Nihilism And Climate Change

[Kowani]

I got two words for you-Planned Obsolescence.

You realize that not only corporations can be smart... In a truly capitalist society, there would no longer be government-mandated barriers to entry, meaning that anyone can start a company to produce a product,

Except for the fact that those small companies would be bought up in days, the second they posed an actual threat to a revenue stream.

and the plethora of fledgling companies would need to beat their competition. These companies would be happy to start off their company with a bang by creating products that last for a really long time, and telling people so to persuade them off of planned-obsolescent products.

Well, no. Doing such a thing is expensive-thus forcing them to raise prices or cut wages, and takes experienced workers and good technology. None of which new companies can afford. A large corporation could even sell their cheap lightbulbs at a loss, just to control malarkey share.

The hundreds of new lightbulb companies would need to make a product which lasts for decades, likely even including ten year, twenty year, or even lifetime warranties. People aren't dumb, so they'd tend to buy these, so they wouldn't need new lightbulbs until they move to a new house.

Except when planned obsolescence first hit in history (we didn’t start here, it was an innovation), the cheap, disposable products won.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

That does not (in my eyes at east) really refute my statement, they are still, somehow, contributing. Whether in copious or small amounts, they still add collectively something into the overall causation. If all of us strive towards reducing our population (people from both developed and underdeveloped nations) it would have an overall positive impact.
This is possibly going too off-topic, but I find that all people, regardless of their economic status, should have less children.
The aforementioned example, about how lifestyle and economics matter more than the number of people, could be reduced if the amount of people with those said lifestyles would be minimized.

Here's a map of countries by CO2 output per year:

Here's a map of countries by population growth

Population control punishes the countries that contribute the least to climate change. Poorer families contribute less to pollution, since they use less water, drive less, and most importantly, consume less. The majority of pollution comes from manufacturing and production, which itself is a product of our throw-away economy of consumption, where we constantly produce new and fancy new gadgets and commodities. When poorer countries do pollute, it's primarily because they are manufacturing the commodities we will enjoy.

Tbh with the lower carbon output and the better LGBT rights Taiwan should rule mainland China.

[Antityranicals]

You realize that not only corporations can be smart... In a truly capitalist society, there would no longer be government-mandated barriers to entry, meaning that anyone can start a company to produce a product,

Except for the fact that those small companies would be bought up in days, the second they posed an actual threat to a revenue stream.

and the plethora of fledgling companies would need to beat their competition. These companies would be happy to start off their company with a bang by creating products that last for a really long time, and telling people so to persuade them off of planned-obsolescent products.

Well, no. Doing such a thing is expensive-thus forcing them to raise prices or cut wages, and takes experienced workers and good technology. None of which new companies can afford. A large corporation could even sell their cheap lightbulbs at a loss, just to control malarkey share.

The hundreds of new lightbulb companies would need to make a product which lasts for decades, likely even including ten year, twenty year, or even lifetime warranties. People aren't dumb, so they'd tend to buy these, so they wouldn't need new lightbulbs until they move to a new house.

Except when planned obsolescence first hit in history (we didn’t start here, it was an innovation), the cheap, disposable products won.

1. Two things. "Buying up" requires a willing buyer as well as a willing seller. If the companies don't want to sell, they won't. Secondly, even if they do sell out, in a real capitalist society, the moment people realize that they can get a ton of money by getting a huge company to buy their company, literally thousands of people will try this, and the large company will quickly find that they don't have enough money to forestall the invasion, and they will have competition
2. Hardly. If we're talking about "planned obsolescence," that means that it's just as easy to build a product to last as to build a product not to last. Otherwise, the obsolescence wouldn't be planned, it would just happen. And even if it would, the large companies would simply build better products to fight off the other companies. Either way, better products are the result. And the selling lightbulbs at a loss is principally the same thing as buying up small companies. Eventually, you run out of money. This tactic might work against one or a few companies, but not against hundreds, since new competitors will keep coming back.
3. Only because the monopoly privileges bestowed on large companies by the government allowed them to cut quality without dealing with competition. Take away these privileges, and we'll have products which are both cheap and durable, because that's what the market will demand, and competitive free enterprise will provide. Stop saying that reality is capitalist, it isn't.

[Antityranicals]

Here's a map of countries by CO2 output per year:

Here's a map of countries by population growth

Population control punishes the countries that contribute the least to climate change. Poorer families contribute less to pollution, since they use less water, drive less, and most importantly, consume less. The majority of pollution comes from manufacturing and production, which itself is a product of our throw-away economy of consumption, where we constantly produce new and fancy new gadgets and commodities. When poorer countries do pollute, it's primarily because they are manufacturing the commodities we will enjoy.

Tbh with the lower carbon output and the better LGBT rights Taiwan should rule mainland China.

How about the US funds a Taiwanese coup of China, in exchange for the forgiveness of all debt which China holds on the US. That sounds like a good deal... (I'm mostly kidding...)

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So just going to ignore the tilted system capitalism has where payday loan people make people take out loans to pay old loans.

Or the fact that collage is required to get almost any job but student debt is so painful.

Nike abuses athletics it sponsors and the people in it's workforce, EA, activtion, Bethesda all have crunch periods to abuse workers.

Activison Blizzard bends over for commie cock sucking so there precious Chinese market sugar daddy doesn't bitch slap them.

It being technically "OpTIoNaL" is just ignoring the fact that it is the only logical way to do things.

Sorry I'm a bit late in responding. You ignore the fact that all of these things are a result of government intervention. Governments and their national banks not only keep interest rates artificially low, removing disincentives of going into crazy amounts of debt, but also put colossal regulatory burdens and taxes on everything, making costs of living, which might otherwise be 5-10k annually, far, far higher, forcing many to go into debt to pay for the bureaucratic morass we call government. When this debt inevitably becomes overwhelming, they have no choice but to borrow money at higher interest to pay off the ludicrous debt caused by government credit expansion and parasitism. College is required to get jobs because government regulations require occupational licensing, and occupational licensing can usually only be acquired with significant education in the field. In addition, costs of college are made far higher by the fact that the government gives out student loans, and since they give out student loans without worrying about making a profit, they'll lend to anybody, meaning that everybody has the money to go to college, meaning that colleges have no reason not to raise their prices to the stratosphere. Thus even though everyone is given enough money to pay for college, not everyone ends up with the capability of paying the money back. To be honest, I don't know about the Nike bit, and I definitely believe it, as Nike is a real jerk of a company, but people always have the option to work somewhere else. And don't even pretend that anything having anything to do with China is capitalist.

No, college is required to get jobs beacuse rich corporate fucks want to limit how meany people get jobs.

Nike hired a woman runner as a sponsor, they abused her by constantly bringing up weight, making her depressed.


No but Activision Blizzard is. They went down for cock town for China, censoring speech beacuse that winnie the pooh looking mother fucker Xi Jinping hates hearing about how his country suppresses freedom.

"""Fantasy"""

Wow, I haven't seen that one... Saying that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change is like saying that 97% of Gestapo members are Nazi sympathizers; it's the other 3% that makes one think something might be up with the idea... Anyway, even the IPCC admits that CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas decreases with concentration, they just disguised it in their report so that one needs to be familiar with college level mathematics to interpret the equation. If you don't believe me, check out the link. The equation's on page 358, in table 6.2.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... TAR-06.pdf

k


Still means CO2 is fucking up the planet tho

[Kowani]

1. Two things. "Buying up" requires a willing buyer as well as a willing seller. If the companies don't want to sell, they won't.

Yes, I’m sure this attitude will definitely encourage investors.

Secondly, even if they do sell out, in a real capitalist society, the moment people realize that they can get a ton of money by getting a huge company to buy their company, literally thousands of people will try this, and the large company will quickly find that they don't have enough money to forestall the invasion, and they will have competition

Laughably false. Firstly, any large corporation will only buy up the companies that they perceive they can extract revenue from, so any random Joe can’t go up and plead to be bought up. Secondly, even if you were right, because of the sheer imbalance in between the two sides, any small start-ups being bought out would be paid a pittance, nowhere near enough to bring down a large corporation.

2. Hardly. If we're talking about "planned obsolescence," that means that it's just as easy to build a product to last as to build a product not to last. Otherwise, the obsolescence wouldn't be planned, it would just happen.

Physically false. Planned obsolescence is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so that it becomes obsolete (i.e., unfashionable, or no longer functional) after a certain period of time. It is easier and cheaper to build products this way-it does not mean that it is equally easy to build products with different lifespans.

And even if it would, the large companies would simply build better products to fight off the other companies.

‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices’

Either way, better products are the result.

Empirically false.

And the selling lightbulbs at a loss is principally the same thing as buying up small companies. Eventually, you run out of money. This tactic might work against one or a few companies, but not against hundreds, since new competitors will keep coming back.

Wrong. High entry costs and customer inertia will kill most small businesses entering into an already established field-especially manufacturing goods.

3. Only because the monopoly privileges bestowed on large companies by the government allowed them to cut quality without dealing with competition. Take away these privileges, and we'll have products which are both cheap and durable, because that's what the market will demand, and competitive free enterprise will provide. Stop saying that reality is capitalist, it isn't.

I don’t think you understand when planned obsolescence developed on any large scale.

[Antityranicals]

Sorry I'm a bit late in responding. You ignore the fact that all of these things are a result of government intervention. Governments and their national banks not only keep interest rates artificially low, removing disincentives of going into crazy amounts of debt, but also put colossal regulatory burdens and taxes on everything, making costs of living, which might otherwise be 5-10k annually, far, far higher, forcing many to go into debt to pay for the bureaucratic morass we call government. When this debt inevitably becomes overwhelming, they have no choice but to borrow money at higher interest to pay off the ludicrous debt caused by government credit expansion and parasitism. College is required to get jobs because government regulations require occupational licensing, and occupational licensing can usually only be acquired with significant education in the field. In addition, costs of college are made far higher by the fact that the government gives out student loans, and since they give out student loans without worrying about making a profit, they'll lend to anybody, meaning that everybody has the money to go to college, meaning that colleges have no reason not to raise their prices to the stratosphere. Thus even though everyone is given enough money to pay for college, not everyone ends up with the capability of paying the money back. To be honest, I don't know about the Nike bit, and I definitely believe it, as Nike is a real jerk of a company, but people always have the option to work somewhere else. And don't even pretend that anything having anything to do with China is capitalist.

No, college is required to get jobs beacuse rich corporate fucks want to limit how meany people get jobs.

Nike hired a woman runner as a sponsor, they abused her by constantly bringing up weight, making her depressed.


No but Activision Blizzard is. They went down for cock town for China, censoring speech beacuse that winnie the pooh looking mother fucker Xi Jinping hates hearing about how his country suppresses freedom.

Wow, I haven't seen that one... Saying that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change is like saying that 97% of Gestapo members are Nazi sympathizers; it's the other 3% that makes one think something might be up with the idea... Anyway, even the IPCC admits that CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas decreases with concentration, they just disguised it in their report so that one needs to be familiar with college level mathematics to interpret the equation. If you don't believe me, check out the link. The equation's on page 358, in table 6.2.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... TAR-06.pdf

k


Still means CO2 is fucking up the planet tho

What do you mean "rich corporate f*cks want to limit jobs"? What could they possibly have to gain buy doing that? The "rich corporate f*cks" want to hire the best people for the job, for the lowest price. And that doesn't require a college degree. In a free market, companies would simply have their own aptitude tests for employees. In fact, they might even save money by not hiring those with college degrees.

And what that equation means is that even if the Earth's CO2 levels were to suddenly triple, the earth's temperature would only increase by about half a degree. So there's no "f*cking up the planet".

[Cekoviu]

Nihilism is edgy bullshit packaged into a philosophy and anyone who unironically believes in it should take a good, hard look at themselves.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

>rich people can't take your money against your will
The Mafia would like a word with you, and it'd be a real shame if you didn't listen...

I'd actually define the Mafia as a government.

I know that this post is old by now, but this is worth asking about: At what point does a private organization stop being a private organization and start being a government? Does the word "government" even have actual meaning, or is it just something you use to describe organizations you don't like?

[Harnandia]

Nihilism is edgy bullshit

Prove it.

... packaged into a philosophy and anyone who unironically believes in it should take a good, hard look at themselves.

I had no idea you were the universal gatekeeper on what set of beliefs are objectively good and bad.

Also, I hate to repeat things and give a generic stock answer but...
''I knew someone would use the cliché and over utilized ''edgy'' argument, which, in this specific context not only is completely irrelevant, but also meaningless, as the word edgy has been used so many times to the point where it has lost its definition. if you find my statements to be 'edgy', then so be it. I personally don't think so nor am I trying to be 'alternative' or 'anti-mainstream' in any way, shape or form.''

[Xuloqoia]

Nihilism is edgy bullshit packaged into a philosophy and anyone who unironically believes in it should take a good, hard look at themselves.

I'm confused. I thought that you were friends with Kowani, or at least on good terms with him.

[Kowani]

Nihilism is edgy bullshit packaged into a philosophy and anyone who unironically believes in it should take a good, hard look at themselves.

I'm confused. I thought that you were friends with Kowani, or at least on good terms with him.

I would be insulted if I hadn’t heard worse.

[Xuloqoia]

I'm confused. I thought that you were friends with Kowani, or at least on good terms with him.

I would be insulted if I hadn’t heard worse.

Wait, did you think I was insulting you? If that's how it came across, then I apologize. I thought that Cekoviu was insulting you, but I was under the impression this entire time that you and Cekoviu were friends, or at least on the same team.

[Cekoviu]

Nihilism is edgy bullshit

Prove it.

... packaged into a philosophy and anyone who unironically believes in it should take a good, hard look at themselves.

I had no idea you were the universal gatekeeper on what set of beliefs are objectively good and bad.

Also, I hate to repeat things and give a generic stock answer but...
''I knew someone would use the cliché and over utilized ''edgy'' argument, which, in this specific context not only is completely irrelevant, but also meaningless, as the word edgy has been used so many times to the point where it has lost its definition. if you find my statements to be 'edgy', then so be it. I personally don't think so nor am I trying to be 'alternative' or 'anti-mainstream' in any way, shape or form.''

Why would you care? It doesn't matter anyway.

[Harnandia]

Prove it.

I had no idea you were the universal gatekeeper on what set of beliefs are objectively good and bad.

Also, I hate to repeat things and give a generic stock answer but...
''I knew someone would use the cliché and over utilized ''edgy'' argument, which, in this specific context not only is completely irrelevant, but also meaningless, as the word edgy has been used so many times to the point where it has lost its definition. if you find my statements to be 'edgy', then so be it. I personally don't think so nor am I trying to be 'alternative' or 'anti-mainstream' in any way, shape or form.''

Why would you care? It doesn't matter anyway.

Translation: I am unable to prove my arguments, therefore I shall resort to a ''witty'' comeback.

[Kowani]

I would be insulted if I hadn’t heard worse.

Wait, did you think I was insulting you? If that's how it came across, then I apologize. I thought that Cekoviu was insulting you, but I was under the impression this entire time that you and Cekoviu were friends, or at least on the same team.

That’s what I was referring to as well.

[Cekoviu]

Nihilism is edgy bullshit packaged into a philosophy and anyone who unironically believes in it should take a good, hard look at themselves.

I'm confused. I thought that you were friends with Kowani, or at least on good terms with him.

We're not really that close tbh. Friendly acquaintances at best. But anyway, you can still be friends with someone even if you disagree with their political opinions.

[Cekoviu]

Why would you care? It doesn't matter anyway.

Translation: I am unable to prove my arguments, therefore I shall resort to a ''witty'' comeback.

They're by nature subjective. Obviously I can't prove them because they're based not on data, but on emotions. Much like nihilism itself.

[Kowani]

I'm confused. I thought that you were friends with Kowani, or at least on good terms with him.

We're not really that close tbh. Friendly acquaintances at best. But anyway, you can still be friends with someone even if you disagree with their political opinions.

Oof.
But you’re not wrong.

[Cekoviu]

We're not really that close tbh. Friendly acquaintances at best. But anyway, you can still be friends with someone even if you disagree with their political opinions.

Oof.
But you’re not wrong.

I'm not wrong that we're acquaintances or that you can have friends with differing opinions?

[Rezmaeristan]

Kind of starting to pick up such an attitude.

[Kowani]

Oof.
But you’re not wrong.

I'm not wrong that we're acquaintances or that you can have friends with differing opinions?

If I required all my friends to have the same opinions as me, I would have no friends.

[Cekoviu]

I'm not wrong that we're acquaintances or that you can have friends with differing opinions?

If I required all my friends to have the same opinions as me, I would have no friends.

UnderstandaBle, yes.

[Harnandia]

Translation: I am unable to prove my arguments, therefore I shall resort to a ''witty'' comeback.

They're by nature subjective. Obviously I can't prove them because they're based not on data, but on emotions. Much like nihilism itself.

Then you should have been more clear in your previous comment, that your opinion on nihilism is a subjective one. It came across as a snarky 'know-it-all this is a fact' statement. Especially with the, dare I say cringeworthy and outdated, usage of the word ''edgy''.
Also, nihilism is not based on emotions, not my brand of nihilism anyway. It does not come from my feelings, but because there is no data on whether or not life/existence has any meaning or a point. I am obviously not going to speak for all nihilists nor homogenize the entire group, but that is how I personally operate.
Out of sheer curiosity, why do you despise nihilism so much?

[Kowani]

If I required all my friends to have the same opinions as me, I would have no friends.

UnderstandaBle, yes.

What’s with the color change?