Do you environmentalists understand...

[Crick]

They have gotten better, but I don't think you can argue that it comes from any sense of responsibility in that direction. Nor that it could not have progressed along a far greener path then the one it's taken.

 

[Nosmo King]

Just can't wait for all that new pollution, eh? More childhood diseases, more deaths, less aerable soil, rivers catching fire! Ah! The shortsighted idiot's dream!

Do you not understand how utterly preposterous this sounds?

Every bit as preposterous as chomping at the bit to eliminate the EPA.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Every bit as preposterous as chomping at the bit to eliminate the EPA.

Not even close.

Hyperventilating hyperbole of preposterously exaggerated outcomes isn't anywhere near as realistic as ridding ourselves of a parasitic institution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

No one is obligated to consume as much as possible

 

[Nosmo King]

Every bit as preposterous as chomping at the bit to eliminate the EPA.

Not even close.

Hyperventilating hyperbole isn't anywhere near as realistic as ridding ourselves of a parasitic entity.

"Parasitic entity" isn't hyperventing hypocrsy? Can you tell us about NESHAP regulations from the EPA? Can you tell us where in the federal registry we might find them? What about CERCLA? What is it and how is it 'parasitic?

 

[ding]

They have gotten better, but I don't think you can argue that it comes from any sense of responsibility in that direction. Nor that it could not have progressed along a far greener path then the one it's taken.

That is a cynical belief. Of course I can argue that it comes from a sense of responsibility and stewardship. Profits and stewardship are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they are necessary partners for long term success.

 

[Crick]

Please explain why you believe they are necessary partners for long term success and why you think free market capitalism is concerned with long term success.

 

[ding]

Please explain why you believe they are necessary partners for long term success and why you think free market capitalism is concerned with long term success.

Are you kidding? It is self evident.

Stewardship in business is essential for success

Corporate Stewardship

The Business Case for Water Stewardship

 

[Crick]

I don't find articles telling business people that they ought to be good stewards to the resources on which they feed to be a strong indication that such stewardship is common practice.

 

[Correll]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

You know what is really bad for the environment?

Massive immigration and population growth.

 

[ding]

I don't find articles telling business people that they ought to be good stewards to the resources on which they feed to be a strong indication that such stewardship is common practice.

Good for you. I find the concept of doing the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons to be self evident and provable through our own experiences.

 

[there4eyeM]

Global capitalism, as we presently observe it, is incompatible with continued existence, either with itself or with the world..

 

[Crick]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

You know what is really bad for the environment?

Massive immigration and population growth.

Wrong. Right.

 

[Crick]

I don't find articles telling business people that they ought to be good stewards to the resources on which they feed to be a strong indication that such stewardship is common practice.

Good for you. I find the concept of doing the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons to be self evident and provable through our own experiences.

But that wasn't the question Mr Bat. Your claim was that good environmental stewardship is the common practice of free market capitalism. Your articles do not make such a case. The existence of such articles, in fact, argue that reality leans in quite the opposite direction.

 

[Correll]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

You know what is really bad for the environment?

Massive immigration and population growth.

Wrong. Right.

Massive immigration, especially of high growth ethnic groups, leads to population growth.


More people equals more people.

 

[Crick]

High growth ethnic groups? You mean... the poor? Take your bigotry elsewhere.

 

[ding]

I don't find articles telling business people that they ought to be good stewards to the resources on which they feed to be a strong indication that such stewardship is common practice.

Good for you. I find the concept of doing the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons to be self evident and provable through our own experiences.

But that wasn't the question Mr Bat. Your claim was that good environmental stewardship is the common practice of free market capitalism. Your articles do not make such a case. The existence of such articles, in fact, argue that reality leans in quite the opposite direction.

Yes, I understand your point, but if you go back to my post #20 you will see that I wrote, " By any objective measure free enterprise has gotten better at being stewards not only of the environment but also safety." To which you replied in post #21, "They have gotten better...."

Good Lord, are you stupid? Of course it is a common practice. Your problem is that you are infected with the liberal disease of utopiaitis, so unless everything is perfect, you have an uncontrollable desire to become inflamed and protest.

Thus proving... Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.

 

[Crick]

If you want to cast away every shred of respect you've ever garnered here, keep blathering about socialism as a religion.

What evidence do you have that practicioners of free enterprise have become better stewards of the environment? I would argue that any improvement is far more the result of increased and improved regulation.

 

[ding]

If you want to cast away every shred of respect you've ever garnered here, keep blathering about socialism as a religion.

What evidence do you have that practicioners of free enterprise have become better stewards of the environment? I would argue that any improvement is far more the result of increased and improved regulation.

Stop behaving like one and then I won't have to. The reality is that you have elevated your believes to a religion. We know this because you act like a religious fanatic whenever your religious beliefs are challenged. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements.

 

[there4eyeM]

Capitalism, as with every other human system, would require wisdom to function properly. 'Megacapitalism' requires alert restraints, since the intense effort and intelligence we see involved in it does not display equal humanity.