economy. vs. environment

[docreflex]

Can the economy and earth coexist?? Talk amongst your selves

 

[westwall]

Can the economy and earth coexist?? Talk amongst your selves

Absolutely. Everything in moderation and don't get stupid.

 

[Douger]

Works well actually.
Costa Rica Leading the Way in Incentivizing Protection of Nature | Conservation International Blog

 

[editec]

Can the economy and earth coexist?? Talk amongst your selves

Lazy sod.


Trying to get your post count up or something?

 

[docreflex]

No not lazy. I have posted before on some economy tioics. My theory. Is that our economy is tied to mass production an mass consumption. In order to create jobs we must be constantly expanding an developing , an new constuction. Union jobs in construction require extreme production. So many doors , paint , electrical outlets, roofs etc. Need to be installes in a day in order to give a trades person high nwage an benifits. I feel our sysyem is unsustainable. Just a theory, but I know many trdes people wh are layedoff ban those high pay jobs mot coming back , seems like. I think the economy can not continue to require this mass production. Also USA has a car culture, we do not like public transit. My question is,, is th reason for the current economic problems only a symtom of the reall problem. That earth can not absorb this sytem we have invented??? Every time I post seems like this angle is avoided and people get involved in n economic only debate and or political. ???

 

[westwall]

No not lazy. I have posted before on some economy tioics. My theory. Is that our economy is tied to mass production an mass consumption. In order to create jobs we must be constantly expanding an developing , an new constuction. Union jobs in construction require extreme production. So many doors , paint , electrical outlets, roofs etc. Need to be installes in a day in order to give a trades person high nwage an benifits. I feel our sysyem is unsustainable. Just a theory, but I know many trdes people wh are layedoff ban those high pay jobs mot coming back , seems like. I think the economy can not continue to require this mass production. Also USA has a car culture, we do not like public transit. My question is,, is th reason for the current economic problems only a symtom of the reall problem. That earth can not absorb this sytem we have invented??? Every time I post seems like this angle is avoided and people get involved in n economic only debate and or political. ???

Where public transportation makes sense it is well used. Look at New York and Chicago for examples of that. However, when criminals are allowed to run amock the public will avoid those modes of transport. Also we have a car culture because we are a hell of a lot bigger than any European Country. Take France as an example. We are going to be staying at our place in Paris and visiting relatives in Toulon, nearly all the way across the country.

The distance is roughly what you get from San Francisco to San Diego all within the state of California. You are comparing an apple with a 800 pound pumpkin. It is flawed from the beginning.

 

[docreflex]

It is not what I am comparing, size of france to usa. What I am saying is the amount of production needed to fuel jobs ,, to fuel our economy. Is it sustainable?? USA can build cities and high speed rail to eliminate cars it chooses not to, or should I say the oil an car companies choose not to. They are to big to fail. We can keep going as we are but a collapse is coming. So why not plan for it or take a different direction right now? The original question, once again, is our economy collapsing because earth will not support our sytem?

 

[westwall]

It is not what I am comparing, size of france to usa. What I am saying is the amount of production needed to fuel jobs ,, to fuel our economy. Is it sustainable?? USA can build cities and high speed rail to eliminate cars it chooses not to, or should I say the oil an car companies choose not to. They are to big to fail. We can keep going as we are but a collapse is coming. So why not plan for it or take a different direction right now? The original question, once again, is our economy collapsing because earth will not support our sytem?

Yes, you are. You are asking a question that is loaded. You allready have a preconceived notion as you just stated. Defend it. I merely pointed out that one of your observations was inherently flawed. You need to figure out a different tact.

You mention high speed rail and I bet you don't know that only TWO high speed rail lines in the ENTIRE world are self sustaining. Environmentally rail lines are more damaging than roadways as well. Also what do you do when someone wants to travel from Los Angeles to Bishop? You going to build a high speed rail line for the 2,000 people who want to do that every year?

Rail is horribly expensive. I think you need to learn more about the various subjects before you waste time on philosophical discussions. Don't you?

 

[docreflex]

Don't want to get off topic. My question is for opinions and everyone is entitled to one. Don't have to give proof. If you think that are econmy can self sustain you can say so. My opinion is it can not an will not. I can not believe how many trades people who work on a high volume high production pace are out of work. To name one example. PS gas is close to $5 per gallon.

 

[westwall]

Don't want to get off topic. My question is for opinions and everyone is entitled to one. Don't have to give proof. If you think that are econmy can self sustain you can say so. My opinion is it can not an will not. I can not believe how many trades people who work on a high volume high production pace are out of work. To name one example. PS gas is close to $5 per gallon.

What you are ignoring is most of the economic problems are driven by the government. The price of gas could drop to 2 bucks a gallon almost overnight if the Obama admin wished it to. They don't. In fact they want it higher. Their goal is over 8 dollars a gallon.
You want a viable robust economy? Get government out of it.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Can the economy and earth coexist?? Talk amongst your selves

Yes in fact lowering pollution fro coal gas and natural gas sources saves the econoym more money then it costs to lower those things

 

[Widdekind]

our earth environment is our "space habitat", de facto a "solar energy collector", "water reservoir" & "water purifier", and "oxygen reservoir" & "air scrubber". humans do not attribute economic value, i.e. prices, to these assets, "assuming" them, "for free", because humans did not build our earth, which instead "evolved" over the past 5 billion years. Because humans expended no effort, "evolving" our geo-bio-sphere, humans attribute no value, to the same, i.e. "they take their environment for granted".

Thus, the only "free lunch" which humans will, plausibly,, ever receive, from all of space-and-time, humans "defecate upon", cp. the "pond pissing" scene, in the movie Borat, wherein Borat pisses into a pond, whilst his friend drinks, from the same, at his feet. In analogy, human "astronauts" are "defecating upon" their own "inter-national space-station", squirreling away their wastes, in side niches, alcoves, cabinetry. Eventually, the "ISS" will become non-human-liveable, polluted with human wastes.

That will occur, because humans take their one-and-only "free lunch", i.e. earth, for economic granted, naively assuming its existence, as does every other earth animal species. Economically cognizant species, would attribute appropriately high "market value", to their "ISS space habitat" (and enforce those prices, with the force required, for law).

Earth assets, e.g. eco-systems, could possibly be "publicized", sold to public groups willing-and-able to protect the FMV prices, of those earth assets. E.g. polluters, who dump toxins into the environment today, harming future children, could possibly be taxed, by parents, in the present. Hypocritical is the position, that "fair markets" should under-value actual assets, i.e. until human corporations can artificially "scrub" earth's atmosphere & oceans; and artificially generate fusion (solar) power; then those environmental "freebies" should be attributed FMVs. Cp. earth's skies are bought & sold, as commercial air-traffic corridors.

De facto, human parents are subsidizing polluters, in the present, at the expense, of their children; without making any effort, to develop artificial substitutes, for the environmental "freebies" that they are depreciating (without appreciating). (As if relying on "free food from heaven", humans are trodding down their one-and-only known-to-exist "freebie", earth. In the absence of "space alien friends", humans will have to cognizantly value their own world, economically.) Anybody willing-and-able, to value earth assets, would be willing to "pay to play", e.g. buy stock in (hypothetical) 'Earth Skies International' (or 'Earth Oceans Global'), which stock would represent 'parcels of air' (or water), whose economic value depreciates, with pollution. Subsidies could be given, for artificial substitutes, e.g. "air-scrubbers installed in every home".

 

[westwall]

our earth environment is our "space habitat", de facto a "solar energy collector", "water reservoir" & "water purifier", and "oxygen reservoir" & "air scrubber". humans do not attribute economic value, i.e. prices, to these assets, "assuming" them, "for free", because humans did not build our earth, which instead "evolved" over the past 5 billion years. Because humans expended no effort, "evolving" our geo-bio-sphere, humans attribute no value, to the same, i.e. "they take their environment for granted".

Thus, the only "free lunch" which humans will, plausibly,, ever receive, from all of space-and-time, humans "defecate upon", cp. the "pond pissing" scene, in the movie Borat, wherein Borat pisses into a pond, whilst his friend drinks, from the same, at his feet. In analogy, human "astronauts" are "defecating upon" their own "inter-national space-station", squirreling away their wastes, in side niches, alcoves, cabinetry. Eventually, the "ISS" will become non-human-liveable, polluted with human wastes.

That will occur, because humans take their one-and-only "free lunch", i.e. earth, for economic granted, naively assuming its existence, as does every other earth animal species. Economically cognizant species, would attribute appropriately high "market value", to their "ISS space habitat" (and enforce those prices, with the force required, for law).

Earth assets, e.g. eco-systems, could possibly be "publicized", sold to public groups willing-and-able to protect the FMV prices, of those earth assets. E.g. polluters, who dump toxins into the environment today, harming future children, could possibly be taxed, by parents, in the present. Hypocritical is the position, that "fair markets" should under-value actual assets, i.e. until human corporations can artificially "scrub" earth's atmosphere & oceans; and artificially generate fusion (solar) power; then those environmental "freebies" should be attributed FMVs. Cp. earth's skies are bought & sold, as commercial air-traffic corridors.

De facto, human parents are subsidizing polluters, in the present, at the expense, of their children; without making any effort, to develop artificial substitutes, for the environmental "freebies" that they are depreciating (without appreciating). (As if relying on "free food from heaven", humans are trodding down their one-and-only known-to-exist "freebie", earth. In the absence of "space alien friends", humans will have to cognizantly value their own world, economically.) Anybody willing-and-able, to value earth assets, would be willing to "pay to play", e.g. buy stock in (hypothetical) 'Earth Skies International' (or 'Earth Oceans Global'), which stock would represent 'parcels of air' (or water), whose economic value depreciates, with pollution. Subsidies could be given, for artificial substitutes, e.g. "air-scrubbers installed in every home".

You really need to learn the language better.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Dont mind or listen to westwall hes a retard

 

[westwall]

Dont mind or listen to westwall hes a retard

Why? Because I prove you wrong every time you open your foul trap?

 

[Widdekind]

our earth is our "space habitat", which has economic value (>0), exceeding current market valuation (=0). humans have not "sent out Louis & Clark with the USGS", to assess earth's market value; meanwhile, earth is treated as a zero-value "externality"; ergo earth is "(over) exploited", is depreciating in value, is mis-managed.

 

[docreflex]

our earth environment is our "space habitat", de facto a "solar energy collector", "water reservoir" & "water purifier", and "oxygen reservoir" & "air scrubber". humans do not attribute economic value, i.e. prices, to these assets, "assuming" them, "for free", because humans did not build our earth, which instead "evolved" over the past 5 billion years. Because humans expended no effort, "evolving" our geo-bio-sphere, humans attribute no value, to the same, i.e. "they take their environment for granted".

Thus, the only "free lunch" which humans will, plausibly,, ever receive, from all of space-and-time, humans "defecate upon", cp. the "pond pissing" scene, in the movie Borat, wherein Borat pisses into a pond, whilst his friend drinks, from the same, at his feet. In analogy, human "astronauts" are "defecating upon" their own "inter-national space-station", squirreling away their wastes, in side niches, alcoves, cabinetry. Eventually, the "ISS" will become non-human-liveable, polluted with human wastes.

That will occur, because humans take their one-and-only "free lunch", i.e. earth, for economic granted, naively assuming its existence, as does every other earth animal species. Economically cognizant species, would attribute appropriately high "market value", to their "ISS space habitat" (and enforce those prices, with the force required, for law).

Earth assets, e.g. eco-systems, could possibly be "publicized", sold to public groups willing-and-able to protect the FMV prices, of those earth assets. E.g. polluters, who dump toxins into the environment today, harming future children, could possibly be taxed, by parents, in the present. Hypocritical is the position, that "fair markets" should under-value actual assets, i.e. until human corporations can artificially "scrub" earth's atmosphere & oceans; and artificially generate fusion (solar) power; then those environmental "freebies" should be attributed FMVs. Cp. earth's skies are bought & sold, as commercial air-traffic corridors.

De facto, human parents are subsidizing polluters, in the present, at the expense, of their children; without making any effort, to develop artificial substitutes, for the environmental "freebies" that they are depreciating (without appreciating). (As if relying on "free food from heaven", humans are trodding down their one-and-only known-to-exist "freebie", earth. In the absence of "space alien friends", humans will have to cognizantly value their own world, economically.) Anybody willing-and-able, to value earth assets, would be willing to "pay to play", e.g. buy stock in (hypothetical) 'Earth Skies International' (or 'Earth Oceans Global'), which stock would represent 'parcels of air' (or water), whose economic value depreciates, with pollution. Subsidies could be given, for artificial substitutes, e.g. "air-scrubbers installed in every home".

interesting read, so in your opinion can our current economic structure of mass production continue or is it doomed to collapse, because of the high cost to the environment. Is the economy that has been going for the past 200 years only worked because of the rape of the earth???

 

[Widdekind]

interesting read, so in your opinion can our current economic structure of mass production continue or is it doomed to collapse, because of the high cost to the environment. Is the economy that has been going for the past 200 years only worked because of the rape of the earth???

our "bio-space-habitat" (earth) has positive economic value. The "rape" of earth has de facto subsidized economic growth, in the "short-term" (200 years); at the expense, of depreciating the "long-term" value, of that "bio-sphere" asset.

please ponder the "super-expense", of terra-forming our moon, or mars -- such indicates the actual FMV of our "already terra-formed space rock" (earth), which "added value" has been slowly supplied, over billions of years, by trillions of tons of bacteria, e.g. photosynthesizing oxygen, etc.

our earth represents an enormous investment, of Time & (Bio-)Capital, with an actual FMV exceeding that of a terra-formed moon & mars (earth is allot larger); but whose nominal economic value is currently assessed as zero, i.e. "less than a candy bar"

 

[docreflex]

Seems like economists an business men don't want to touch this question. Will our economy collapse as a result of mass production an mass rape of the earth?? They jus want to talk facts an figures in relationship to what they learned in college. Not in relationship to their soul as well as the earth's soul?

 

[docreflex]

So can the economy,, current economic model,, an earth coexist?? Yes, or no, simple question. Jus your opinion no proof facts or figures jus what you feel in your gut? If you want to give the reason for your opinion that is great, but I am more interested in hearing opinions, sort of like a poll.