I’ll take pleas like this one by Alexander Zaitchik at The New Republic/i> for less economic growth, for the sake of the planet, of course:
Systems scientists and ecological economists have been warning for decades that degrowth is not a political decision that can be put off indefinitely, but a matter of throughput math and physics. The choice before us is the form we will allow degrowth to take—humane and controlled collective action and transformation, or chaotic civilizational tailspin, crash, and ruin.
more seriously when advocates in this country stop flying around in private jets, stop hosting lavish dinners at The French Laundry, take public transportation, stop wearing imported clothing, and stop drinking imported wines and Scotch whisky.
Malthusians have been making statements like those since Thomas Malthus first made them at the end of the 18th century. Since then more human misery has been alleviated by continuing economic growth than in the previous 10,000 years all of that despite Malthus’s incorrect predictions. These predictions have been repeated again and again and they have always been wrong. Inductive reasoning strongly suggests they will be wrong again.
If they had been right, when deposits of obsidian had been exhausted, we would have all died. That happened about 7,000 years ago.
From Wikipedia:
A strongly protective stone, it forms a shield against negativity. It blocks psychic attack and absorbs negative energies from the environment. Obsidian draws out mental stress and tension. It stimulates growth on all levels, urging exploration of the unknown and opening new horizons.
You say it’s gone? I can’t get any?
Contrary to comic book depictions obsidian rather than flint was the preferred material for making cutting or piercing tools for millions of years.
There was a sort of crisis in the Middle East and adjacent parts of Asia and Europe about 8,000 years ago. The readily accessible deposits of high quality obsidian, used for tools and which was traded over an extremely wide area, had been largely exhausted. People began looking for substitutes. The first important substitute that was used was copper (about 7,000 years ago), then bronze (about 5,500 years ago), then iron (about 5,000 years ago), and finally steel (about 3,800 years ago).
The mistake the Malthusians make is that they discount inventiveness. That inventiveness continues today. We’re using materials commonly nowadays that weren’t even imagined 150 years ago. The notion that we’re running out of everything is stupid.
So is the notion that Americans in particular owe other countries anything which underpins the article. It’s as though neither China nor India ever used anything or despoiled their own environments. We know that not to be true.
“more seriously when advocates in this country stop flying around in private jets, stop hosting lavish dinners at The French Laundry, take public transportation, stop wearing imported clothing, and stop drinking imported wines and Scotch whisky.”
There is no policy you can support, absolutely none, if your standard is that you will reject it because some leaders are guilty of hypocrisy or just not living up to what they support.
Steve
“There is no policy you can support, absolutely none, if your standard is that you will reject it because some leaders are guilty of hypocrisy or just not living up to what they support.”
I believe the reference was to the credibility of the people, not the substance of the policy. But then, I’ve never known you to deal with an issue honestly and as presented.
In any event, thank you once again, steve, for publicly exhibiting such suspect moral character in ginning up a rationale
for the crass hypocrites who would strip normal people of their rights, dignity and financial futures for the, generally self serving, policy ambitions of the so called elite.
Once again when you are incapable of understanding anything, or unwilling, you accuse someone else of dishonesty. Gets old. Work on the reading comprehension too.
Anyway, I will try to use smaller words for you. All politicians, all people really, sometimes fail to live up to their ideals. That does not negate the value of whatever policies or ideas they support. Lets use an example on your side. In theory conservatives are opposed to big government and increased debt. However, almost all of their leaders have voted, when convenient, to support big government and/or support more debt just to help them gain votes. Does that mean you will stop opposing big government? By Dave’s standards you should because some of your leaders dont practice what they preach. (I did use a couple of kind of big words here, but the internet has several dictionaries.)
Separately, if you want to berate politicians or not vote for them due to their poor leadership or moral failings that is fine with me (actually that would e a positive in my book), but then you are a Trump supporter so these are clearly not issues of concern for you.
Steve
As a manager I do my best to model the behavior I expect to see in my subordinates. What do you do?
I support policies not political leaders. Do you do the opposite? How do you distinguish between leaders who are sincerely trying to solve a problem in the best way and those who just enjoy exercising power? Or want to be seen as doing something even if “something” is neither effective nor within his or her legal authority.
Please don’t tell me you rely on the experts. A political leader can find an expert to support any policy they care to advocate. If there’s one thing we should learn from Lawrence Summers, that’s it.
Sigh. I model the behavior. I support policies not political leaders. However, if I made an error in judgment and didnt show up on call because I didnt read the schedule I wouldnt expect all of my people to say “He doesnt read the schedule so none of us haver to either. None of us are showing up for call.”
I guess I should just lay off of this. You have decided that if a leader is a hypocrite then whatever policy they support must be wrong. I just dont think that way and I make decisions about policy, ideas, most everything based upon their own merits. I might be wrong, the wife says I usually am, but I am not wrong because I am mad at someone.
Steve
No but I do suspect they don’t actually believe in what they’re saying and are pursuing personal gain. That’s especially true when the policies they’re advocating are not efficient means to effect the results they claim.
I don’t think the gravest problem in our society is non-compliance. I think it’s too many political leaders who are primarily looking out for #1.