Saving the Internet from the NSA

[Ian]

He's right, Rev. Try reading Diamandis's book sometime. Facts galore.

[pErvinalia]

I'll look up the ted talk. But is it factual about our current state of the world and economy, or is it "factual" about predicting a state of the world in the future? There's a big difference.

[pErvinalia]

I've got no doubt that energy efficiency, resource usage efficiency, recycling technologies etc will continue to improve. The question is, will this be enough, soon enough? When you start claiming you have the answers for those questions, like BG does, then you move closer to a faith based position than a sensible pragmatic risk based decision process in the present.

[pErvinalia]

I said I wasn't going to debate this with BG, but I can't really help myself. Perhaps you'll try and take up the challenge, Ian? Claiming that robotics will be our saviour is strange, to say the least. Automation has lead to mass underemployment, without any proper social system to deal with those changes. We have growing unemployment (and/or underemployment) in the west, yet we also are dominated by a neoliberal socio-economic doctrine that seeks to continually weaken the welfare state. It's absolutely zero surprise (except perhaps for certain people like BG) that wealth inequality, and poverty, are GROWING in the west. So is personal debt, as I said. So is national debt, as I said. Much of this alleged prosperity we have is built on borrowed financial and natural capital. I could go to the bank tomorrow and borrow $500k to buy the latest McLaren and then drive it around the financial district in my capital city and say "Look at me, look how prosperous I am". But I'm not prosperous if I don't actually own that car yet. I still have to pay for it. It's the same for much of our prosperity here in the west. It's been "paid" for with massive environmental destruction and huge amounts of personal and national financial debt. We don't own this prosperity yet. We have yet to still pay for it properly.

[Seth]

It is definitely kinda weird finding myself agreeing with Seth.

Economic growth does not mean more and more environmental despoilation. Give you an example.

In 1960, to buy a Morris 1000 car took (here in NZ) exactly one year's pre tax income for the average working man. Today, to buy a far superior car, but with a similar engine capacity, will take 6 months income. Since the worker can buy more, that is major economic growth. But the modern car weighs half what the old Morris 1000 weighed (it was a clunker) and carries vastly more features. It drives further on less gas, and produces less pollution. It is safer, faster, more acceleration, and more comfortable. Because it weighs half of the old Morris 1000, it requires a lot less in the way of the Earth's resources to make, and because it uses less fuel, it consumes fewer of the Earth's resources over time.

Economic growth can be defined in simple terms as increasing people's spending power. We are doing that in many ways without increasing resource consumption. Think of old time computers versus today's, or even newer cell phones. Think of LED lights instead of incandescent. Heat pumps instead of electric bar heaters. Smaller, lighter, less energy consumption, and more features. Doing more with less.

Future developments include robots, self drive cars that will be even safer, even smarter and smaller computers, and so on. All without increasing resource consumption. In fact, reducing it.

Eventually the technology to produce goods becomes so efficient and cheap that once a factory is created there is no need for economic growth to "keep up with the Joneses" because whatever you want is available at zero cost. Think Star Trek replicators.

At that point economies become irrelevant and people just live their lives as they wish because what they need is freely available.

[Seth]

It is definitely kinda weird finding myself agreeing with Seth.

Economic growth does not mean more and more environmental despoilation. Give you an example.

In 1960, to buy a Morris 1000 car took (here in NZ) exactly one year's pre tax income for the average working man. Today, to buy a far superior car, but with a similar engine capacity, will take 6 months income. Since the worker can buy more, that is major economic growth. But the modern car weighs half what the old Morris 1000 weighed (it was a clunker) and carries vastly more features. It drives further on less gas, and produces less pollution. It is safer, faster, more acceleration, and more comfortable. Because it weighs half of the old Morris 1000, it requires a lot less in the way of the Earth's resources to make, and because it uses less fuel, it consumes fewer of the Earth's resources over time.

Economic growth can be defined in simple terms as increasing people's spending power. We are doing that in many ways without increasing resource consumption. Think of old time computers versus today's, or even newer cell phones. Think of LED lights instead of incandescent. Heat pumps instead of electric bar heaters. Smaller, lighter, less energy consumption, and more features. Doing more with less.

Future developments include robots, self drive cars that will be even safer, even smarter and smaller computers, and so on. All without increasing resource consumption. In fact, reducing it.

In 1900 a good men's suit cost the equivalent of one ounce of gold. Today, a good men's suit costs the equivalent of one ounce of gold.....

[Blind groper]

Claiming that robotics will be our saviour is strange, to say the least. .

Be careful with those straw men. I did not make that claim. I used robotics to illustrate the fact of technological growth. Actually, I used robotics in another thread to counter one of Seth's anti-socialism arguments. If robots take over most of the economy, then taxing the rich and distributing that to the poor (socialism) becomes essential.

My arguments here are based on long term trends. Wealth is growing. If you think the poor today are very badly off, take a look at the poor in Victoria's England. Our poor are fat.

It is often stated that the discrepancy between rich and poor is growing. I say, so what? If the poor can, as today in the USA, mostly own colour TV's, cars, and other luxuries, just how poor are they?

[pErvinalia]

You're deluded. I suspect you've never met a poor person in your life. Old white male conservative, I presume? No surprises there.

[Blind groper]

I suspect you've never met a poor person in your life.

I just got back from a trip to the Philippines. The poor people I met there make American poor look like mega millionaires.

Poverty is relative. We have people here in NZ who are described as poor. Generally, anyone who survives on social welfare is described as poor. Their main and most common physical characteristic is obesity. The poor I met in the Philippines were skin and bone. An obese Filipino is a rarity.

In the wealthy west, true poverty comes, not from lack of money which the government hands out in sufficiency, but from spending it on booze, tobacco, and drugs. When a child goes to school hungry, you know that a crappy parent is at fault.

That kind of poverty cannot be easily solved. Simply throwing more money at the problem will not make it go away. However, it is not the adults that suffer from that form of poverty, but the children. We can hope that improved education may help.

[pErvinalia]

So there's no poor people in the west? No one in the west struggles for food and shelter? Ok.

[Blind groper]

To rEvo

As I said, be careful with the straw men. Do not put words in my mouth that I never said.

Poverty in the west does exist. But it is not because of lack of resources. It is lack of management.

In my country the poor can survive and have an adequate living. Limited luxuries, but since they live on the bounty of the taxpayer, that is probably right. However, those who achieve genuine poverty have to work at it. They become poor despite being given adequate resources, due to spending on booze, tobacco and drugs. Their children go hungry due to their own efforts.

The poor I saw in the Philippines were genuine. They had no resources. They were poor because they had no way of earning money. Their children died of nutritional deficiencies despite their best efforts, not because they failed as parents.

[pErvinalia]

However, those who achieve genuine poverty have to work at it. They become poor despite being given adequate resources, due to spending on booze, tobacco and drugs. Their children go hungry due to their own efforts.

You are a walking conservative cliche. Go away.

[Blind groper]

To rEvo

People like you annoy the shit out of me. You have no answers, so you revert to insults. How about a little intelligence for once?

[Seth]

To rEvo

People like you annoy the shit out of me. You have no answers, so you revert to insults. How about a little intelligence for once?

Incredible! Two things on which we completely agree...

[piscator]

It is definitely kinda weird finding myself agreeing with Seth.

Economic growth does not mean more and more environmental despoilation. Give you an example.

In 1960, to buy a Morris 1000 car took (here in NZ) exactly one year's pre tax income for the average working man. Today, to buy a far superior car, but with a similar engine capacity, will take 6 months income. Since the worker can buy more, that is major economic growth. But the modern car weighs half what the old Morris 1000 weighed (it was a clunker) and carries vastly more features. It drives further on less gas, and produces less pollution. It is safer, faster, more acceleration, and more comfortable. Because it weighs half of the old Morris 1000, it requires a lot less in the way of the Earth's resources to make, and because it uses less fuel, it consumes fewer of the Earth's resources over time.

Economic growth can be defined in simple terms as increasing people's spending power. We are doing that in many ways without increasing resource consumption. Think of old time computers versus today's, or even newer cell phones. Think of LED lights instead of incandescent. Heat pumps instead of electric bar heaters. Smaller, lighter, less energy consumption, and more features. Doing more with less.

Future developments include robots, self drive cars that will be even safer, even smarter and smaller computers, and so on. All without increasing resource consumption. In fact, reducing it.

Eventually the technology to produce goods becomes so efficient and cheap that once a factory is created there is no need for economic growth to "keep up with the Joneses" because whatever you want is available at zero cost. Think Star Trek replicators.

At that point economies become irrelevant and people just live their lives as they wish because what they need is freely available.

TNSTAAFL

TNSTAAFL!

TNSTAAFL!!