: SDF: Gee, why do you care? Still secretly trying to form a collective with me? It can't be the "force" thing; as a Green, I obviously believe in nonviolence. Given your previous statements of belief, your only reasonable province of concern should be your OWN goal.
None of which stops me from showing an interest into what other people want. You may be nonviolent, but almost every sentence is an aggressive one.
: SDF: Gee, why do you care about the "sum of global wealth"?
Read the 'cake' discussion with Red below.
: Still secretly trying to rob other people of theirs?
ho ho ho, I assume this is a joke, all zero sum economics is.
: Given your previous statements of belief, your only proper moral concern should be YOUR store of wealth. You've made it quite clear that you don't care about the "sum of global wealth" possessed by the impoverished people of the world
I would not expect you to read every post of mine, hence this conclusion is false, as are its premises.
: SDF: Let's see. I ride a bike. Others drive their cars. From Gee's perspective, my goal is to "reduce the sum of global wealth," because, unlike any sane human being, I'm not trying to dry up the world's oil reserves.
Wrong, you can ride a bike, jog or drive a truck if you want. If youre not out to stop others in their choices, fine.
: I'm also promoting voluntary collectivism and self-sufficiency. From Gee's perspective I'm in the process of distributing wealth, all by myself.
Freely associating voluntary collectives are fine. Coercive re-distribution under the fallacious "good of the poeple" banner is not.
: : How do you intend to arrive at that goal?
: SDF: Gee, you wouldn't understand my means of arriving at my goal
Arguments from intimidation / presupposition dont work. You are free to explain, or to not do so. But do not pretend you are not doing so because I simply couldnt understand. It would be interesting to actually listen to what you have to say, rather than have you be advarsarial constantly.
: You're too busy with your prima facie false insinuations.
False assumption. Loaded statement, answer is no, and no theyre not.
: The meaning of the word "sustainability" should be obvious; a sustainable system in one that can conceivably run for the lifetime of its operators without exploiting a non-renewable and limited resource.
Its the actual practice and 'drawing of lines' that generates discussion and research.
: Sustainability, not anarcho-capitalist dogmatism,
no it isnt dogmatism, nicely snuck in though
I can see you never tackled "ultimate resource 2", whilst handing out book titles as answers yourself. If one set of data lead to a conclusion that world is at an end, and another set leads to the conclusion that it is not by a long stretch then there can be no contradiction.