|
|
#111
11-28-2004, 03:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Heads-up for Adios
it didn't work
As a libertarian, shouldn't you be for the right of private corporations to do whatever they desire to increase their profitability, without government interference, barriers to trade, etc? More importantly, "it didn't work" is just like your opinion, um, man. New shit has come to light, man. Americans live better and more comfortably than anyone on this planet simply because they've been able to sell their stuff all over the world. The problem is that people who make corporate decisions have no vested interest in the unintended consequences of those decisions. They make a decision, fill their pocket, and don't have to worry about anything else. What ought to be done, is the government should provide grants to pay for executive bonus incentives that would based on socially positive actions. For example, if a CEO's salary is in part based on environmentally friendly corporate policy, charitable acts, you'd see a much better America. But not allowing corporations to globalize and holding dinosaur crown corporations in government hands, you're only feeding the beast of inefficiency. 
|
|
#112
11-28-2004, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What global warming?
[ QUOTE ]
wacki, I wish you would be a bit more scientific in your approach to this discussion. The more I read your posts the more unlikely it seems that you've had scientific education (meaning Ph.D). You are too rigid and self-assured about scientific questions outside your field that are not even close to being settled yet. [/ QUOTE ] I repeat what I read, and try not to read too much into it. I try to think critically, but I tend to only apply it to regular text. If I see scientific papers that have withstood peer review from respected scientists I tend to take them as Gospel. Published scientific papers from Nature, Science, Cell, are by nature so conservative, are held up to such high standards, and withstand such intense scrutiny it's hard not to take them as Gospel. If they aren't "Gospel" you will find out rather quickly. If some of my postings aren't bulletproof and don't follow the standard scientific methodology, big deal. I tend to post when I am tired or even drunk. Which means I'm lazy. I also don't have a lot of time and 2+2 already cuts way too deeply in my life. I post what I can and leave it up to others to find flaws/analyze what I say. This is called peer review. I simply don't have the time to thoroughly analyze every post I make. I do tend to vent on this forum, but my work requires so much discipline it's hard not to have some outlet where you can vent. As for me being rigid, I think you are flat out wrong on that one. If someone corrects me I am very quick to admit I am wrong. This is the mark of a good scientist. Scientists, when in discussion, throw out a lot of crazy ideas. They tend to experiment a lot but are quick to change direction. That is what science is about. As for my educational background, I never said I had a Ph.D. I don't have a Ph.D.... yet (not sure I want one, but that may change), but I do have 2 B.S.'s and 1 M.S. And I most likely will be taking classes for the rest of my life even if I'm not going for a Ph.D.. That is one of the perks of being in academia. I don't want a Ph.D. right now because I don't want to spend 50% of my time writing grants. I enjoy doing research, not jumping through hoops. As for why you have repeatedly attacked my background, I have yet to figure this out. As for the conveyer belt being debunked, that wasn't in National Geographic but it is still good information to know. I will look into it. I didn't hear that in any of the seminars I attended, then again those seminars tend to be very specific and generally aren't about the big picture. Scientists agree that this is the largest experiment that we have ever attempted and it's hard to predict exactly what will happen. But one thing is for certain, something is happening and something will continue to happen. The world is simply too complex to precisely predict everything. However, no scientist I have ever met is willing to simply sit back and hope for the best.
|
|
#113
11-28-2004, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Heads-up for Adios
[ QUOTE ]
As a libertarian, shouldn't you be for the right of private corporations to do whatever they desire to increase their profitability, without government interference, barriers to trade, etc? [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I am a libertarian, maybe not, I'm not sure what that term really means, so I'll leave that one uncommented. As for the rest, I would like to see corporations having to take the full cost of envirnomental destruction. That will never happen without regulation. I'm not at all sure how it should be done, but I really needs to be done if we are to have a future. I would also like to see transportation carrying their own costs, in terms of fossil fuel depletion, envirnomental destruction, infrastructure and so on, so forth. [ QUOTE ] More importantly, "it didn't work" is just like your opinion, um, man. New [censored] has come to light, man. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, this is my opinion. [ QUOTE ] Americans live better and more comfortably than anyone on this planet simply because they've been able to sell their stuff all over the world. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I think this one can be disputed. First of all, I'm not even sure it's true that "Americans live better and more comfortably than anyone on this planet". What criteria do you use? For example this survey says that Nigeria has the happiest people in the world. Secondly, I'd say that saying that ".. simply because they've been able to sell their stuff all over the world" is such a gross simplification that I don't really know how to begin to refute it. Do you honestly belive that? If you do, I guess I will have to give you some reasons why this might not be the only reason. If not, right now I don't have the time to write about it. I will post a list of "essential reading" (according to me), a few of the articles there will talk about how and why it came that the USA is such a power in the world today. [ QUOTE ] The problem is that people who make corporate decisions have no vested interest in the unintended consequences of those decisions. They make a decision, fill their pocket, and don't have to worry about anything else. [/ QUOTE ] I absolutely agree [ QUOTE ] But not allowing corporations to globalize and holding dinosaur crown corporations in government hands, you're only feeding the beast of inefficiency. [/ QUOTE ] Well... To understand my views on this one you really need to understand that I belive (with lots of reasons for it) that the world is getting very very close to the point where the oil production will peak, to then start declining. This coupled with the fact that the demand is likely to rise (China, India and so on) will mean we are in for a rough ride. Also, there simply is no alternative to oil, nothing can take up the slack, no alternative fuels can even begin to make a difference.This means that I belive globalization will end, not because of policy or politics, but because of physics. Not enough oil to meet demand -> high prices -> exepensive transportation If capitalism is capable of working in a world where net energy lessens from year to year I don't know. I do know we have never faced that situation before, it's unchartered terrain. What I do know is that the capitalist economy cannot work without growth. And how we are to make the economy grow when using less and less energy, well... I don't belive we can. Thus, we will have to find something else. What that is I have no idea. Read my other posts in this thread for more information on my opinions on the matter.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
