- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Try picking your examples more carefully, Frenchy.

Posted by: Farinata ( L'inferno ) on December 22, 1999 at 13:32:10:

In Reply to: Just as well as you can in yours. posted by Frenchy on December 21, 1999 at 11:34:20:

: : You can't predict the course of invention; merely lying back and saying "someone will work it all out somehow" is pure Pangloss. And continuing to consume ever-greater amounts whilst leaving the cleanup and hangover to the next generations is rather irresponsible, to say the least.

: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$You say Pangloss despite tons upon tons of evidence that show it's true.

No, Frenchy. You fail to understand the difference between mere 'invention' and beneficial invention.

Are the machine gun and the neutron bomb beneficial inventions?

: I've brought up a couple of simple examples in the past.

You've tried to cite a few examples which I refuted; I notice you still haven't followed up to my last message on the subject.

The simple fact of the matter is that the global mess we are requires more than a simple quick-fix; it requires a paradigm shift in our patterns of consumption.

: Inventions will occur. You can look down your nose all you want, but inventions will occur that will change the way we live.

Like I said, c.f. nerve gas, atomic bombs, machine guns, biological weapons and the like.

It's unrealistic to expect that all technology is beneficial or necessary and it's unrealistic to predict that the Holy Grail that will save mankind is just around the corner; you simply cannot predict when inventions will occur; or if they will occur.

As I've also pointed out, many 'inventions' were the result of long and patient work (e.g. the steam engine, which took ~175 years to develop into its useful form, or plastics; which are the result of 2,000 years study).

There are no such plans in place; because the oil companies and corporate lobbies are sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to believe that the problem even exists.

: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Yeah, I read that peice too. It didn't impress me in the least, not as a way of persuading me to believe that what you and SDF are talking about anyhow.

: The Pueblo indians of the SW disappeared too, and they were surrounded by land. Ditto the Mayans, the Aztec, the Oltecs, probably lots of others.

In case you haven't noticed, it was political and environmental causes that finished off the Mayans, Aztecs and Toltecs

The Mayans rendered their civilisation unsustainable by a combination of war with the Toltecs and unsustainable agriculture to support a growing civilisation; they indulged in slash-and-burn forest clearance; which destroyed the empire's long-term sustainability.

The Toltec and Aztec empires both ended in warfare; the Toltec caused by the migration caused by the collapse of the Mayan empire, the Aztec empire caused by Cortez and cavalry; there were also an unfortunate number of natural disasters around the period.

As for the Pueblo, the thing that caused them to leave their cities was environmental change; long-term rains failure in their homeland.

Nice examples, Frenchy; whilst trying to refute the idea that environmental destruction can cause the collapse of civilisations, you've cited two civilisations that were wiped out by environmental destruction and two in which environmental destruction played a part.

: The Easter Island thing serves as good propaganda; "The sky is falling!"

Check the facts. They're there, regardless of what you think of them.

Tell me, Frenchy, do you go to your doctor and start arguing medicine with him, too?

If you can accept the fact that a trained professional can know more about the subject about you, then why do you have such difficulty accepting it when the person in question holds different political views to you?

Would you go to your doctor and say that bad humours caused malaria, not anopheles aegypti?


(Of course, it goes without saying that, if past behaviour is anything to go by, Frenchy will react to this by saying that I want to be obeyed and have everyone recognize me as the supreme authority on everything.

Untrue; I'm perfectly willing to cede points to anyone; but would prefer that they actually did some reading and studying on the subject first.

And the idea of an anarchist wanting to have power over others is somewhat absurd...)

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup