Don't forget that in the Capital/Labor contract, you always have to have some Labor...although the powers that be have lost track of that in this last run on the bank, the bastards... Ah well, always takes a depression or a revolution to remind them...that puts their greed in check for a while, gets them back to playin all nice nice.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Undoubtedly killing off populations would increase the supply and > reduce the demand not to mention the side effect of increased quality > of life for the remaining few. I wouldn't put it past the capitalist > pigs to perpetrate some global pandemic once the space station becomes > suitable for extended habitation. They can then return to the first > rung of resource and opportunity to begin a new age of human > exploitation. Why own your own island when you can own your own > planet? > I'm sure that we could put together a workable model for decent living > but I'm also sure that it would get the Hitler bonfire treatment. > It is the capitalists that have been keeping us under the thumb of big > oil for all the years that solar and battery vehicles have been > around. The suppression of new technologies for the sake of dependence > on old technologies results in profit longevity. While at the same > time ignoring the environmental pollution costs these capitalists > continue to wreak havoc on our world. Unfortunately people become > blinded by wealth. > > On Jan 21, 10:28 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > We can sort of most of the world's problems by killing half the > > population - this was feasible even to Genghis Khan, though he > > butchered only 20% or so of his known world. The most recent > > experiments in this were around Rwanda where food is in short supply. > > I would guess we will crack desalination to under 30 cents a cubic > > metre and less eventually. And so on. What we lack is a model for > > decent living under a whole swamp of modelling that discounts this. > > Much would be about how we create, direct and monitor "capital" - if > > this was genuinely up for grabs. Strange issues like "trust" need to > > be gripped. > > > > On 21 Jan, 16:03, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That is a very important aspect and one that deserves in depth > > > examination, not that research had never been conducted before. I > > > guess it would follow that exponential population growth leads to > > > depletion of available resources. I would hope that hydroponics and > > > other alternative growing methods will ultimately forestall the limits > > > on food production. However, the demand for animal protein may > > > decrease the acreage available for farming as the land becomes the > > > food resource for the animals. Oil is transiting over to solar and > > > wind. Water is a commodity that already seems to be in short supply, > > > clean water that is. Somehow I feel the ingenuity of science will > > > prevail and populations will decrease in balance with growth, whether > > > by natural cause or man made calamity. > > > > > I would pay some attention to the criticisms of your "Limits to > > > Growth" reference. > > > Yale economist Henry C. Wallich labeled the book "a piece of > > > irresponsible nonsense" in a Newsweek editorial dated March 13, 1972. > > > Wallich's main complaints are that the book was published as a > > > publicity stunt with great fanfare at the Smithsonian in Washington, > > > and that there was insufficient evidence for many of the variables > > > used in the model. > > > Robert M. Solow from MIT, complained about the weak base of data on > > > which The Limits to Growths predictions were made. > > > Dr. Allen Kneese and Dr. Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future > > > (RFF) stated: > > > "The authors load their case by letting some things grow > > > exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow > > > exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources > > > and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in > > > discrete increments." > > > > > It should be noted, however, that the authors of the report accepted > > > that the then-known resources of minerals and energy could, and would, > > > grow in the future, and consumption growth rates could also decline. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth#Criticism > > > > > On Jan 21, 8:02 am, Growthbuster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Few are talking about the most basic problem with our current > economic > > > > system: it is intent on having more throughput year over year, yet it > > > > exists in a finite environment. The resources it consumes are not > > > > unlimited. I think one of the prime reasons for such a big meltdown > > > > this time is that we really are up against the "limits to growth." > > > > That's in quotes because you ought to Google that phrase. Think peak > > > > oil, peak food, peak water and perhaps now peak money! > > > > > > Dave Gardner > > > > Producer/Director > > > > Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
