Do you environmentalists understand...

[ding]

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.

No. Free enterprise is Darwinian. Even if they did not believe in doing the right thing, the right way for the right reasons, the market would force them to do the right thing or they would go extinct.

 

[there4eyeM]

Species go extinct before acquiring the necessary mutations to succeed, in most instances. There is every sign this would happen, even if we were to accept 'Darwinianism' as a process in economics.

 

[ding]

Species go extinct before acquiring the necessary mutations to succeed, in most instances. There is every sign this would happen, even if we were to accept 'Darwinianism' as a process in economics.

That's my point.

How can you not accept Darwinian principles for free enterprise?

 

[Crick]

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.

No. Free enterprise is Darwinian. Even if they did not believe in doing the right thing, the right way for the right reasons, the market would force them to do the right thing or they would go extinct.

Ever wonder why so many oncocancer genes exist in the human genome? Why didn't evolution remove them? Because in most cases, cancer doesn't strike until the victim has already reached an age at which it has successfully reproduced. The cancer has no effect n the critical parameter. A company that relies on short term gains - like almost all free market capitalist entities - is unaffected by harm it does over the long term to resources it requires.

 

[there4eyeM]

Belief is a choice.

 

[ding]

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.

No. Free enterprise is Darwinian. Even if they did not believe in doing the right thing, the right way for the right reasons, the market would force them to do the right thing or they would go extinct.

Ever wonder why so many oncocancer genes exist in the human genome? Why didn't evolution remove them? Because in most cases, cancer doesn't strike until the victim has already reached an age at which it has successfully reproduced. The cancer has no effect n the critical parameter. A company that relies on short term gains - like almost all free market capitalist entities - is unaffected by harm it does over the long term to resources it requires.

Nope. I never have once wondered that. It seems that you are stuck on the exception rather than the rule. Would you like to go back to your previous post and change your answer from companies have gotten better to companies have not gotten better?

 

[ding]

Belief is a choice.

Everything is choice.

 

[there4eyeM]

When something is everything, it is nothing.

 

[ding]

When something is everything, it is nothing.

Therefore, when everything is something, it must be nothing?????

 

[Crick]

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.

No. Free enterprise is Darwinian. Even if they did not believe in doing the right thing, the right way for the right reasons, the market would force them to do the right thing or they would go extinct.

Ever wonder why so many oncocancer genes exist in the human genome? Why didn't evolution remove them? Because in most cases, cancer doesn't strike until the victim has already reached an age at which it has successfully reproduced. The cancer has no effect n the critical parameter. A company that relies on short term gains - like almost all free market capitalist entities - is unaffected by harm it does over the long term to resources it requires.

Nope. I never have once wondered that. It seems that you are stuck on the exception rather than the rule. Would you like to go back to your previous post and change your answer from companies have gotten better to companies have not gotten better?

No. Companies have gotten better because some company owners (including shareholders) believe their obligations to practive environmentally responsible behavior outweigh their obligation to maximize profit. Cynically, it can be viewed as a PR effort, but if effective, motivation is irrelevant.

 

[ding]

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.

No. Free enterprise is Darwinian. Even if they did not believe in doing the right thing, the right way for the right reasons, the market would force them to do the right thing or they would go extinct.

Ever wonder why so many oncocancer genes exist in the human genome? Why didn't evolution remove them? Because in most cases, cancer doesn't strike until the victim has already reached an age at which it has successfully reproduced. The cancer has no effect n the critical parameter. A company that relies on short term gains - like almost all free market capitalist entities - is unaffected by harm it does over the long term to resources it requires.

Nope. I never have once wondered that. It seems that you are stuck on the exception rather than the rule. Would you like to go back to your previous post and change your answer from companies have gotten better to companies have not gotten better?

No. Companies have gotten better because some company owners (including shareholders) believe their obligations to practive environmentally responsible behavior outweigh their obligation to maximize profit. Cynically, it can be viewed as a PR effort, but if effective, motivation is irrelevant.

Oh, so you believe they are the exception rather than the rule, right? And that it is driven by their moral code, right? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Crick]

I don't believe in "moral codes" but you're close. I believe quite firmly that there is nothing intrinsic to the successful practice of free enterprise capitalism that requires good environmental stewardship. It may well be beneficial in some regards, but it is not required and though improvements have taken place, they result from increasing public awareness, not any requirement of capitalism.

 

[ding]

I don't believe in "moral codes" but you're close. I believe quite firmly that there is nothing intrinsic to the successful practice of free enterprise capitalism that requires good environmental stewardship. It may well be beneficial in some regards, but it is not required and though improvements have taken place, they result from increasing public awareness, not any requirement of capitalism.

Oh, so they do it because people like you who have no moral code, shame them into doing it, but that is no way a Darwinian response.

 

[Crick]

Is that supposed to be an intelligible sentence?

You claimed that good environmental stewarding was intrinsic to free market capitalism. Show us why we should believe that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is that supposed to be an intelligible sentence?

You claimed that good environmental stewarding was intrinsic to free market capitalism. Show us why we should believe that.

Examples Crick
1. For jobs like logging, it helps to sustain the jobs and company by growing the trees in cycles, so there is always a fresh crop of mature trees to log while the next sets are growing.
2. For companies or services connected with cleaner energy, it helps to be more environmentally friendly and safe. Not only would more efficient means make better products to market, in themselves, but having a positive company image helps financially with business and advertising promotions.
3. By avoiding preventable damage or dumping that harms environment, this saves on costs of cleanup or lawsuits over dangers or hazards. So this savings affects the bottom line.

 

[Crick]

I am not arguing that the exercise of capitalism cannot or should not be done in a manner as protective of natural systems and resources as possible. I'm saying there is nothing intrinsic to it that demands such behavior. Your logging company can save itself a great deal of money if it doesn't replant the forest or take care with its access roads but if it simply clear cuts every piece of land it can find and moves on.

The energy company can simply lie about their activities to create a good public image while producing energy as cheaply (with the least possible regard for pollution and carbon emissions) as possible.

By dumping hazardous waste on public lands, a company saves the fees of using waste treatment services. If caught, they dissolve the company and flee quietly into the night.

Obviously, there are advantages to being 'green' about the way you do business and, thankfully, many companies now choose to do so. But nothing about the practice of free market capitalism - whose number one priority is, always has been and always will be to maximize net profits - that requires it.

 

[there4eyeM]

As there is nothing in 'capitalism' that precludes loving, intelligent action, there is nothing that engenders it, either. 'Capitalism', after all, is not in itself an ideology or philosophy; it is merely one way of functioning in the realm of economics. History shows its strengths and its weaknesses.

 

[ding]

Is that supposed to be an intelligible sentence?

You claimed that good environmental stewarding was intrinsic to free market capitalism. Show us why we should believe that.

I'm glad caught that, I'm sad that the reason for it went over your head.

I have already explained that to you. You dismissed it. It would be illogical for me to tell you again. Especially since you believe capitalism is a dirty word. The reality is that by any objective measure we have gotten better. Suck on that commie.

 

[Crick]

I dismissed it because it was NOT evidence supporting your contention. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence supporting your position. That is getting to be a habit of yours.

 

[ding]

I dismissed it because it was NOT evidence supporting your contention. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence supporting your position. That is getting to be a habit of yours.

You dismissed it because it does not fit your narrative that capitalism is inherently evil.