In 1974, Hubbert peak oil plot called for a peak in the early 21st Century. This is pretty much the model everyone's been looking at for the past 20 years or so. Not saying the model is representative of reality, just saying that it couldn't possibly have been tested.JustBob said:
The Anti-Civilization Thread
- Thread starter z/m(Ret)
- Start date
- Status
Crystal balling the future.
Most people did not foresee the internet so I do not expect them to foresee what will replace capitalism.Regardless of what it is I am confident that one way or another violence will be part of the equation.
Ziggy Montana said:Oh but that's ok because, apparently, there would be no viable alternative to capitalism, a good, equitable system with just a few bumps on the road.
Most people did not foresee the internet so I do not expect them to foresee what will replace capitalism.Regardless of what it is I am confident that one way or another violence will be part of the equation.
The problem with boards discussion is the propensity shown by some posters to impute thoughts and attitudes to others where there's no reason to do that. Where did I say that there exists a perfect system? My ranting against capitalism is to show it for what it is, period. And as far as working, improving, the system, be aware that if women have been given the right to vote, it is not because someone at the Supreme Court woke up one morning with the thought: "Hey! That's unfair! Let's change that!" No, it took years of grassrooth activism before someone up there made a case of it. Need another example: blacks no longer have to give up their seats in buses in the USA, you know why? Because, one woman said, "no" and got arrested and received support from 75% of the bus company's clients - mostly blacks - for 382 days, who decided to walk instead.JustBob said:
Improving things requires that sort of readiness for responsability I was describing before. You want to improve things, that's what you said? Accoding to which values? Fair distribution or world's resources? Well if this is the value your action is based on, then your action is not based at all on the values conveyed by capitalism: on the political compass, you would be standing anywhere between social-democracy and social-anarchism.
BTW, you say what you want, but it would be appreciated if you'd quit caricaturing me as a leftist dreamhead with no substance, it's frankly insulting. Like a certain general would say - ALL TOGETHER! "YOU DON'T KNOW ME"! Criticizing capitalism doesn't make me a communist, it barely makes me anything. What makes me a participating citizen though is the nature and the reach of my actions, which are based on basic values: equity, participation of the masses, sustainability and preservation of our environment. If you view this a ridicule well laugh it up, fussball.
Last edited:
Ziggy Montana said:
I don't disagree with your last statement. But not all causes are creating equal and the "justness" of said causes is more easily determined in some cases than others. I'm not against some forms of activism and civil disobedience can indeed be warranted and effective, but I'd rather examine each cause on it's own merits. And I'm far from convinced of the merits of spray painting SUV's...
Taking Action
Your point about activism is interesting but you tend to be all over the board(pun intended) with you reasoning and connections.Above you describe Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott.Such actions work initially or in a limited fashion because the powers that be did not have any previous experience handling the situation.Boycotts today do not work on a large scale - various attempts at boycotting gasoline companies have fizzled because they are ready for such actions.You may be able to organize and have success with a boycott against a local merchant who discriminates but effectively you are targeting someone without deep pockets.
Your point about women getting the right to vote was just a trickle down continuation of landowners etc getting the right to vote.
Before activism becomes a force the cause has to be understood and the issues clearly defined.The "Chicken Little" approach to activism tends to cause more harm than good.
Ziggy Montana said:
Your point about activism is interesting but you tend to be all over the board(pun intended) with you reasoning and connections.Above you describe Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott.Such actions work initially or in a limited fashion because the powers that be did not have any previous experience handling the situation.Boycotts today do not work on a large scale - various attempts at boycotting gasoline companies have fizzled because they are ready for such actions.You may be able to organize and have success with a boycott against a local merchant who discriminates but effectively you are targeting someone without deep pockets.
Your point about women getting the right to vote was just a trickle down continuation of landowners etc getting the right to vote.
Before activism becomes a force the cause has to be understood and the issues clearly defined.The "Chicken Little" approach to activism tends to cause more harm than good.
Ziggy Montana said:
You rant against capitalism, I ask you to propose a better model. You fail to do so. This reminds me of a certain discussion on Muslims where I kept bringing up points wich you totally ignored, and I just kept bringing them up and asking you to address them when you finally decided they were irrelevant to the discussion... It's rather obvious to me that you only want to discuss issues based on your own terms. So yes, in that sense, no offense, but I DO KNOW YOU.
That said, I'm off to greener, environmentally friendly, SP pastures.
I repeat for the 100th time: my model for action is based on the basic values I've described before (see a few posts above), which is not what capitalism conveys. I also stated more than once that my ideal society would ressemble what some farming communities are putting in practice: a governmentless community of strongly involved participants. You even sent me a link on this thread, don't you remember? That been said, such idealization doesn't inhibit action, quite the contrary. It serves as a general guideline for action.JustBob said:You rant against capitalism, I ask you to propose a better model. You fail to do so. This reminds me of a certain discussion on Muslims where I kept bringing up points wich you totally ignored, and I just kept bringing them up and asking you to address them when you finally decided they were irrelevant to the discussion... It's rather obvious to me that you only want to discuss issues based on your own terms. So yes, in that sense, no offense, but I DO KNOW YOU.
That said, I'm off to greener, environmentally friendly, SP pastures.
Since you brought up the Muslim issue, must I remind you the story of Pot calling Kettle black? Your suggestion - from what I understood and care to remember - is that Islamic radicalists "hatred" of the West is embraided in their religion ("of hate") and, for solution, it would suffice to reject multiculturalism to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism (*) In the process, you were quick on the trigger to reject Muslim grievances as the source of terrorism and, specifically, you rejected, with the promptitude of a good right-wing demagogue, the possibility that Israel's occupation of the Gazza Strip might have something to do with the said "hatred".
(*) Sorry for not addressing this suggestion in a way that would have satisfied you. The headache caused by me exasperatedly banging my head on the desk caused temporary incapacitation at addressing that sort of mental masturbation.
Last edited:
Back to the Amish
Sounds like something the Amish have been doing for awhile.Usually tolerated as a sign of being all inclusive by democratic or capitalist societies.Doubt you would see much of a turnout if you set a date for a mini GT at a local park.
Ziggy Montana said:I repeat for the 100th time: my model for action is based on the basic values I've described before (see a few posts above), which is not what capitalism conveys. I also stated more than once that my ideal society would ressemble what some farming communities are putting in practice: a governmentless community of strongly involved participants. You even sent me a link on this thread, don't you remember? That been said, such idealization doesn't inhibit action, quite the contrary. It serves as a general guideline for action.
Since you brought up the Muslim issue, must I remind you the story of Pot calling kettle black? Your suggestion - from what I understood and care to remember - is that Islamic radicalists "hate" of the West is embraided in their religion ("of hate") and, for solution, it would suffice to reject multiculturalism to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism. In the process, you were quick on the trigger to reject Muslim grievances as the source of terrorism and, specifically, you rejected, with the promptitude of a good right-wing demagogue, the possibility that Israel's occupation of the Gazza Strip might have something to do with the said "hatred".
Sounds like something the Amish have been doing for awhile.Usually tolerated as a sign of being all inclusive by democratic or capitalist societies.Doubt you would see much of a turnout if you set a date for a mini GT at a local park.
Last edited:
Oil
Oil does not have to be renewable just replaceable.Muscle was replaced by wind,that was replaced by steam,that was replaced by fossil fuels and we have the potential to continue ad infinitum.
Rather obvious,simple cost/benefit.Nothing precludes going back to wind or steam,using electric or solar energy.
Ziggy Montana said:
Oil does not have to be renewable just replaceable.Muscle was replaced by wind,that was replaced by steam,that was replaced by fossil fuels and we have the potential to continue ad infinitum.
Rather obvious,simple cost/benefit.Nothing precludes going back to wind or steam,using electric or solar energy.
Nope, you're the one who doesn't understand. You discredited peak oil theories by showing that none of them has passed succesfully the test of time. Well if the test of time is the way to validate theories, then you must accept that your statement regarding our potential to continue ad infinitum must as well pass the test of time.eastender said:
Is it so hard to understand?
Ad infinitum
Mankind has continued to progress since discovering the ability to walk erect.
To this date challenges have been met and overcome and I am confident that this spirit will continue ad infinitum.
A final note about activism. While the Rosa Parks brand of activism is noble it more often than not produces results that are superficial. It may get the activists on the news but it does not replace racism in the hearts of people.
On the other hand the "Each one teach one" brand of activism encouraged by Castro to eliminate illiteracy in Cuba produces results that sweep thru a system and make a lasting difference.
Ziggy Montana said:
Mankind has continued to progress since discovering the ability to walk erect.
To this date challenges have been met and overcome and I am confident that this spirit will continue ad infinitum.
A final note about activism. While the Rosa Parks brand of activism is noble it more often than not produces results that are superficial. It may get the activists on the news but it does not replace racism in the hearts of people.
On the other hand the "Each one teach one" brand of activism encouraged by Castro to eliminate illiteracy in Cuba produces results that sweep thru a system and make a lasting difference.
Ziggy Montana said:
How nice of you to oversimplify my position for me...
And yes, multiculturalism has proven to be a failure in Europe when trying to deal with large Muslim population. But that's only part of the story... Change will have to come from within, and currently ,predominantly Muslim nations absolutely refuse to change or even consider debate. The only places where moderates have finally spoken up is in the West, and even then the voices aren't very loud. But there is some debate going on within Muslim communities, in the UK for example. Not much, but that's a start.
In the process, you were quick on the trigger to reject Muslim grievances as the source of terrorism and, specifically, you rejected, with the promptitude of a good right-wing demagogue, the possibility that Israel's occupation of the Gazza Strip might have something to do with the said "hatred".
I wasn't "quick to reject". I not only addressed your arguments but I also backed up my position with articles (some coming from moderate Imams and Muslim scholars, who finally admitted that it was time for Muslims to stop blaming the West and Israel for all their failures), and with intelligent arguments which you choose to ignore. The one doing the "rejecting" was you.
And for the record, countries like Iran and Syria are using the Palestinians as pawns. Do you really believe that they want (or have something to gain from) a peaceful resolution to this conflict? Absolutely not.
And me, a right wing demagogue? Good one. The people on the political forum I belong to would have one hell of a laugh over that one.
Failure to back up your position and choosing to dismiss the arguments presented instead of intelligently and logically debate them is what I call mental masturbation. Not the other way around.
Last edited:
Seems like your own medicine - oversimplifications of one's position, ignoring one's argument, and labelling - has a bitter taste when administered to you, JustBob. For the record, I didn't call you a right-wing demagogue, I said you had the promptitude of one in dismissing certain facts. Again, you are distorting everything. And I'm sorry, the write-ups you posted to backup your position in that Muslims thread ARE mental masturbation confining to historical dishonesty.
BTW, you addressing my arguments was limited to calling it: "old scapegoat" and "knee jerk" before dropping links (one of the authors, btw, I remember, received financing from the Allen-Bradley Foundation, a philantrhopic organization who's been financing neo-conservative think tanks like PNAC, FYI) ad nauseam. Is this what you call "debating intelligently"? Give me a break...
BTW, you addressing my arguments was limited to calling it: "old scapegoat" and "knee jerk" before dropping links (one of the authors, btw, I remember, received financing from the Allen-Bradley Foundation, a philantrhopic organization who's been financing neo-conservative think tanks like PNAC, FYI) ad nauseam. Is this what you call "debating intelligently"? Give me a break...
Last edited:
Ziggy Montana said:
Wow, you've got one hell of a bad habit of projecting your own failings onto others haven't you? I took the time to address your arguments in that thread. You on the other hand, dismissed mine out of hand and refused to address them. Claiming that points put forward are irrelevant and/or intellectually/historically dishonest because you don't agree with them is the last resort of those who cannot argue intelligently. Sorry, but you failed debating 101.
Since this is obviously going nowhere, I'm done.
Pot calling Kettle "black", and the story goes on... "Knee jerk" and "old scapegoat" were the only arguments you met me with before dragging the whole discussion towards your own framework. If this is your way of addressing arguments, then allow me, in retrospect, to do the same: "demagogic with xenophobic overtones". There, I addressed your arguments.JustBob said:
BTW, almost forgot to ask you where you were when the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was released - if I recall well - in October 2006. Sweet Jesus, you're so focused on discrediting the actions of a few SUV sabotages on account of contracticting evidence over climate change that you fail to see the whole picture. Even the CIA wrote extensive reports on the impact of climate change: what is it gonna take to convince you? Respiratory failure?
Pas fort, pas fort...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
