Nihilism And Climate Change

[Tekeristan]

You people are cute and fragile.

Pardonnez-moi, monsieur?

You're fragile. The idea of being forced to not be at the top of a global economic hierarchy so you can eat shitty food has you reeling. You're all burying your head in the sand.

The world economy is going to utterly collapse in on itself sometime soon. This will be the fault of capital itself pursuing its self-cannibalizing interests. A redistribution of the ill-gotten gains of the first world back to the global south is an inevitability.

[Czechostan]

I would sooner have climate change raise the oceans by six feet than ever, EVER give up my freedom. Or my soda. OR MY CHEESEBURGER.

It's lines like this that make me think individualism was a mistake.

[Tekeristan]

I would sooner have climate change raise the oceans by six feet than ever, EVER give up my freedom. Or my soda. OR MY CHEESEBURGER.

It's lines like this that make me think individualism was a mistake.

It isn't about "individualism" and never was. It's the right to consume as much as one pleases under a system they've been lead to think works for them. It's as much a view of self and their own responsibility in things clashing with inherent fragility. Rampant individualism is just a justification for the socio-economic structure and an excuse to utterly strip down collective action and power for the proles.

[Deacarsia]

Pardonnez-moi, monsieur?

You're fragile. The idea of being forced to not be at the top of a global economic hierarchy so you can eat shitty food has you reeling. You're all burying your head in the sand.

The world economy is going to utterly collapse in on itself sometime soon. This will be the fault of capital itself pursuing its self-cannibalizing interests. A redistribution of the ill-gotten gains of the first world back to the global south is an inevitability.

You really do not understand economics, do you?

Watch it with the name calling, bud.

[Czechostan]

It isn't about "individualism" and never was. It's the right to consume as much as one pleases under a system they've been lead to think works for them.

Sounds like individualism to me.

Rampant individualism is just a justification for the socio-economic structure and an excuse to utterly strip down collective action and power for the proles.

A justification for the socio-economic structure and a product of it. And as you've implied, it's collective active and a sense of solidarity that we need to fix this.

[Tekeristan]

You're fragile. The idea of being forced to not be at the top of a global economic hierarchy so you can eat shitty food has you reeling. You're all burying your head in the sand.

The world economy is going to utterly collapse in on itself sometime soon. This will be the fault of capital itself pursuing its self-cannibalizing interests. A redistribution of the ill-gotten gains of the first world back to the global south is an inevitability.

You really do not understand economics, do you?

Watch it with the name calling, bud.

I know plenty about economics and I didn't call you a name. I could call you a name, like snowflake and the like, but honestly it doesn't take us anywhere besides your own discomfort which at times I would pursue, but at the present I am not.

Do you have an actual refutation of my assumptions? Something to say about this redistribution?

[Cekoviu]

This is a hot take, but only because it's insulated by methane.

Cekoviu is one hundred percent right, though. It wasn't automobiles that gave us the Paleocene Thermal Maximum, which was hotter than every AGCC prediction can envision at this time.

Which is why more focus needs to be placed on animal, especially cow, farming as a source of climate change and substitutes such as vat-grown meat need to be popularized in conjunction with a renewable energy regimen.

[Tekeristan]

It isn't about "individualism" and never was. It's the right to consume as much as one pleases under a system they've been lead to think works for them.

Sounds like individualism to me.

Rampant individualism is just a justification for the socio-economic structure and an excuse to utterly strip down collective action and power for the proles.

A justification for the socio-economic structure and a product of it. And as you've implied, it's collective active and a sense of solidarity that we need to fix this.

Attacking things on a purely "Individual" vs "collective" front is an unuseful and slightly self destructive route. The interests of the individual prole are inseperable and indistinguishable from the collective interests of proles. The "individual" and "collective" front doesn't take into account that the "Individual" conflict with the collective is class conflict inherent to the system as it is - the wealthy deciding how to treat the rest of us.

[Czechostan]

The interests of the individual prole are inseperable and indistinguishable from the collective interests of proles.

I think it's a little more nuanced than that. But regardless of how we frame it, most Westerners see themselves as disjointed individuals and this, I argue, is a big part of what prevents us from solving problems like climate change.

[Tekeristan]

The interests of the individual prole are inseperable and indistinguishable from the collective interests of proles.

I think it's a little more nuanced than that. But regardless of how we frame it, most Westerners see themselves as disjointed individuals and this, I argue, is a big part of what prevents us from solving problems like climate change.

You could certainly 'nit pic' it but that would be not only counterproductive but entirely unproductive. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. It is the propertied classes that actively pursue the subjugation of the collective to their individual wills.

[Deacarsia]

You really do not understand economics, do you?

Watch it with the name calling, bud.

I know plenty about economics and I didn't call you a name. I could call you a name, like snowflake and the like, but honestly it doesn't take us anywhere besides your own discomfort which at times I would pursue, but at the present I am not.

Do you have an actual refutation of my assumptions? Something to say about this redistribution?

I interpreted “fragile” as name-calling, but if no offense was meant then none is taken. I have pretty thick skin, but often I have seen initially civil discussions spiral out of control from something very small or innocent, so I was trying to pre-empt that so we could continue a civil discussion.

I agree that the world economic utterly is going to collapse in on itself sometime soon, but we disagree starkly on the causes. While you somehow see it as an effect of “capital[ism]” and “climate change,” I believe it is more the result of the increased power of the State in the modern word, particularly in the rampant imperialism and monetary insanity of the United States federal government.

According to economics as I understand it, the Third World is not impoverished by the wealth of the First World, but by the socialist policies enacted by their own governments, often pursued on the basis of the idea that “capitalism” is somehow an imperialist ideology (in reality, real free-market capitalism opposes imperialism and supports military non-intervention). Instead, there is going to be a massive transfer of wealth from dollar-using and net-importing countries (e.g. the United States) to net-exporting countries that do not use the United States dollar (e.g. China).

The solution to these problems is the introduction of true laissez-faire free markets in both the impoverished Third World and in the corrupt and imperialistic First World, which would entail the abolition of the imperial welfare-warfare state, sound money, and strict property rights.

[Tekeristan]

I know plenty about economics and I didn't call you a name. I could call you a name, like snowflake and the like, but honestly it doesn't take us anywhere besides your own discomfort which at times I would pursue, but at the present I am not.

Do you have an actual refutation of my assumptions? Something to say about this redistribution?

I interpreted “fragile” as name-calling, but if no offense was meant then none is taken. I have pretty thick skin, but often I have seen initially civil discussions spiral out of control from something very small or innocent, so I was trying to pre-empt that so we could continue a civil discussion.

I agree that the world economic utterly is going to collapse in on itself sometime soon, but we disagree starkly on the causes. While you somehow see it as an effect of “capital[ism]” and “climate change,” I believe it is more the result of the increased power of the State in the modern word, particularly in the rampant imperialism and monetary insanity of the United States federal government.

According to economics as I understand it, the Third World is not impoverished by the wealth of the First World, but by the socialist policies enacted by their own governments, often pursued on the basis of the idea that “capitalism” is somehow an imperialist ideology (in reality, real free-market capitalism opposes imperialism and supports military non-intervention). Instead, there is going to be a massive transfer of wealth from dollar-using and net-importing countries (e.g. the United States) to net-exporting countries that do not use the United States dollar (e.g. China).

The solution to these problems is the introduction of true laissez-faire free markets in both the impoverished Third World and in the corrupt and imperialistic First World, which would entail the abolition of the imperial welfare-warfare state, sound money, and strict property rights.

You start with the assumption that all discussion is 'civil'. It isn't. A conflict of interest that could very well mean life or death or destitution for people is not an acceptable context for 'civility' to be applied outside of it being used to suppress change that would prevent death or destitution.

Furthermore, the key flaw in your line of thought is you view those things as *exceptions* rather than the *rule*. They're entirely consistent with the interests of capital, entirely the fault of capital, and this was predicted literally over a hundred years ago. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. They've openly and actively looted the public treasurey because they cannot help themselves. If you listened to any of the criticisms about capital and its structures you would know this, instead you dismiss it all and pose no active threat to the way things are because you are clinically not able to effectively criticize the system or understand why it is the way it is.

Your understanding of the relationship between the global north and the global south is deeply idealistic and flawed. The global north extracts some 3 trillion more in profit from the global south than the global south receives from the north ( 5t vs 2t iirc). The economies of the global south are set up in such a way to perpetuate foreign ownership over their resources to assure their hastily and cheap extraction to fund consumerism in the global north. Any gov't that goes out of its way in the global south to challenge that is promptly overthrown. Look into the history of the Congo state and things such as Operation Condor. If you were knowledged in the subject, you would know that Neo-Liberalism is common in the global south - which is all about free and open markets, so they, you know, can be looted by foreign entities.

The problem is you start from the place that "free markets" are in your own interests. Perhaps they are and you occupy different strata in society than myself, in which case our interests are mutually exclusive and we will not find common ground.

[Deacarsia]

I interpreted “fragile” as name-calling, but if no offense was meant then none is taken. I have pretty thick skin, but often I have seen initially civil discussions spiral out of control from something very small or innocent, so I was trying to pre-empt that so we could continue a civil discussion.

I agree that the world economic utterly is going to collapse in on itself sometime soon, but we disagree starkly on the causes. While you somehow see it as an effect of “capital[ism]” and “climate change,” I believe it is more the result of the increased power of the State in the modern word, particularly in the rampant imperialism and monetary insanity of the United States federal government.

According to economics as I understand it, the Third World is not impoverished by the wealth of the First World, but by the socialist policies enacted by their own governments, often pursued on the basis of the idea that “capitalism” is somehow an imperialist ideology (in reality, real free-market capitalism opposes imperialism and supports military non-intervention). Instead, there is going to be a massive transfer of wealth from dollar-using and net-importing countries (e.g. the United States) to net-exporting countries that do not use the United States dollar (e.g. China).

The solution to these problems is the introduction of true laissez-faire free markets in both the impoverished Third World and in the corrupt and imperialistic First World, which would entail the abolition of the imperial welfare-warfare state, sound money, and strict property rights.

You start with the assumption that all discussion is 'civil'. It isn't. A conflict of interest that could very well mean life or death or destitution for people is not an acceptable context for 'civility' to be applied outside of it being used to suppress change that would prevent death or destitution.

Furthermore, the key flaw in your line of thought is you view those things as *exceptions* rather than the *rule*. They're entirely consistent with the interests of capital, entirely the fault of capital, and this was predicted literally over a hundred years ago. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. They've openly and actively looted the public treasurey because they cannot help themselves. If you listened to any of the criticisms about capital and its structures you would know this, instead you dismiss it all and pose no active threat to the way things are because you are clinically not able to effectively criticize the system or understand why it is the way it is.

Your understanding of the relationship between the global north and the global south is deeply idealistic and flawed. The global north extracts some 3 trillion more in profit from the global south than the global south receives from the north ( 5t vs 2t iirc). The economies of the global south are set up in such a way to perpetuate foreign ownership over their resources to assure their hastily and cheap extraction to fund consumerism in the global north. Any gov't that goes out of its way in the global south to challenge that is promptly overthrown. Look into the history of the Congo state and things such as Operation Condor. If you were knowledged in the subject, you would know that Neo-Liberalism is common in the global south - which is all about free and open markets, so they, you know, can be looted by foreign entities.

The problem is you start from the place that "free markets" are in your own interests. Perhaps they are and you occupy different strata in society than myself, in which case our interests are mutually exclusive and we will not find common ground.

I assume that most people would prefer discussion to remain civil, especially on an Internet forum, since shouting past each other accomplishes nothing.
I absolutely do not support neo-liberalism, which is distinct from laissez-faire in its insistence on the managerial welfare-warfare state and on worthless “international institutions,” which intrude on natural rights and national sovereignty.

Methinks we subscribe to different schools of economics. I strongly support the Austrian School. Are you a Marxist, or perhaps some other species of socialist?

[Tekeristan]

You start with the assumption that all discussion is 'civil'. It isn't. A conflict of interest that could very well mean life or death or destitution for people is not an acceptable context for 'civility' to be applied outside of it being used to suppress change that would prevent death or destitution.

Furthermore, the key flaw in your line of thought is you view those things as *exceptions* rather than the *rule*. They're entirely consistent with the interests of capital, entirely the fault of capital, and this was predicted literally over a hundred years ago. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. They've openly and actively looted the public treasurey because they cannot help themselves. If you listened to any of the criticisms about capital and its structures you would know this, instead you dismiss it all and pose no active threat to the way things are because you are clinically not able to effectively criticize the system or understand why it is the way it is.

Your understanding of the relationship between the global north and the global south is deeply idealistic and flawed. The global north extracts some 3 trillion more in profit from the global south than the global south receives from the north ( 5t vs 2t iirc). The economies of the global south are set up in such a way to perpetuate foreign ownership over their resources to assure their hastily and cheap extraction to fund consumerism in the global north. Any gov't that goes out of its way in the global south to challenge that is promptly overthrown. Look into the history of the Congo state and things such as Operation Condor. If you were knowledged in the subject, you would know that Neo-Liberalism is common in the global south - which is all about free and open markets, so they, you know, can be looted by foreign entities.

The problem is you start from the place that "free markets" are in your own interests. Perhaps they are and you occupy different strata in society than myself, in which case our interests are mutually exclusive and we will not find common ground.

I assume that most people would prefer discussion to remain civil, especially on an Internet forum, since shouting past each other accomplishes nothing.
I absolutely do not support neo-liberalism, which is distinct from laissez-faire in its insistence on the managerial welfare-warfare state and on worthless “international institutions,” which intrude on natural rights and national sovereignty.

Methinks we subscribe to different schools of economics. I strongly support the Austrian School. Are you a Marxist, or perhaps some other species of socialist?

"Civility" implies some sort of faux mutual respect. I can certainly respect you, but I do not respect the consequences of your school of thought. In general, if you go into conversations under the pretext of civility, it further implies that anger, emotion, and other outbursts are inherently unjustified. They are fully justified.

Neo-Liberalism is not interested in sustaining the welfare state in of itself. It absolutely adores the privatization of gov't services and sectors, the stripping of any sort of tariffs or imposing regulations, and adores the free movement of resources, labor, and capital. Your flaw is thinking that Laizzes-Faire is first a thing, and second even tenable. It assumes that, as stated, the state stands independent from the economy or influences the economy, when it's demonstrably the other way around. Only maniacs individually support Neo-Liberalism unless they're rich or tech bros with a detached understanding and assured material comfort, because of a lot of the things that concern you are in fact real and entirely valid. The problem comes from your analysis and understanding surrounding them, to which I cannot fully blame anyone in good heart for besides those who actively created them in the first place.

I am a Marxist. It is tempting to ask what that means to you

[Deacarsia]

"Civility" implies some sort of faux mutual respect. I can certainly respect you, but I do not respect the consequences of your school of thought. In general, if you go into conversations under the pretext of civility, it further implies that anger, emotion, and other outbursts are inherently unjustified. They are fully justified.

Neo-Liberalism is not interested in sustaining the welfare state in of itself. It absolutely adores the privatization of gov't services and sectors, the stripping of any sort of tariffs or imposing regulations, and adores the free movement of resources, labor, and capital. Your flaw is thinking that Laizzes-Faire is first a thing, and second even tenable. It assumes that, as stated, the state stands independent from the economy or influences the economy, when it's demonstrably the other way around. Only maniacs individually support Neo-Liberalism unless they're rich or tech bros with a detached understanding and assured material comfort, because of a lot of the things that concern you are in fact real and entirely valid. The problem comes from your analysis and understanding surrounding them, to which I cannot fully blame anyone in good heart for besides those who actively created them in the first place.

I am a Marxist. It is tempting to ask what that means to you

By “civility” I meant mutual respect for the person, if not the ideas. For example, I also do not respect the consequences of your school of thought, but I certainly can respect you.

I think we at least can agree that neither of us is a neo-liberal, even if for radically differing reasons.

I thought you might be a Marxist, but I thought I should ask first. A Marxist to me is a follower of the ideas of Karl Marx.

[Cappuccina]

It isn't defeatism to realize what one can or cannot realistically accomplish.

Yes. Because you aren't in the position to make those decisions. Even if it was "utterlly unrealistic", the pursuit of solving the problem until our dying breath is still the right thing to do

Or one can not waste their dieing breath on a pointless endeavor.

[Deacarsia]

Yes. Because you aren't in the position to make those decisions. Even if it was "utterlly unrealistic", the pursuit of solving the problem until our dying breath is still the right thing to do

Or one can not waste their dieing breath on a pointless endeavor.

I agree.

[Jolthig]

I mean, in all fairness, this climate change is mainly causes by us given the technological revolution the past two centuries.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

You people are cute and fragile.

What a thoughtful and useful contribution to the debate. All I can tell is that I am being insulted. Please elaborate on why you turned a debate into attacks on my person.

[Deacarsia]

You people are cute and fragile.

What a thoughtful and useful contribution to the debate. All I can tell is that I am being insulted. Please elaborate on why you turned a debate into attacks on my person.

See, I knew it could not just be me who got that vibe!

[Tekeristan]

"Civility" implies some sort of faux mutual respect. I can certainly respect you, but I do not respect the consequences of your school of thought. In general, if you go into conversations under the pretext of civility, it further implies that anger, emotion, and other outbursts are inherently unjustified. They are fully justified.

Neo-Liberalism is not interested in sustaining the welfare state in of itself. It absolutely adores the privatization of gov't services and sectors, the stripping of any sort of tariffs or imposing regulations, and adores the free movement of resources, labor, and capital. Your flaw is thinking that Laizzes-Faire is first a thing, and second even tenable. It assumes that, as stated, the state stands independent from the economy or influences the economy, when it's demonstrably the other way around. Only maniacs individually support Neo-Liberalism unless they're rich or tech bros with a detached understanding and assured material comfort, because of a lot of the things that concern you are in fact real and entirely valid. The problem comes from your analysis and understanding surrounding them, to which I cannot fully blame anyone in good heart for besides those who actively created them in the first place.

I am a Marxist. It is tempting to ask what that means to you

By “civility” I meant mutual respect for the person, if not the ideas. For example, I also do not respect the consequences of your school of thought, but I can certainly respect you.

I think we can at least agree that neither of us is a neo-liberal, even if for radically differing reasons.

I thought you might be a Marxist, but I thought I should ask first. A Marxist to me is a follower of the ideas of Karl Marx.

Certainly. There are people I will come not to respect, however, and people are justified in feeling that as well. The reason is because the world is not pretty, it's not warm, and it's not soft. People's actions and beliefs have consequences that reverberate throughout society and ultimately, people ARE accountable for what they believe because despite recognizing the ultimate human tragedy that people are the products of their circumstance, it doesn't necessarily change the circumstances just because one acknowledges such. Nothing changes when you acknowledge that if things were different then they'd be different because the problem is is that they aren't different.

Course not. There is literally no world in which we benefit from it.

It follows into Marx's school of thought - which is dialectical materialism first and foremost. It is analyzing the world based on its material conditions and the social structures they produce. If you for some tragic reason believe that marxists have no basis to their thinking, you have been lied too. On purpose. Even if you do not respect marxist thought, if you do not intend to believe in any part of it, you at least benefit from having a grasp on what the ideas of it are and why it thinks and views things in the way that it does.

[Cappuccina]

I mean, in all fairness, this climate change is mainly causes by us given the technological revolution the past two centuries.

All we did was slightly affect a process that was already happening. People give humanity too much credit.

[Tekeristan]

I mean, in all fairness, this climate change is mainly causes by us given the technological revolution the past two centuries.

All we did was slightly affect a process that was already happening. People give humanity too much credit.

The rate of heating we are currently facing has absolutely no historical precident. The rate of heating is absolutely astronomical in comparison to the natural turns and shifts in Earth's history, which, again, took place over thousands of years.. Not a few decades.. And not increasingly exponential.

BESIDES all such.. Humanity has no right in not doing what it can to counter such. Actions that counter man made climate change will also shield us against the natural shifts in the Earth's climate.

[Jolthig]

I mean, in all fairness, this climate change is mainly causes by us given the technological revolution the past two centuries.

All we did was slightly affect a process that was already happening. People give humanity too much credit.

While it's true it is a natural process that happens all the time, humans generally have contribute much to an early climate change. Either way, we should use renewables because no one but the businesses that run those industries like pollution.

[Purpelia]

All we did was slightly affect a process that was already happening. People give humanity too much credit.

The rate of heating we are currently facing has absolutely no historical precident. The rate of heating is absolutely astronomical in comparison to the natural turns and shifts in Earth's history, which, again, took place over thousands of years.. Not a few decades.. And not increasingly exponential.

BESIDES all such.. Humanity has no right in not doing what it can to counter such. Actions that counter man made climate change will also shield us against the natural shifts in the Earth's climate.

Humanity has every right to do what ever the F we please. That includes literally cracking the planet in two to see the insides seep out. Now, I will agree with you that both doing so and ignoring climate change would be quite counterproductive and idiotic. But we do have every right to do so. Don't be an ecofascist. That's a good way to turn people against the cause.