 03:55 PM)
That position is available, but the pay is crap.
Well said.
Well said.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 24 2009, 08:18 PM)
Which isn't going to happen.
Thanks to economics, those kinds of problems fix themselves. Your solutions violate the US constitution, so I would say that they probably won't happen.
I don't know why nay-sayers like you find it necessary to assert that change is implausible. OBVIOUSLY it's implausible because the only things that are plausible are things that are recognizably reminiscent of things that have already taken place.
What I don't understand is how so many people go on and on about global warming and then when someone proposes cultural changes that would actually reduce CO2 emissions, you react against it. What, do you just want to increase taxes on an inevitable system of fossil-fuel consumption so that you can cash in the the revenues generated? I assume so, otherwise you would respond with your own CO2-reducing cultural prospects.
I never said anything about violating the US constitution or any other laws. Ultimately, for any solution to work it has to be recognized as reasonable by the people who implement it. Once people recognize that something is reasonable, they don't usually mind acting on it voluntarily. It's when they are convinced that they are being manipulated into doing something against their own interest that they resist. That's the whole reason for maintaining freedom and democracy above all. It's the only guarantee that reason is voluntary instead of imposed.
I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm just explaining what I think are rational and reasonable approaches that people should CHOOSE to implement. I know there's a good chance they won't but then at least I can say I tried. Later when everything is going to hell, people are going to be complaining and looking for blame, like they did after the 9/11 attacks and after the credit meltdown. Both events were foreseeable and probably preventable, but the preventative measures would have been unpopular, so terrorism and financial crisis continue, just as fossil-fuel abuse will until the next big oil crisis, and then people will start talking about solutions again for a while.
Thanks to economics, those kinds of problems fix themselves. Your solutions violate the US constitution, so I would say that they probably won't happen.
I don't know why nay-sayers like you find it necessary to assert that change is implausible. OBVIOUSLY it's implausible because the only things that are plausible are things that are recognizably reminiscent of things that have already taken place.
What I don't understand is how so many people go on and on about global warming and then when someone proposes cultural changes that would actually reduce CO2 emissions, you react against it. What, do you just want to increase taxes on an inevitable system of fossil-fuel consumption so that you can cash in the the revenues generated? I assume so, otherwise you would respond with your own CO2-reducing cultural prospects.
I never said anything about violating the US constitution or any other laws. Ultimately, for any solution to work it has to be recognized as reasonable by the people who implement it. Once people recognize that something is reasonable, they don't usually mind acting on it voluntarily. It's when they are convinced that they are being manipulated into doing something against their own interest that they resist. That's the whole reason for maintaining freedom and democracy above all. It's the only guarantee that reason is voluntary instead of imposed.
I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm just explaining what I think are rational and reasonable approaches that people should CHOOSE to implement. I know there's a good chance they won't but then at least I can say I tried. Later when everything is going to hell, people are going to be complaining and looking for blame, like they did after the 9/11 attacks and after the credit meltdown. Both events were foreseeable and probably preventable, but the preventative measures would have been unpopular, so terrorism and financial crisis continue, just as fossil-fuel abuse will until the next big oil crisis, and then people will start talking about solutions again for a while.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 04:12 PM)
I don't know why nay-sayers like you find it necessary to assert that change is implausible. OBVIOUSLY it's implausible because the only things that are plausible are things that are recognizably reminiscent of things that have already taken place.
I said it's implausible because it violates the US Constitution. You don't seem to have a problem with this.
You can't legislate a cultural change. On what planet do you think that is possible?
You can't legislate a cultural change. On what planet do you think that is possible?
I never said anything about violating the US constitution or any other laws. Ultimately, for any solution to work it has to be recognized as reasonable by the people who implement it. Once people recognize that something is reasonable, they don't usually mind acting on it voluntarily. It's when they are convinced that they are being manipulated into doing something against their own interest that they resist. That's the whole reason for maintaining freedom and democracy above all. It's the only guarantee that reason is voluntary instead of imposed.
The problem is that your solutions aren't reasonable. They are idiotic and they demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge and experience on your part.
It's not really a problem if it won't resolve itself. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't search for solutions, but those solutions will work best if they work from within the capitalist system. If you build an affordable electric car, not only will you get rich, but the oil crisis will be resolved. See? Easy.
What I don't understand is how so many people go on and on about global warming and then when someone proposes cultural changes that would actually reduce CO2 emissions, you react against it.
Because your suggestions have deep consequences for how people live their lives.
I said it's implausible because it violates the US Constitution. You don't seem to have a problem with this.
QUOTE
What I don't understand is how so many people go on and on about global warming and then when someone proposes cultural changes that would actually reduce CO2 emissions, you react against it. What, do you just want to increase taxes on an inevitable system of fossil-fuel consumption so that you can cash in the the revenues generated? I assume so, otherwise you would respond with your own CO2-reducing cultural prospects.
You can't legislate a cultural change. On what planet do you think that is possible?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What I don't understand is how so many people go on and on about global warming and then when someone proposes cultural changes that would actually reduce CO2 emissions, you react against it. What, do you just want to increase taxes on an inevitable system of fossil-fuel consumption so that you can cash in the the revenues generated? I assume so, otherwise you would respond with your own CO2-reducing cultural prospects. |
You can't legislate a cultural change. On what planet do you think that is possible?
I never said anything about violating the US constitution or any other laws. Ultimately, for any solution to work it has to be recognized as reasonable by the people who implement it. Once people recognize that something is reasonable, they don't usually mind acting on it voluntarily. It's when they are convinced that they are being manipulated into doing something against their own interest that they resist. That's the whole reason for maintaining freedom and democracy above all. It's the only guarantee that reason is voluntary instead of imposed.
The problem is that your solutions aren't reasonable. They are idiotic and they demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge and experience on your part.
QUOTE
I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm just explaining what I think are rational and reasonable approaches that people should CHOOSE to implement. I know there's a good chance they won't but then at least I can say I tried. Later when everything is going to hell, people are going to be complaining and looking for blame, like they did after the 9/11 attacks and after the credit meltdown. Both events were foreseeable and probably preventable, but the preventative measures would have been unpopular, so terrorism and financial crisis continue, just as fossil-fuel abuse will until the next big oil crisis, and then people will start talking about solutions again for a while.
It's not really a problem if it won't resolve itself. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't search for solutions, but those solutions will work best if they work from within the capitalist system. If you build an affordable electric car, not only will you get rich, but the oil crisis will be resolved. See? Easy.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 03:20 PM)
Narrow vehicles fit 2 side by side in a lane big enough for one car or truck. Obviously not everyone will switch to narrow-vehicles at once, but the more narrow-vehicles on the road, the less congestion occurs with the same amount of commuters.
Narrower trucks are possible for some things but wide and large trucks will continue to be necessary for larger items and loads.
LLIT, there are virtually no narrow vehicles on the road that would support two of them running side by side in the width of one lane.
Thus why would one make these changes when there is NO DEMAND for them?
Even if you made them, and restricted their use to narrow vehicles to encourage the adoption of narrow vehicles, the immediate effect would be to take a lane out of service.
And it would stay out of service for a LONG time. (like forever)
Good going ACE.
As to the vehicles, lane widths range from 10 ft to 12 ft, but even if we only limited your change to 12 ft with lanes, allowing a minimum of 1.5 ft on either side of the vehicle, that limits the width of your narrow vehicle to 3 ft.
Or essentially about the width of a motorcycle.
Got any prototypes for an enclosed vehicle that is that narrow?
And SAFE?
Because you would be mixing these lightweight vehicles on the road with all the heavy trucks and SUVs that are already in service.
And NO, a truck this width will not be useful for anything.
Your problem is you are somehow convinced that there is a shortage of ENERGY.
There is no shortage of energy on the planet, even if we were to phase out 80% of fossil fuel use over this century.
When you add up the energy available to us via direct Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Nuclear, Biofuels and Hydro and then supplant it with about 20% fossil fuel use where the alternatives are not viable (Ships, aviation fuel or back up generators at hospitals might be examples) there is no shortage of energy.
So far all your solutions are based on curtailing modern life to go back to roughly an 1800s style existence.
Good luck recruiting followers on your noble path to self sufficiency.
Arthur
Narrower trucks are possible for some things but wide and large trucks will continue to be necessary for larger items and loads.
LLIT, there are virtually no narrow vehicles on the road that would support two of them running side by side in the width of one lane.
Thus why would one make these changes when there is NO DEMAND for them?
Even if you made them, and restricted their use to narrow vehicles to encourage the adoption of narrow vehicles, the immediate effect would be to take a lane out of service.
And it would stay out of service for a LONG time. (like forever)
Good going ACE.
As to the vehicles, lane widths range from 10 ft to 12 ft, but even if we only limited your change to 12 ft with lanes, allowing a minimum of 1.5 ft on either side of the vehicle, that limits the width of your narrow vehicle to 3 ft.
Or essentially about the width of a motorcycle.
Got any prototypes for an enclosed vehicle that is that narrow?
And SAFE?
Because you would be mixing these lightweight vehicles on the road with all the heavy trucks and SUVs that are already in service.
And NO, a truck this width will not be useful for anything.
QUOTE
That's just one part of the solution anyway. Logistical changes in the proximity of home, work, and shopping are necessary to reduce the average distance and frequency of motorized travel.
Your problem is you are somehow convinced that there is a shortage of ENERGY.
There is no shortage of energy on the planet, even if we were to phase out 80% of fossil fuel use over this century.
When you add up the energy available to us via direct Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Nuclear, Biofuels and Hydro and then supplant it with about 20% fossil fuel use where the alternatives are not viable (Ships, aviation fuel or back up generators at hospitals might be examples) there is no shortage of energy.
So far all your solutions are based on curtailing modern life to go back to roughly an 1800s style existence.
Good luck recruiting followers on your noble path to self sufficiency.
Arthur
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 24 2009, 08:34 PM)
Consider this my vote for stupidest LITT idea ever.
Migrant laborers can fall into two groups, people who can get other jobs but don't want to, and people who can't get other jobs.
People who fit the first case are rare, but that lifestyle is their choice.
People who fit the second case are probably immigrants, illegal or not. Working as a migrant laborer is almost always a step up from what they were used to. So: not slaves. There are much more unfair systems to criticize.
If you're willing to pay for it, and someone is willing to do it for money, what is the problem? That's a simple business transaction. Your problem with that is nothing but moral masturbation. The cases where this kind of business goes wrong is where the employer takes steps that violate their worker's civil rights. Examples of this would include employing underage workers and failing to maintain a safe workplace among other things.
If you were an anthropologist, you might be able to look at existing economic conditions and markets and see a relatively arbitrary set of institutions that have evolved at a certain juncture. Instead, you look at economics as a structural-functionalist who thinks that every detail plays a supportive role in an optimal overall system. I find your way of looking at economics oppressively anti-dynamic. When there are problems, people who think like you are basically impotent to come up with interventions because you think that moving anything will mess up everything else.
If people would just become independent enough to feed and house, and possibly clothe themselves, all other jobs would become basically redundant. No one would be dependent on jobs or someone else doing a job for them; at least not as desperately as they are now. For this reason it doesn't matter if unemployment goes up or down, or who does which job. Ultimately the economy is so far beyond providing for basic necessities that there could be 50% unemployment and the only reason there would be scarcity is because the productive industrialists wouldn't want to sell products to unemployed people. The production capacity of those products wouldn't be diminished.
This is thanks to the industrial efficiency that has developed through technological and other innovations. It creates an enormous amount of leeway in what can be done with all the surplus labor that was made redundant through mass-production and automation. Unfortunately a culture industry and a service industry had evolved out of that surplus that makes it appear as if slight changes in GDP or unemployment are a real threat to economic well-being. They are not. It's a financial-market illusion. But because many people cannot separate the health of the financial markets from the health of the economy of the material bases for living, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care, it seems as if slight financial market changes are going to cause shortages and industrial collapse.
Migrant laborers can fall into two groups, people who can get other jobs but don't want to, and people who can't get other jobs.
People who fit the first case are rare, but that lifestyle is their choice.
People who fit the second case are probably immigrants, illegal or not. Working as a migrant laborer is almost always a step up from what they were used to. So: not slaves. There are much more unfair systems to criticize.
If you're willing to pay for it, and someone is willing to do it for money, what is the problem? That's a simple business transaction. Your problem with that is nothing but moral masturbation. The cases where this kind of business goes wrong is where the employer takes steps that violate their worker's civil rights. Examples of this would include employing underage workers and failing to maintain a safe workplace among other things.
If you were an anthropologist, you might be able to look at existing economic conditions and markets and see a relatively arbitrary set of institutions that have evolved at a certain juncture. Instead, you look at economics as a structural-functionalist who thinks that every detail plays a supportive role in an optimal overall system. I find your way of looking at economics oppressively anti-dynamic. When there are problems, people who think like you are basically impotent to come up with interventions because you think that moving anything will mess up everything else.
If people would just become independent enough to feed and house, and possibly clothe themselves, all other jobs would become basically redundant. No one would be dependent on jobs or someone else doing a job for them; at least not as desperately as they are now. For this reason it doesn't matter if unemployment goes up or down, or who does which job. Ultimately the economy is so far beyond providing for basic necessities that there could be 50% unemployment and the only reason there would be scarcity is because the productive industrialists wouldn't want to sell products to unemployed people. The production capacity of those products wouldn't be diminished.
This is thanks to the industrial efficiency that has developed through technological and other innovations. It creates an enormous amount of leeway in what can be done with all the surplus labor that was made redundant through mass-production and automation. Unfortunately a culture industry and a service industry had evolved out of that surplus that makes it appear as if slight changes in GDP or unemployment are a real threat to economic well-being. They are not. It's a financial-market illusion. But because many people cannot separate the health of the financial markets from the health of the economy of the material bases for living, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care, it seems as if slight financial market changes are going to cause shortages and industrial collapse.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 09:12 PM)
What I don't understand is how so many people go on and on about global warming and then when someone proposes cultural changes that would actually reduce CO2 emissions, you react against it.
Because your suggestions have deep consequences for how people live their lives.
QUOTE
I never said anything about violating the US constitution or any other laws. Ultimately, for any solution to work it has to be recognized as reasonable by the people who implement it. Once people recognize that something is reasonable, they don't usually mind acting on it voluntarily.
Very true. Except a lot of your ideas would seem to need some type of top-down big brother oppressive overseer to make them work. Mandatory relocation? And you think people might be ok with that? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I never said anything about violating the US constitution or any other laws. Ultimately, for any solution to work it has to be recognized as reasonable by the people who implement it. Once people recognize that something is reasonable, they don't usually mind acting on it voluntarily. |
Very true. Except a lot of your ideas would seem to need some type of top-down big brother oppressive overseer to make them work. Mandatory relocation? And you think people might be ok with that?
I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm just explaining what I think are rational and reasonable approaches that people should CHOOSE to implement.
Well, I think your ideas are unreasonable. I also think some of them are stupid. And a few of them make me laugh out loud. So thanks for the funny ones.
Its Chrismas Eve, Im trying to show some compassion.
I'm not trying to impose anything. I'm just explaining what I think are rational and reasonable approaches that people should CHOOSE to implement.
Well, I think your ideas are unreasonable. I also think some of them are stupid. And a few of them make me laugh out loud. So thanks for the funny ones.
Its Chrismas Eve, Im trying to show some compassion.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 04:30 PM)
If you were an anthropologist, you might be able to look at existing economic conditions and markets and see a relatively arbitrary set of institutions that have evolved at a certain juncture. Instead, you look at economics as a structural-functionalist who thinks that every detail plays a supportive role in an optimal overall system. I find your way of looking at economics oppressively anti-dynamic. When there are problems, people who think like you are basically impotent to come up with interventions because you think that moving anything will mess up everything else.
If you start rearranging structural supports within a house, it will collapse. It's that simple.
Here is another demonstration of your profound ignorance of economics. I don't even know where to start.
Here is another demonstration of your profound ignorance of economics. I don't even know where to start.
Unfortunately a culture industry and a service industry had evolved out of that surplus that makes it appear as if slight changes in GDP or unemployment are a real threat to economic well-being. They are not. It's a financial-market illusion. But because many people cannot separate the health of the financial markets from the health of the economy of the material bases for living, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care, it seems as if slight financial market changes are going to cause shortages and industrial collapse.
Hey idiot, that sounds a lot like what you've been saying.
If you start rearranging structural supports within a house, it will collapse. It's that simple.
QUOTE
If people would just become independent enough to feed and house, and possibly clothe themselves, all other jobs would become basically redundant. No one would be dependent on jobs or someone else doing a job for them; at least not as desperately as they are now. For this reason it doesn't matter if unemployment goes up or down, or who does which job. Ultimately the economy is so far beyond providing for basic necessities that there could be 50% unemployment and the only reason there would be scarcity is because the productive industrialists wouldn't want to sell products to unemployed people. The production capacity of those products wouldn't be diminished.
Here is another demonstration of your profound ignorance of economics. I don't even know where to start.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If people would just become independent enough to feed and house, and possibly clothe themselves, all other jobs would become basically redundant. No one would be dependent on jobs or someone else doing a job for them; at least not as desperately as they are now. For this reason it doesn't matter if unemployment goes up or down, or who does which job. Ultimately the economy is so far beyond providing for basic necessities that there could be 50% unemployment and the only reason there would be scarcity is because the productive industrialists wouldn't want to sell products to unemployed people. The production capacity of those products wouldn't be diminished. |
Here is another demonstration of your profound ignorance of economics. I don't even know where to start.
Unfortunately a culture industry and a service industry had evolved out of that surplus that makes it appear as if slight changes in GDP or unemployment are a real threat to economic well-being. They are not. It's a financial-market illusion. But because many people cannot separate the health of the financial markets from the health of the economy of the material bases for living, such as food, housing, clothing, and basic health care, it seems as if slight financial market changes are going to cause shortages and industrial collapse.
Hey idiot, that sounds a lot like what you've been saying.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 24 2009, 09:35 PM)
Its Chrismas Eve, Im trying to show some compassion.
Same here. I'd like to put an end his pathetic intellectual misery - one shot to the brain.
Er ...... what am I saying?
Same here. I'd like to put an end his pathetic intellectual misery - one shot to the brain.
Er ...... what am I saying?
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 24 2009, 09:35 PM)
Because your suggestions have deep consequences for how people live their lives.
Very true. Except a lot of your ideas would seem to need some type of top-down big brother oppressive overseer to make them work. Mandatory relocation? And you think people might be ok with that?
So do cap and trade and other environmentalist interventions. My suggestions are at least concrete and pro-active rather than reactionary.
By calling my ideas unreasonable and stupid? Does it increase the sadistic joy of your mean spirit to add insult to injury? I hope the ghost of compassion comes to you in your dreams tonight so you can learn that it's not an instrument for patronizing people.
Very true. Except a lot of your ideas would seem to need some type of top-down big brother oppressive overseer to make them work. Mandatory relocation? And you think people might be ok with that?
So do cap and trade and other environmentalist interventions. My suggestions are at least concrete and pro-active rather than reactionary.
QUOTE
Well, I think your ideas are unreasonable. I also think some of them are stupid. And a few of them make me laugh out loud. So thanks for the funny ones.
Its Chrismas Eve, Im trying to show some compassion.
Its Chrismas Eve, Im trying to show some compassion.
By calling my ideas unreasonable and stupid? Does it increase the sadistic joy of your mean spirit to add insult to injury? I hope the ghost of compassion comes to you in your dreams tonight so you can learn that it's not an instrument for patronizing people.
QUOTE (Bivalves+Dec 24 2009, 09:43 PM)
Same here. I'd like to put an end his pathetic intellectual misery - one shot to the brain.
Er ...... what am I saying?
A death wish? Come on. What would you possibly want to achieve with that? Hurt feelings? Does it make you feel better to hurt other people's feelings? Were you bullied when you were young?
Er ...... what am I saying?
A death wish? Come on. What would you possibly want to achieve with that? Hurt feelings? Does it make you feel better to hurt other people's feelings? Were you bullied when you were young?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Dec 24 2009, 09:39 PM)
If you start rearranging structural supports within a house, it will collapse. It's that simple.
Without more clear explanation of what constitutes "re-arranging structural supports" and "collapse" means, I don't see what basis there is for considering the validity of your claim.
Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
Hey idiot, that sounds a lot like what you've been saying.
Not at all. I've been suggesting cultural changes to prevent infrastructural stress and the market irrationality that accompanies competition over artificial scarcity. On the contrary, the bustle and increases in GDP that occur are interpreted by many people to be economic health instead of stress, which it is imo.
Without more clear explanation of what constitutes "re-arranging structural supports" and "collapse" means, I don't see what basis there is for considering the validity of your claim.
QUOTE
Here is another demonstration of your profound ignorance of economics. I don't even know where to start.
Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here is another demonstration of your profound ignorance of economics. I don't even know where to start. |
Probably because you don't know what you're talking about.
Hey idiot, that sounds a lot like what you've been saying.
Not at all. I've been suggesting cultural changes to prevent infrastructural stress and the market irrationality that accompanies competition over artificial scarcity. On the contrary, the bustle and increases in GDP that occur are interpreted by many people to be economic health instead of stress, which it is imo.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Dec 24 2009, 10:30 PM)
So do cap and trade and other environmentalist interventions. My suggestions are at least concrete and pro-active rather than reactionary.
By calling my ideas unreasonable and stupid? Does it increase the sadistic joy of your mean spirit to add insult to injury? I hope the ghost of compassion comes to you in your dreams tonight so you can learn that it's not an instrument for patronizing people.
There is no comparison between the impact of cap and trade and your sick orwellian fantasies.
Yes, by only calling your ideas unreasonable and stupid. I edited it a lot before I posted. And now that you mention it, I suppose it does increase my sadistic joy. And it would appear that compassion can in fact be used as an instrument for patronizing people.
By calling my ideas unreasonable and stupid? Does it increase the sadistic joy of your mean spirit to add insult to injury? I hope the ghost of compassion comes to you in your dreams tonight so you can learn that it's not an instrument for patronizing people.
There is no comparison between the impact of cap and trade and your sick orwellian fantasies.
Yes, by only calling your ideas unreasonable and stupid. I edited it a lot before I posted. And now that you mention it, I suppose it does increase my sadistic joy. And it would appear that compassion can in fact be used as an instrument for patronizing people.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 24 2009, 09:29 PM)
LLIT, there are virtually no narrow vehicles on the road that would support two of them running side by side in the width of one lane.
Thus why would one make these changes when there is NO DEMAND for them?
I think there are various enclosed narrow vehicles in development. Enclosed or covered motorcycles and mopeds would work too. I think all of them can fit two per lane. Furthermore, if lanes were subdivided in a way that wide vehicles could leave a half-lane in between them at any time, then there would always be a narrow lane available for passing.
Have you considered that a two-lane road for wide vehicles is the same as a 4-lane road for narrow vehicles? Obviously there are going to be wide-vehicles that continue to take up two narrow-vehicle lanes, but there will be that much less of them as a result of narrow vehicles becoming popular for single-driver travel.
I think they would become much more popular if 1) better rain and crash protection is developed and 2) affordable models are developed that don't force people to choose between a wide-vehicle and a narrow one. Really you need a wider-vehicle for carrying passengers or cargo. The narrow-vehicle is just for all those little trips you need to go places on your own.
No, you just allow wide-vehicles to take up two narrow lanes. Then, like I said, you could encourage wide-vehicle drivers to leave a single narrow lane between them when possible.
No, you just allow wide-vehicles to take up two narrow lanes. Then, like I said, you could encourage wide-vehicle drivers to leave a single narrow lane between them when possible.
As to the vehicles, lane widths range from 10 ft to 12 ft, but even if we only limited your change to 12 ft with lanes, allowing a minimum of 1.5 ft on either side of the vehicle, that limits the width of your narrow vehicle to 3 ft.
1 x 10ft = 2 x 5 ft. 1 x 12ft = 2 x 6 ft.
I've heard people say the same thing about compacts being too dangerous to be on the road with SUVs. An SUV is also a sitting duck for a large delivery or freight truck. I bicycle commute and I've been listening to people tell me how unsafe it is when, I suspect, they really just say that because the idea of bicycle commuting makes them uncomfortable for some other reason.
I've heard people say the same thing about compacts being too dangerous to be on the road with SUVs. An SUV is also a sitting duck for a large delivery or freight truck. I bicycle commute and I've been listening to people tell me how unsafe it is when, I suspect, they really just say that because the idea of bicycle commuting makes them uncomfortable for some other reason.
And NO, a truck this width will not be useful for anything.
I'm a fan of cargo-bicycles. They carry MUCH more than a bicycle with a luggage rack. I have not seen anything similar for motorcycles or motorcycles except from Asian factories. Covered motorcycle pickups are actually super-efficient, but there's just a lot of prejudice toward vehicles like that for some irrational cultural reason that I can't pinpoint.
I don't like the idea of population reduction. It is inhumane and often violent in my estimation. Therefore I prefer the idea of cultural developments that steadily increase the number of human lives that can be sustained per unit energy used. That essentially pushes forward any potential encounters with scarcity, either of energy or other resources.
I don't like the idea of population reduction. It is inhumane and often violent in my estimation. Therefore I prefer the idea of cultural developments that steadily increase the number of human lives that can be sustained per unit energy used. That essentially pushes forward any potential encounters with scarcity, either of energy or other resources.
When you add up the energy available to us via direct Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Nuclear, Biofuels and Hydro and then supplant it with about 20% fossil fuel use where the alternatives are not viable (Ships, aviation fuel or back up generators at hospitals might be examples) there is no shortage of energy.
I still think it's worth shooting for cultural lifestyles that use even less energy. Eventually people are going to have to live in space or in biosphere-type colonies on other planets. It will make the transition for them more comfortable if life on Earth has evolved into extreme energy-efficient forms.
People say this so often to me, but technology actually progresses in the direction of greater energy efficiency. Lately it has also been evolving in the direction of more miniaturization and space/materials efficiency. I think we're going to be able to ever more with ever less materials and energy. The big hurdle is cultural/lifestyle norms and expectations.
People say this so often to me, but technology actually progresses in the direction of greater energy efficiency. Lately it has also been evolving in the direction of more miniaturization and space/materials efficiency. I think we're going to be able to ever more with ever less materials and energy. The big hurdle is cultural/lifestyle norms and expectations.
Good luck recruiting followers on your noble path to self sufficiency.
bah humbug your sarcasm. You think I am the first person to ever value self-sufficiency or resource efficiency?
Thus why would one make these changes when there is NO DEMAND for them?
I think there are various enclosed narrow vehicles in development. Enclosed or covered motorcycles and mopeds would work too. I think all of them can fit two per lane. Furthermore, if lanes were subdivided in a way that wide vehicles could leave a half-lane in between them at any time, then there would always be a narrow lane available for passing.
Have you considered that a two-lane road for wide vehicles is the same as a 4-lane road for narrow vehicles? Obviously there are going to be wide-vehicles that continue to take up two narrow-vehicle lanes, but there will be that much less of them as a result of narrow vehicles becoming popular for single-driver travel.
I think they would become much more popular if 1) better rain and crash protection is developed and 2) affordable models are developed that don't force people to choose between a wide-vehicle and a narrow one. Really you need a wider-vehicle for carrying passengers or cargo. The narrow-vehicle is just for all those little trips you need to go places on your own.
QUOTE
Even if you made them, and restricted their use to narrow vehicles to encourage the adoption of narrow vehicles, the immediate effect would be to take a lane out of service.
No, you just allow wide-vehicles to take up two narrow lanes. Then, like I said, you could encourage wide-vehicle drivers to leave a single narrow lane between them when possible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even if you made them, and restricted their use to narrow vehicles to encourage the adoption of narrow vehicles, the immediate effect would be to take a lane out of service. |
No, you just allow wide-vehicles to take up two narrow lanes. Then, like I said, you could encourage wide-vehicle drivers to leave a single narrow lane between them when possible.
As to the vehicles, lane widths range from 10 ft to 12 ft, but even if we only limited your change to 12 ft with lanes, allowing a minimum of 1.5 ft on either side of the vehicle, that limits the width of your narrow vehicle to 3 ft.
1 x 10ft = 2 x 5 ft. 1 x 12ft = 2 x 6 ft.
QUOTE
Because you would be mixing these lightweight vehicles on the road with all the heavy trucks and SUVs that are already in service.
I've heard people say the same thing about compacts being too dangerous to be on the road with SUVs. An SUV is also a sitting duck for a large delivery or freight truck. I bicycle commute and I've been listening to people tell me how unsafe it is when, I suspect, they really just say that because the idea of bicycle commuting makes them uncomfortable for some other reason.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because you would be mixing these lightweight vehicles on the road with all the heavy trucks and SUVs that are already in service. |
I've heard people say the same thing about compacts being too dangerous to be on the road with SUVs. An SUV is also a sitting duck for a large delivery or freight truck. I bicycle commute and I've been listening to people tell me how unsafe it is when, I suspect, they really just say that because the idea of bicycle commuting makes them uncomfortable for some other reason.
And NO, a truck this width will not be useful for anything.
I'm a fan of cargo-bicycles. They carry MUCH more than a bicycle with a luggage rack. I have not seen anything similar for motorcycles or motorcycles except from Asian factories. Covered motorcycle pickups are actually super-efficient, but there's just a lot of prejudice toward vehicles like that for some irrational cultural reason that I can't pinpoint.
QUOTE
Your problem is you are somehow convinced that there is a shortage of ENERGY.
There is no shortage of energy on the planet, even if we were to phase out 80% of fossil fuel use over this century.
There is no shortage of energy on the planet, even if we were to phase out 80% of fossil fuel use over this century.
I don't like the idea of population reduction. It is inhumane and often violent in my estimation. Therefore I prefer the idea of cultural developments that steadily increase the number of human lives that can be sustained per unit energy used. That essentially pushes forward any potential encounters with scarcity, either of energy or other resources.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your problem is you are somehow convinced that there is a shortage of ENERGY. There is no shortage of energy on the planet, even if we were to phase out 80% of fossil fuel use over this century. |
I don't like the idea of population reduction. It is inhumane and often violent in my estimation. Therefore I prefer the idea of cultural developments that steadily increase the number of human lives that can be sustained per unit energy used. That essentially pushes forward any potential encounters with scarcity, either of energy or other resources.
When you add up the energy available to us via direct Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Nuclear, Biofuels and Hydro and then supplant it with about 20% fossil fuel use where the alternatives are not viable (Ships, aviation fuel or back up generators at hospitals might be examples) there is no shortage of energy.
I still think it's worth shooting for cultural lifestyles that use even less energy. Eventually people are going to have to live in space or in biosphere-type colonies on other planets. It will make the transition for them more comfortable if life on Earth has evolved into extreme energy-efficient forms.
QUOTE
So far all your solutions are based on curtailing modern life to go back to roughly an 1800s style existence.
People say this so often to me, but technology actually progresses in the direction of greater energy efficiency. Lately it has also been evolving in the direction of more miniaturization and space/materials efficiency. I think we're going to be able to ever more with ever less materials and energy. The big hurdle is cultural/lifestyle norms and expectations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So far all your solutions are based on curtailing modern life to go back to roughly an 1800s style existence. |
People say this so often to me, but technology actually progresses in the direction of greater energy efficiency. Lately it has also been evolving in the direction of more miniaturization and space/materials efficiency. I think we're going to be able to ever more with ever less materials and energy. The big hurdle is cultural/lifestyle norms and expectations.
Good luck recruiting followers on your noble path to self sufficiency.
bah humbug your sarcasm. You think I am the first person to ever value self-sufficiency or resource efficiency?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.