SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Gwadien]

I walked infront of a cyclist today who was cycling through town, I didn't notice him until it was too late, and he swerved around me.

I thought of you @Scouse xoxooxox

 

[Scouse]

You do realise that the study you posted tried to implicate Global Warming don't you? I mean you did actually read past the abstract didn't you?

Actually, I didn't post a study. I posted this link to a news piece summarising biodiversity loss. Did you read it? Did you notice that there wasn't actually an abstract?

As for a link to capitalism - last time I looked that was the economic system we run under. The biodiversity loss is happening under its watch because it's more profitable to do things without regard for the value of some things (@Raven's point about biofuels being pertinent). Its effects are so obvious they can be considered self-evident to all but blind ragers.

I've even posted something positive - that capitalism should cost-in the ecological cost of production. What scares you so much about that?

 

[Gwadien]

 

[Scouse]

View: https://vimeo.com/142100873

 

[DaGaffer]

Yes but how much is natural and how much man caused. Millions of species have gone extinct during the life of the planet. Caused not just by predation by man but other species as well. Not considering catastophic events.

Unless you have a comparison of areas not affected by man to those that are you cant be sure that its man that has been the only cause and that it might be natural diversity. Things dying things evolving.

Yeah, I think you're being a bit obtuse there. You can't cut down rainforest the size of Wales year in year out (as we've been doing for a century) and not have biodiversity loss. It kind of doesn't matter whether other extinction events were worse than the one going on now, we didn't have to live through those. And its not like we don't have evidence; there's satellite photography going back to the sixties now and it shows the biomass loss; and there's more than enough evidence of people seeing the damage in their own lifetime (what's happening to the Great Barrier Reef being a good example). Claiming "it wasn't us guv, could be natural" is errant nonsense; we know its not volcanoes, we know haven't been hit by an asteroid, we even know its not entirely green house gases, and we know there's not some other species running rampant over the planet. We do know there are massive increases of refined metals in the water supply, we do know there are refined nitrates, and hormones in the water table that can't happen naturally, and we do know there are large green bits missing from the map. So please don't pretend this is just business as usual for planet Earth, it isn't. And by the way I'm not a "green" in any shape or form, but I'm not blind either.

 

[old.user4556]

Important announcement!

 

[Bodhi]

As for a link to capitalism - last time I looked that was the economic system we run under. The biodiversity loss is happening under its watch because it's more profitable to do things without regard for the value of some things (@Raven's point about biofuels being pertinent). Its effects are so obvious they can be considered self-evident to all but blind ragers.

Ah so we get to the real answer - there is no link to capitalism in what you posted. You can try to infer one by saying this is the system we all live under - but you're missing one quite important point - it isn't the system everyone lives under. Especially not countries like Tanzania and Madagascar - the ones actually mentioned in the study, article, call it what you will.

Biofuels is an interesting one, as I'm not entirely convinced you can lay the blame for those at capitalism's door - I'd suggest you need to look at the eco-loons for that one who are so utterly obsessed by CO2, they don't actually consider that the alternatives (diesel cars, windmills, tidal barrages, biofuels, biomass etc) might actually be worse than the "problem" we are trying to solve.

 

[Raven]

Actually, I didn't post a study. I posted this link to a news piece summarising biodiversity loss. Did you read it? Did you notice that there wasn't actually an abstract?

As for a link to capitalism - last time I looked that was the economic system we run under. The biodiversity loss is happening under its watch because it's more profitable to do things without regard for the value of some things (@Raven's point about biofuels being pertinent). Its effects are so obvious they can be considered self-evident to all but blind ragers.

I've even posted something positive - that capitalism should cost-in the ecological cost of production. What scares you so much about that?

It would happen regardless of whether we have capitalism or not. If anything, costing damage into capitalism is the only way any system would give a toss about nature/biodiversity etc. Making people care about it and therefore base their lifestyle and buying habits on it would still work with capitalism, much better than some weird form of communism.

 

[Scouse]

there is no link to capitalism

The link to our aggressive permanent growth economic system and biodiversity loss is self-evident. And you're still avoiding talking about the point I've made twice now - that we should cost it in.

Not a good idea?

@Raven - I was going to disagree with you on that - but you amended your post so I removed the disagree. I agree 100% that costing things in would be the best route. I did specifically state that if capitalism did that then I'd on-balance become a capitalist.

I disagree about your points about any system, however. But they're minor points.

 

[Zarjazz]

Important announcement!

View attachment 28021

Someone needs to do a taste test and post the results, you know, for science.

 

[Bodhi]

The link to our aggressive permanent growth economic system and biodiversity loss is self-evident. And you're still avoiding talking about the point I've made twice now - that we should cost it in.

Not a good idea?

Um, are you being deliberately obtuse? As the countries mentioned in the article and the examples they've used, don't actually appear to be in capitalist countries?

And I'm assuming by costing it in you are referring to some sort of Green Tax? As they exist already, not that they are especially effective (at saving the planet - they're great for closing Steelworks in the North East).

 

[Moriath]

Yeah, I think you're being a bit obtuse there. You can't cut down rainforest the size of Wales year in year out (as we've been doing for a century) and not have biodiversity loss. It kind of doesn't matter whether other extinction events were worse than the one going on now, we didn't have to live through those. And its not like we don't have evidence; there's satellite photography going back to the sixties now and it shows the biomass loss; and there's more than enough evidence of people seeing the damage in their own lifetime (what's happening to the Great Barrier Reef being a good example). Claiming "it wasn't us guv, could be natural" is errant nonsense; we know its not volcanoes, we know haven't been hit by an asteroid, we even know its not entirely green house gases, and we know there's not some other species running rampant over the planet. We do know there are massive increases of refined metals in the water supply, we do know there are refined nitrates, and hormones in the water table that can't happen naturally, and we do know there are large green bits missing from the map. So please don't pretend this is just business as usual for planet Earth, it isn't. And by the way I'm not a "green" in any shape or form, but I'm not blind either.

Its true. But not all extinctions are mans fault i guess is what i was trying to get at. Some would happen anyway

 

[Scouse]

Um, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Nah, you're the one wilfully missing the point so I'll leave it.

But as for steelworks in the north east - I wasn't specifically referring to green taxation but was talking in generalities about any system of costing in the environmental harm - in just the same way we cost in a lot of other things.

If that means some people lose their jobs, or some industries suddenly become non-viable (Raven's biofuels industry, for example, where they're totalling rainforest to make burnable fuels) - then so be it. Yep. I'm all for that.

You, on the other hand, are only for what's happening right now, with no changes. I get it. Fair enough. We're never going to agree on that.

 

[DaGaffer]

Its true. But not all extinctions are mans fault i guess is what i was trying to get at. Some would happen anyway

Sure, but the pace of extinctions is rising, and rising fast. And the smoking gun is us.

 

[Moriath]

Um, are you being deliberately obtuse? As the countries mentioned in the article and the examples they've used, don't actually appear to be in capitalist countries?

And I'm assuming by costing it in you are referring to some sort of Green Tax? As they exist already, not that they are especially effective (at saving the planet - they're great for closing Steelworks in the North East).

Its anything to do with man. Imo not just capitalism. Which is what the subject should be. Rather than one economic model.

 

[Raven]

 

[Scouse]

Someone needs to do a taste test and post the results, you know, for science.

No they don't.

Spend less than two packs of crisps and you can have tesco finest actual pigs in blankets rather than pale crunchy poor-man alternatives.


But frankly, you can throw the sausages away because they ruin the taste of the bacon.

 

[Bodhi]

Its anything to do with man. Imo not just capitalism. Which is what the subject should be. Rather than one economic model.

And we have a winner! If Scouse had used the same article to say "Look what man is doing" then fair enough, I would be in agreement. But to extrapolate that article to blaming one particular economic model, which is not even in use in the areas is question, is horseshit.

 

[old.user4556]

Someone needs to do a taste test and post the results, you know, for science.

I got a pack!

 

[Scouse]

And we have a winner!

Again, I disagree.

Capitalism is an amazingly effective resource-exploitation system. It drives consumption of natural resources forward at a rate other systems simply cannot compete with (which is precicely why they've been out-competed). It is doing it at increasing pace and increasingly globally - all countries are affected, whether they run the system or not.

As a system it's an astonishing human achievement.

However, it doesn't take into consideration the full costs. Environmental, human, yadda yadda yadda. As we're talking about environment - it doesn't price in what it costs to exploit certain parts of our environment, when it's scraping things out of the ground, producing things and their by-products or their distribution and consumption costs.

It's objective was designed in - profit.

I've repeatedly said that if the system costed-in the environmental considerations I'd most likely get behind it. But it doesn't. It requires massive systemic overhaul.

The idea of doing precicely that terrifies you. You think the world is fine as it is and we shouldn't change a thing. But you're evidentially wrong.

 

[old.user4556]

Might be a time to open another thread for this.

 

[Jupitus]

Might be a time to open another thread for this.

The pigs in blankets issue, yes...

 

[Ormorof]

Pigs in blankets mmmmm

In garlic butter

Mmmmmm

 

[Bodhi]

Again, I disagree.

Capitalism is an amazingly effective resource-exploitation system. It drives consumption of natural resources forward at a rate other systems simply cannot compete with (which is precicely why they've been out-competed). It is doing it at increasing pace and increasingly globally - all countries are affected, whether they run the system or not.

As a system it's an astonishing human achievement.

However, it doesn't take into consideration the full costs. Environmental, human, yadda yadda yadda. As we're talking about environment - it doesn't price in what it costs to exploit certain parts of our environment, when it's scraping things out of the ground, producing things and their by-products or their distribution and consumption costs.

It's objective was designed in - profit.

I've repeatedly said that if the system costed-in the environmental considerations I'd most likely get behind it. But it doesn't. It requires massive systemic overhaul.

The idea of doing precicely that terrifies you. You think the world is fine as it is and we shouldn't change a thing. But you're evidentially wrong.

Actually I haven't actually stated my position, well not enough for you to jump to that particular conclusion, my only position was that your link didn't back up your argument. Which it didn't.

However with respect to those who don't want to follow this circular argument round again, I will leave it there.

But you're wrong. So ner.

 

[old.user4556]

Those crisps are damn good, they're like very posh bacon crisps with a very small hint of sausage.

 

[Scouse]

Actually I haven't actually stated my position

Not explicitly. But your posting over many many years leaves little doubt.

BTW - saying that and then not actually stating your position is a little bit Toht, y'know.

Spoiler

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOy6hqzfsAs

 

[Moriath]

Those crisps are damn good, they're like very posh bacon crisps with a very small hint of sausage.

Might have to brace myself and face the scum and shop for some crisps in tesco. Lol

 

[Moriath]

Again, I disagree.

Capitalism is an amazingly effective resource-exploitation system. It drives consumption of natural resources forward at a rate other systems simply cannot compete with (which is precicely why they've been out-competed). It is doing it at increasing pace and increasingly globally - all countries are affected, whether they run the system or not.

As a system it's an astonishing human achievement.

However, it doesn't take into consideration the full costs. Environmental, human, yadda yadda yadda. As we're talking about environment - it doesn't price in what it costs to exploit certain parts of our environment, when it's scraping things out of the ground, producing things and their by-products or their distribution and consumption costs.

It's objective was designed in - profit.

I've repeatedly said that if the system costed-in the environmental considerations I'd most likely get behind it. But it doesn't. It requires massive systemic overhaul.

The idea of doing precicely that terrifies you. You think the world is fine as it is and we shouldn't change a thing. But you're evidentially wrong.

Russian communism did a pretty good job of stripping their lands for minerals before the wall came down tbh

 

[old.user4556]

Might have to brace myself and face the scum and shop for some crisps in tesco. Lol

I don't want to big these crisps up too much, I mean they're not anywhere near as good as the real thing, but if you like meat crisps (like me!) and you like pigs in blankets, then this is just the ticket.

 

[Scouse]

Might have to brace myself and face the scum and shop for some crisps in tesco.

And in the worst aisle for the scum too!

Thankfully I gave crisps up as a bad idea in my teenage years. The only time I go near them now is if the bird has made homemade salsa and we're having a BBQ. So much better snack food about to waste calories on