Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby mjdlight » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 13:19:50

Just came across this quote by Chomsky that elegantly summarizes the reasons why even if we found 20,000 Saudi Arabias tomorrow, we would still be screwed if don't change the patterns of our individual lives and greater society:

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convienent myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation. Now its long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice it entails, as long as its possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and an infinite garbage can."
User avatar
mjdlight
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby foodnotlawns » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 13:27:18

I quite agree, Mr. or Ms. mjdlight. But most people are incapable of understanding such an argument.
User avatar
foodnotlawns
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby NEOPO » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 17:27:33

Sucks dont it and even when they do understand most are only driven to get more faster.

Thats the real sucky part.

Actually I think more people get it then we think its just the inertia of this system, all of the promises of tomorrows and the fanatical following of the cornucopian crowd that makes most of us believe that it doesnt matter what we say.

My own personal solution = Try to get more by doing less and then do more sustainable things with the profits ;-)
It has always been my experience that the corporations like to be milked and so I oblige without repaying the world with equal productivity which would only contribute to more growth etcetc blah....
Yes!! the ultimate excuse for laziness!!!! ;-)
This doesnt mean dont move it just means move slower.
Tune in to sustainability, turn on to permaculture/powerdown and drop out of this unsustainable society or at least the unsustainable part ;-)
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby gego » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 20:30:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mjdlight', 'J')ust came across this quote by Chomsky that elegantly summarizes the reasons why even if we found 20,000 Saudi Arabias tomorrow, we would still be screwed if don't change the patterns of our individual lives and greater society:

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convienent myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation. Now its long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice it entails, as long as its possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and an infinite garbage can."


Gee, if you really believe this crap then I suggest you go in and tell your boss tomorrow that you no longer want to profit from your labor, and that you have decided to work for free. I wonder if Chomsky refused any profit on his books.

Give a guy a goofy name and a college degree and he can spout all sorts of garbage that fragile minds gladly absorb.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby Aaron » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 21:04:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mjdlight', 'J')ust came across this quote by Chomsky that elegantly summarizes the reasons why even if we found 20,000 Saudi Arabias tomorrow, we would still be screwed if don't change the patterns of our individual lives and greater society:

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convienent myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits in the classic formulation. Now its long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice it entails, as long as its possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and an infinite garbage can."


Gee, if you really believe this crap then I suggest you go in and tell your boss tomorrow that you no longer want to profit from your labor, and that you have decided to work for free. I wonder if Chomsky refused any profit on his books.

Give a guy a goofy name and a college degree and he can spout all sorts of garbage that fragile minds gladly absorb.


That's not what the quote says...
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby gego » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 22:35:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')
That's not what the quote says...


I beg to differ.

It seems clear that Chomsky said that the driving force of modern society is material gain. I take that to mean that we persue gain such as in wages, profits, interest, rents, and the like for the purpose of providing us with the things we want. What other kind of gain is there? Then he uses the loaded word "vices" to describe the good that comes privately from these efforts (like feeding yourself is a vice) and alleges that the idea that public good comes from individual good is false. (I presume he subscribes the the false notion that such a thing as public good even exists.)

He then states that this system driven by gain will destroy itself, is unjust, and produces suffering. The only correct thing that he implies is that resources are limited and that we polute in the process of gaining.

The most obvious abusrdity is that nothing can live without extracting from his environment (gaining) and disposing of waste. Without gaining there is only death.

The preferred system of Chomsky, socialism, is far more wasteful of resources because it is far more inefficient, so if that is what he is offering, then he is only hastening environmental damage. As a matter of fact, most of what people object to when then condemn capitalism (freedom) is really the fascist/socialist systems that have been injected into free markets and then cause the evils that they ascribe to capitalism; corporate cronism is not capitalism, but fascism; monopoly is not capitalism, but fascism (government grants monopolies); failed public schools are not capitalism, but socialism.

So I again suggest that if you, anyone else or he subscribe to the rejection of gain, then live by your principles (if you can) and refuse to seek gain in your life.

Perhaps you will tell me what alternative conclusion you reach from reading the quote.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby ECM » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 22:48:21

Modern society is driven by material gain not material necessity.

I work to afford food, housing, clothes and other required items and little else. Most people work to get that plus vast amounts of crap they don't need and that is the problem.
User avatar
ECM
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby 128shot » Tue 26 Sep 2006, 23:20:26

the fact you are using the internet, ECM, is proving you're a hypocrit to your own message.
User avatar
128shot
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed 18 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby gego » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 00:28:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ECM', 'M')odern society is driven by material gain not material necessity.

I work to afford food, housing, clothes and other required items and little else. Most people work to get that plus vast amounts of crap they don't need and that is the problem.


So it really comes down to your judgement about what someone else should consume, and the fact that you or government (you plus a bunch of other fascists) think you should thru force impose upon the remainder of us what is acceptable consumption. This sounds like the politics of envy more than anything else.

Clearly you do not believe in economic freedom, so at least be up front and honest and admit you fit the definition of a fascist.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby kabu » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:41:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '
')Clearly you do not believe in economic freedom, so at least be up front and honest and admit you fit the definition of a fascist.

A Fascist? Seems rather dramatic, gego. Where's this dictionary of yours, because its definitions must be pretty fucking inexact.

And before you get back on your soapbox, do you mind telling us where you stand? If you're so concerned about economic freedom, then I presume you're an anarcho-capitalist? Not even a libertarian, no? Because the last the I'd want to do with my money is have it spent on some dude benefiting from a government that does little more than protect those whom indulge in economic exchanges that are as profitable for them as can be, and then invest copious amounts of wealth in ways which consequentially attract private acts of aggression upon themselves and their estates.

If you're a anarchist then that's fine, but if you're a libertarian (or "worse"), then don't preach about economic freedom if you also expect others to support protecting what you cannot protect yourself. And if you're an anarchist, then I recommend researching why all the highly successful businessmen in Somalia were trying to secure some form of Libertarianism (aside from, and before, all this Taliban bussiness).
User avatar
kabu
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby gego » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 03:20:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', '
')
And before you get back on your soapbox, do you mind telling us where you stand?


There was a thread in the open discussion area called "political compass" where on page 10 of 10 I posted my score and a comment.

The thread is at:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4595.html

While none of us are 100% anything, I view myself as close to the anarchy end of libertarianism. I see the need for very limited government, mostly to provide the structure to deal with those who cannot govern themselves to not commit acts of agression against their fellow men. I think even that limited government should depend on contributions, much like the United Fund. Maybe it would be in total about 5% of the total local, state and federal governments we now have.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby kabu » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 04:26:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kabu', '
')
And before you get back on your soapbox, do you mind telling us where you stand?


There was a thread in the open discussion area called "political compass" where on page 10 of 10 I posted my score and a comment.

The thread is at:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4595.html

While none of us are 100% anything, I view myself as close to the anarchy end of libertarianism. I see the need for very limited government, mostly to provide the structure to deal with those who cannot govern themselves to not commit acts of agression against their fellow men. I think even that limited government should depend on contributions, much like the United Fund. Maybe it would be in total about 5% of the total local, state and federal governments we now have.

So you see the need to create what's basically just a police force, but are these contributions to it forced or voluntary (unfamiliar with the "United Fund" you're referring to- guessing voluntary)? I can't argue with your dedication towards economic freedom, just so long as you’re being consistent.

I myself would not want to have neutered a more... personal avenue of protection, in a situation where I couldn’t protect my family’s well-being from another’s economic advancement against my business (not having a welfare-state to cushion our fall); when that individual fucking us over could very well not be contributing a cent of his income towards our society's police force, and instead, concentrating it all on the economic advantages that were defeating me. So if what you're calling for is voluntary, then I can still see some problems arising over the whole free-ride issue that tends to bug capitalists.

Anarcho-capitalism is more consistent, I believe. Either that, or libertarianism without any preaching about economic freedom.
User avatar
kabu
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby Doly » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 05:32:18

My personal version of anarchy would be the following: divide the current government into its departments. Eliminate the top. Each department starts functioning as an independent nonprofit organization. When there are conflicts of interest, they negotiate with each other. Each of the nonprofits raises money separately. Contributions are voluntary, in the sense that you choose which departments to contribute to and in which proportion, but there is a minimum amount that needs to be contributed by everyone, independently of personal income. If you don't have the means to contribute with money, you contribute with work.

After the reform, sit and watch what happens.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby Lawmage » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 06:44:27

While I think Chomsky is a leftist political hack who is prostituting the last shreds of acedemic integrity he possesses in exchange for some passing political influence, he has a point...

Our economy is indeed based on a faulty and unsustainable model. We cannot have contant growth. Regardless of how efficiently we use them, the Earth's resources are finite. No matter how efficient we become, even to the point of perfect recycling, there will inevitably come a point when we cannot sustain any further growth. Personally, I would prefer we find a new model before we get to that point...especially in light of the knowledge we will never achieve perfect efficiency.
User avatar
Lawmage
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun 17 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby NEOPO » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 07:27:31

a good war video - i love neocons

pfft why dont you just quote chomsky word for word instead of fumbling about trying to admit that capitolism is and always was a lie perpetuated by the rich elite and doomed from its very inception.

Why...do...they always send the poor!!!
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby Aaron » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 07:38:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') beg to differ. ... Perhaps you will tell me what alternative conclusion you reach from reading the quote.


Sure... No need to beg. :)

He says the idea that our planet has infinite resources is false... but we don't act in recognition of this simple fact.

Instead we collectively act as if our resources are infinite.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

after this, therefore because of this
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby Doly » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 07:50:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '
')Gee, if you really believe this crap then I suggest you go in and tell your boss tomorrow that you no longer want to profit from your labor, and that you have decided to work for free. I wonder if Chomsky refused any profit on his books.


There is a difference between trying to get enough to lead a comfortable life (whatever you want to call comfortable) and trying to get as much as you can. Given a fixed world population, it would be easy to determine if it's possible to give everybody X standard of living. But what is definitely not possible is to expect population to keep growing and living standards to keep growing as well. If everybody accepted this, and every woman decided to have no more than two children, and everybody aspired to have an acceptable standard but didn't try to go beyond it, there wouldn't be a problem.

Or, like Ghandi put it: "The world can provide for everybody's need but not for everybody's greed."
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby mjdlight » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 09:06:55

Well, I'm glad to see there are other "fragile minds" out there. :P

Gego, there is nothing wrong with pursuing private gain -- WITHIN REASON.

And that qualifier makes all the difference in the world. Money has no rational limits. If you have a 100 bucks, you want 200. If you have 200, you want 600. If you have 10 billion, you want 20 billion. We're not wired biologically to stop.

Problem with that is, the world, as Chomsky points out, is not infinite. A finite planet with 8 billion people striving to be Bill Gates at any cost is a planet heading for disaster.

A society that makes no attempt to curb the appetitive nature of man and bracket it within reason, but rather elevates it to the highest of virtues, is illogical.
User avatar
mjdlight
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: The Knife that Cuts All Anti-PO arguments

Unread postby gego » Wed 27 Sep 2006, 17:03:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mjdlight', 'W')ell, I'm glad to see there are other "fragile minds" out there.

Gego, there is nothing wrong with pursuing private gain -- WITHIN REASON.


Whose reason? Yours?

You are quite presumtious to think that your reason is better than someone elses reason when it comes to the appropriate level of consumption. We are either free, or we are commanded and controlled by others; to impose your reason is to impose slavery. There is no limit to what those in power might then impose, and ALWAYS in history those in power first and foremost impose what is beneficial to themselves and their priveleged friends.

Tell me where the socialist/communist systems of slavery have produced anything but poverty for the majority and wealth for the leaders. As I have pointed out in other threads, Gorbachev was vacationing in his seaside villa during the break up of the Soviet Union while the average citizen lived in a two bedroom flat, maybe with his in-laws. That is the way your system works and it does not protect the environment. It may conserve resources because of the ineffeciency of such systems, but it also waste huge amounts in the process of being inefficient.

In order to impose a limit on consumption, the gains that you consider excessive must be taken by force from those doing the gaining. Then what is to be done with these gains? Under all systems of government wealth is extracted from those producing it, and then used by someone else, so how is this going to save resources? They are being consumed, just by someone who did not extract them himself.

This sounds more like the politics of envy that appeals to failures than anything else. This is why socialism is so appealing to the masses where poverty is rampant. The funny part of it is that the poverty is produced in the first place by government interference in economic matters for the benefit of the priveleged few to the detriment of the majority; otherwise there would be a normal distribution of wealth.

I suggest that had by some means the average level of consumption been forced to be limited, that maybe total consumption might have been as great or even greater. This is because the number of children we have is linked to economic success. In societies living close to the vest, children are viewed as an asset, the more the better, so the world population may well have grown to much higher levels by now resulting is the same resource depletion. Total resourse use equals to the population multiplied by the resourse use rate, so if you artificially change one factor the law of unintended consequences may well operate to change the other, most like in the opposite direction.

The fundamental concept in this thread is that we will always live to the limits of the resourse base is a correct assessment; that is what nature has programmed into us. Things are unfolding as they should, both the exploitation of resources to the limit, the high rate of population growth, and the pending collapse of both. What we don't need is the imposition of controls (that will give rise evasion like the black market) that will somewhat hamper the ability of those who can take care of themselves in a futile attempt to save those who cannot take care of themselves. We much more will need rowers than passengers in the lifeboats.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron