tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post8177653035890039927..comments2023-12-17T13:05:30.543-08:00Comments on Brane Space: The Myth of Capitalist Support for OverpopulationCopernicushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-78539228340832090572010-01-27T13:11:51.792-08:002010-01-27T13:11:51.792-08:00"What I expected, for anyone pulling me up on..."What I expected, for anyone pulling me up on my understanding of capitalism (or lack thereof) was also attending to the arguments in blog entries succeeding the one on the myth of overpopulation. "<br /><br />Actually, since the referenced entry appeared BEFORE the one on overpopulation, there was even less excuse to overlook it! So, I ought to have stated "attending to the blog articles preceding the one on overpopulation. (However, for entries -posts in the same month, I'd generalize that to succeding posts as well)<br /><br />Thus, if readers criticize *also* expect them to read any immediately ANTECEDENT or subsequent material posted that are germane to the issues under discussion.Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-24185103171857300192010-01-27T13:05:50.441-08:002010-01-27T13:05:50.441-08:00Caleb Shay wrote:
"Before I comment, I make ...Caleb Shay wrote:<br /><br />"Before I comment, I make sure I've read all your other recent ones to be able to hit all the markers. This cat clearly couldn't have read your later articles, he just focused on the 'myth of overpopulation' one."<br /><br />Exactly. What I expected, for anyone pulling me up on my understanding of capitalism (or lack thereof) was also attending to the arguments in blog entries succeeding the one on the myth of overpopulation. In particular, my Part III-B on the U.S. Propaganda Industry, which included the "free market" myths and others.<br /><br />Since clay didn't see fit to address those, his response in dissing my knowledge of capitalism became irrelevant, and off the mark. <br /><br />Again, if readers criticize - which they are certainly welcome to do - I *also* expect them to read any subsequent material posted that may have potential repercussions in respect of the issue they are addressing. <br /><br />This is what I call "doing one's homework" before posting a negative or critical comment. I'm going to be very scrupulous about this now, and unless (critical) replies to a given article also cite (or at least acknowledge) relevant material in ancillary, subsequent articles - they will not receive a public hearing. At least not on this blog. If that is 'unfair' - so be it. Life is unfair. My blog, my rules.Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-73341932893853593492010-01-27T12:56:26.642-08:002010-01-27T12:56:26.642-08:00Pete Murphy wrote:
"The very act of using sp...Pete Murphy wrote:<br /><br />"The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty"<br /><br />An excellent point there! The flawed premise that these people (like clay) use, is that by enhancing efficiencies we can solve the problems attendant on an increasing population. In fact, the converse is true.<br /><br />Thus, in an increasingly energy-impoverished planet (say in a Peak Oil environment - sure to be with us by 2025)there is extremely limited capacity for implementing the production bases, and infrastructure to: a) produce enough goods & services for all, b) attain to the waste generated, and c) provide ample jobs. Heck, as noted in a section of the Financial Times today, small stakeholder farmers (of which there are some 1.5b now) can't even get securitization for loans!<br /><br />In another section, 'Business & Food Sustainability', author Fiona Harvey observes that the very (industrial farming, genetic engineering processes) that make for cheap and abundant food ALSO contribute to its increasing wastage. This in turn, imposes a vastly larger carbon footprint for every nation for which such wastage is applicable. In the UK, she points out, one-third of the carbon footprint (for infusing excess CO2 into the atmosphere) arises from food wastage.<br /><br />From this well-researched article in which she cites numerous sources (The Food Climate Research Network), it is self-evident that increasing efficiency in food production is not going to help us one iota support a larger population, if people keep their wasteful habits. <br /><br />Btw, I did access your site and enjoyed it very much. Extremely informative, and I do believe capitalist -economic model advocates like 'clay' might profit from it.Copernicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699554476216140859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-82895417109064908462010-01-27T10:27:47.460-08:002010-01-27T10:27:47.460-08:00Oh, I forgot to mention copernicus, that your many...Oh, I forgot to mention copernicus, that your many blog articles on stocks and relations to interest rates, dollar value, arcane trading devices- including credit default swaps, cov lites, and pic toggles trading shows you have a hundred times more knowledge of capitalism and its workings in yhour little finger than clay has in his whole brain@Caleb Shayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971916422910289078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-56723894784105772372010-01-27T09:26:16.560-08:002010-01-27T09:26:16.560-08:00Very good and thoughtful article, copernicus. I ca...Very good and thoughtful article, copernicus. I can't believe some bonehead would pull you up on your knowledge of capitalism when a lot of your recent blog articles directly or indirectly deal with it. Also, if said bonehead didn't read the Propaganda Industry piece you did on the U.S. media, especially how they created the free market and other myths, he has no business getting his comment put up. <br /><br />Before I comment, I make sure I've read all your other recent ones to be able to hit all the markers. This cat clearly couldn't have read your later articles, he just focused on the 'myth of overpopulation' one.<br /><br />Btw, your replies to the comment you did post of his (clay's) were great. The guy is a real dummy thinking astronomers have some plan mapped out for other planets. <br /><br />A little effort would have led him to this link:<br /><br />http://dvice.com/archives/2009/09/nasas-return-to.php<br /><br /><br />In which it's stated:<br /><br />"The budgetary review of NASA ordered by President Obama has found that the program needs quite a bit more money than previously thought to reach its goal of getting back to the moon by 2020: $3 billion more yearly is needed, the panel of experts say, on top of NASA already contested annual budget of $18 billion. The goal of "back to the moon within the next decade" was set during the Bush administration.<br /><br />The panel has thus deemed the trajectory NASA is currently following "unsustainable" and calls for a "flexible path." NASA was already hoping to reduce its operating budget by retiring its fleet of space shuttles in 2010 and — in a most radical step — ceasing operations on the International Space Station in 2015".<br /><br />So, if the space station is not even going to be kept up how the heck can we get to any other planets? DOH!<br /><br />It's good you have the moderation in place to keep the lamest comments out.Caleb Shayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08971916422910289078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6301096656497422535.post-37280608866126843412010-01-27T04:57:00.073-08:002010-01-27T04:57:00.073-08:00The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes...The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded "the dismal science" after Malthus' theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. Even worse, economists insist that population growth is vital to economic growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues. <br /><br />But now there's a competing theory. Because they are blind to population growth, there's one obstacle they haven't considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty. <br /><br />If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com. <br /><br />Pete Murphy<br />Author, "Five Short Blasts"Pete Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549342862438864973noreply@blogger.com