Do not, my friends, become addicted to water

[K. A. Pital]

You’re also lost, but in a different way than Kane. He is shameless, you are only defeatist, saying that failure of the struggle for humaneness, for humanity, for love, is preordained.

You are taking too much on yourself, Mr. Prophet. We shall see who wins in the end.

I told you, that factories can be challenged and closed, expelled from Kerala for example for poisoning and depleting groundwater. It is a fact, and it is popular action. You think it is not enough? At least they resist, what do you do?

Rant about how we live in a post Cold War era and we should all therefore just submit? Lol. It is a tiny period by history standards, a microscopic blip, but you proclaim the end of history? No, no no no.

[ray245]

You’re also lost, but in a different way than Kane. He is shameless, you are only defeatist, saying that failure of the struggle for humaneness, for humanity, for love, is preordained.

You are taking too much on yourself, Mr. Prophet. We shall see who wins in the end.

The mechanics or structure of human society doesn't suggest we are capable of THAT much common interest. Common interest is advanced as long as they are benefiting sufficiently from their own personal interest.

I told you, that factories can be challenged and closed, expelled from Kerala for example for poisoning and depleting groundwater. It is a fact, and it is popular action. You think it is not enough? At least they resist, what do you do?

The question is whether these are considered isolated success. For every success, there are 10 other failures. Is there an overall pattern emerging that suggest these changes are part of a wider cultural change than isolated instances?

Rant about how we live in a post Cold War era and we should all therefore just submit? Lol. It is a tiny period by history standards, a microscopic blip, but you proclaim the end of history? No, no no no.

No, I'm saying any change must be based on a degree of wealth and resources. The Cold War is a very peculiar period where there is an opposing rival ideology with actual resources to project such an ideology around the world against capitalism. There's a constant anxiety from capitalists powers like the US that new post-colonial nations might subscribe to the communist ideology and they could gain valuable wealth necessarily to resist against such an ideology.

If the Soviet Union was not a major superpower with vast resources available, it simply would not be possible for dissenting force to have much ability to change things. The ability to change things is heavily dependent on wealth and concentration of resources ( of any kind).

[Kane Starkiller]

You’re also lost, but in a different way than Kane. He is shameless, you are only defeatist, saying that failure of the struggle for humaneness, for humanity, for love, is preordained.

Liar liar pants on fire.
You attempted to tie inequality and putting your needs before the needs of poorer people specifically to capitalism. I demonstrated how this happens not only in other human made systems but in the animal (and plant) kingdom. You then proceeded to rant about how unfeeling I am because you had no logical refutation to the destruction of your original point.

I said: more localism, more community, more orientation towards needs other than purchasing power of the rich. More cooperatives, more ethical relations between people, more family, community, friendship, more non-monetary solidarity relations.

Less megacorporations, less production of harmful goods at the expense of the poorest. Boycott, ban, tax, strike, expunge, sue them in court, fight tooth and nail for the rights of the poor.

Arm the poor. In the literal sense and as a metaphor. Give them a sense of resistance, so that they can shut down, and expel, harmful factories and invaders who poison their wells, so that they can push back.

Global structures - subvert, expose their lies. Find the unsatisfied who will leak the truth about lying corporate shills, and tell this truth to the poor of the Third World, inform them about what the enemies do. Tell them how the World Bank fudges statistics to make pro-corporate shills look better in power. Knowledge is power.

979
That is the number of letters you have used to describe the ground up change in our entire society. Most of which does not call for any specific construcitive ways to better the society but only how to destroy, obstruct and tear down. Par for the course for the marxists.
Tell you what genius, when you write a 1000 page book densely packed with mathematical formulas that show how our society will be better off with the rigorously defined changes you're proposing then we'll talk about abolishing capitalism. Until then take your half baked, church sermon like, self righteous pamphlet and shove it up your ass m'kay .

[K. A. Pital]

Kane, I know your hard-on for formulas, you worthless crapsack. You failed to see that you never had a point to begin with. So I am not doing this for you.

I said at the start that if 200 years after the scientific revolution our economic system is still “animals push their weakest away from the water”, then it is an indictment of it.

You are a social darwinist, so of no interest to me.

[K. A. Pital]

The mechanics or structure of human society doesn't suggest we are capable of THAT much common interest. Common interest is advanced as long as they are benefiting sufficiently from their own personal interest.

Ray245 ca. 1700. The mechanics of the structure of slavery do not suggest slaves are capable of living a free life. The common interest is advanced only when slaves serve their masters.

I’m done.

[ray245]

The mechanics or structure of human society doesn't suggest we are capable of THAT much common interest. Common interest is advanced as long as they are benefiting sufficiently from their own personal interest.

Ray245 ca. 1700. The mechanics of the structure of slavery do not suggest slaves are capable of living a free life. The common interest is advanced only when slaves serve their masters.

I’m done.

False equivalency. I'm talking about the limits to human altruism. Unless you can actually show studies indicating human psychology are able of advancing common interest without any enforcing body, you're just daydreaming of a better world.

And let's not forget there were plenty of self-interests at stake when people were pushing for the abolition of slavery.

[Kane Starkiller]

Kane, I know your hard-on for formulas, you worthless crapsack. You failed to see that you never had a point to begin with. So I am not doing this for you.

I said at the start that if 200 years after the scientific revolution our economic system is still “animals push their weakest away from the water”, then it is an indictment of it.

You are a social darwinist, so of no interest to me.

The fact that you think that having a "hard-on for formulas" in a discussion about economic system is insult is just too fucking beautiful.
And no capitalism did not negate hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Was it supposed to? An economic system is supposed to make us more moral?

Oh but you have an idea: arm the poor. So instead of competing with constructive skills like intelligence, creativity and entrepreneurialism we'll go back to gunz and knives because that certainly won't lead to suffering and unequal distribution of wealth. Because you are not a social darwinist.

[K. A. Pital]

What, a person born in the First World has greater intelligence than em dirty Third World people and because of that deserves to overconsume, while the rest deserve to suffer?

Nazi shitbag, that is the true rock bottom.

Yes, socioeconomic systems are about morality as well. Fucking idiot.

Hope you get killed by a more creative person.

[Kane Starkiller]

What, a person born in the First World has greater intelligence than em dirty Third World people and because of that deserves to overconsume, while the rest deserve to suffer?

Nazi shitbag, that is the true rock bottom.

Yes, socioeconomic systems are about morality as well. Fucking idiot.

You're the one who thinks the only way the poor can change their condition is with gunz my man. The fact that I say intelligence and you automatically assume that that doesn't include the poor only reveals your thought processes not mine.

Hope you get killed by a more creative person.

Killed by an armed poor person seems to be the more statistically likely occurrence.

[K. A. Pital]

I think that almost everyone deserves not to suffer, simply because they are human and have dignity, but you think some deserve much more than just that. Key difference there.

[Broomstick]

You're the one who thinks the only way the poor can change their condition is with gunz my man.

To be fair, Pital did not specify "guns" or even specific weaponry. Non-violent protests that actually get results would be entirely viable, as would using legal means to stop abuses and crimes. What he is not doing is decreeing weapons off-limits under all circumstances, he's reserving them for when non-violent means no longer work.

Rather like when Malcolm X said "by any means necessary" and scared all the establishment white folks - he wasn't ruling out legal and social means, but he wasn't pledging to disarm himself either.

The message is clearly that if you're willing to play fair so will the oppressed but why should only one side get to use violence?

(Do correct me if I'm wrong on any of that, Mr. Pital)

As far as altruism goes... it does exist in the wild - there are numerous examples of parents protecting their young at some risk to themselves from various classes of tetrapod animals, and even some argument for this behavior from other phylums. Social animals display altruism in protecting kin, from bees, ants, wasps, and termites giving their lives to defend the hives/nest to various social tetrapods acting to protect kin or the group.

Selfishness AND altruism are both parts of our ancestral heritage going way, way, back. Maybe that's why neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism seems to work - both ignore the existence of contrary impulses.

[K. A. Pital]

I didn't mean necessarily "guns. No, actually, I was too harsh on Kane, hurling insults without thinking about his argument logically.

So now that I thought about it, I see the flaw in his argument and what is the difference between a general problem and a specifically capitalist problem.

Let's start with the "animals pushing weaker animals away from water" comparison. It's pretty clear that it is a fight for survival. If an animal does not get enough water to drink, it will die. So this fight over necessities seems understandable, justified.

Jumping to present day: consumption of, say, Coca Cola is a clear luxury. People's lives are not depending on the consumption of Coke.

So the poor are being deprived of water for no real reason, unlike a survival fight. They are being deprived of water for fun, and this is what turns a harsh world into a sadistic economic system. A uniquely capitalistic sadism, where people can be subjected to cruelty just for excesses.

I know of another example, which is also uniquely capitalist: biofuel, which was causing a malnourishment spike. It's crazy, because the system starves people to fill up a car tank.

So while I can understand a fight for survival, I can never understand and never excuse when one person is subjected to cruelty or killed, for nothing - for the amusement, the excess, of another.

Very big difference to me, if violence is caused by a need to survive, or for nothing. Why were people murdered for diamonds, for example? What's the reason for that? It's not a fight of animals for water, it is a sadistic system.

[Kane Starkiller]

Let's start with the "animals pushing weaker animals away from water" comparison. It's pretty clear that it is a fight for survival. If an animal does not get enough water to drink, it will die. So this fight over necessities seems understandable, justified.

Jumping to present day: consumption of, say, Coca Cola is a clear luxury. People's lives are not depending on the consumption of Coke.

So the poor are being deprived of water for no real reason, unlike a survival fight. They are being deprived of water for fun, and this is what turns a harsh world into a sadistic economic system. A uniquely capitalistic sadism, where people can be subjected to cruelty just for excesses.

I know of another example, which is also uniquely capitalist: biofuel, which was causing a malnourishment spike. It's crazy, because the system starves people to fill up a car tank.

So while I can understand a fight for survival, I can never understand and never excuse when one person is subjected to cruelty or killed, for nothing - for the amusement, the excess, of another.

Very big difference to me, if violence is caused by a need to survive, or for nothing. Why were people murdered for diamonds, for example? What's the reason for that? It's not a fight of animals for water, it is a sadistic system.

How is subjecting people to cruelty just for excesses a uniquely capitalist sadism? I mean how can anyone say that with a straight face? People were thrown to lions for the amusement of the crowd long before capitalism ever reared it's head.
People that drink Coca Cola don't stop to think what it's doing to their own body how do you expect them to know what it's doing to some guy on the other side of the planet? They are not cruel they simply don't think in such broad and far reaching terms. But more importantly let's say the Coca Cola factories are closed and sugar cane production falls. Are these people going to be materially better off? They have more water now but the factory and all the economic activity that accompanied it is gone.

Are Venezuelans better off now that US increased oil production and doesn't need as much Venezuelan oil? Venezuelan oil production is down some 30% in the last 5 years. I'm sure that's great for the environment. Are Venezuelans celebrating in the streets?
That's why you need rigorous mathematical analysis not just emotional self righteous proclamations.

The biofuel situation is caused by the governments that mandated biofuel used in the quest to save the environment. They will cause food prices to rise but are carbon neutral. Which is more important? If global warming continues the food prices might increase anyway. We would need to know how much food prices are going to increase if we use up X amount of space for biofuels versus how much they will increase if the we lose X amount of space due to global warming. That takes complex modeling not heated rhetoric.

[K. A. Pital]

People that drink Coca Cola don't stop to think what it's doing to their own body how do you expect them to know what it's doing to some guy on the other side of the planet? They are not cruel they simply don't think in such broad and far reaching terms.

But that's why I said it is the system which encourages cruelty. In a more local and community-centric world, where one set of people couldn't so freely infringe upon another, it would be difficult to do such a thing. You said, however, that it was not a problem with the system. But how so? It's not as if we're talking real sadists here, right? These people aren't sadists, as you say, and neither are they pushing others to suffering because they have to survive. It's not therefore sadism for entertainment, like throwing people to the lions, and not cruelty in a heated survival fight.

It is therefore a cruelty that originates from the system of the social productive relations, an unwilled cruelty, which can be blamed on the system as a system-specific thing.

Note how different this cruelty is from both your other examples: real sadists throwing people to the lions, or animals or humans fighting over food and water to survive. Do you agree?

But more importantly let's say the Coca Cola factories are closed and sugar cane production falls. Are these people going to be materially better off? They have more water now but the factory and all the economic activity that accompanied it is gone.

Maybe they can build their own factory and produce something more sustainable? I mean, the same could be applied to asbestos factories. When they closed down, people went elsewhere and produced something else. No? You deny the people any creative role. They have to wait for someone to come. But what if they find a solution themselves, without your - or Coca Cola's - "HALP".

Are Venezuelans better off now that US increased oil production and doesn't need as much Venezuelan oil? Venezuelan oil production is down some 30% in the last 5 years. I'm sure that's great for the environment. Are Venezuelans celebrating in the streets? That's why you need rigorous mathematical analysis not just emotional self righteous proclamations.

The question is, are Venezuelans suffering for nothing or is a reconstruction around goods other than oil eventually beneficial? It is a very complex question, Kane. Libya also became rich when it found oil. But a blessing became a curse soon enough; when oil production receded, and a global warming induced by overuse of hydrocarbon fuels started to wreck Middle Eastern food balances, the place plunged into a bloodbath. Are the poor suffering from low oil prices? They are. But will they suffer if prices go back to 120 a barrel? Malnourishment spike in 2006-2008 tells us that they will, and that's also the poor.

The biofuel situation is caused by the governments that mandated biofuel used in the quest to save the environment. They will cause food prices to rise but are carbon neutral. Which is more important? If global warming continues the food prices might increase anyway. We would need to know how much food prices are going to increase if we use up X amount of space for biofuels versus how much they will increase if the we lose X amount of space due to global warming. That takes complex modeling not heated rhetoric.

Kane, there's numbers, you know. Transport biofuel (that's the one causing a spike in food prices, there are food-neutral biofuels as well - which begs the question again, why the system produces suffering when it could avoid it) constitutes 0,3% of all fuel use. That was already enough to cause malnourishment. What do you think will happen if that quota rises, but the biomass used is made from food crops and on land useful for food crops? Removing 0,3% of biofuels from transport will not cause a significant GW impact, but it can cause food prices to recede as land is used for food crops again. Moreover don't forget that most of the cars are being used by the rich:

So the poor are not contributing significantly to either biofuel consumption or global warming. Their per capita emissions in the transport sector are far lower than that of the rich. A yet bigger problem is that seems like greenhouse emissions by currently used biodiesel variants are worse than fossil fuel based diesel...

Tell me now how did this happen in the best system in the world. And why choosing not food-neutral biomass sources, but food-related biomass sources, is not a uniquely capitalist thing? It is not as if biofuel producers are mandated to produce it from food and on arable land good for food, there are other types as well.

[Kane Starkiller]

But that's why I said it is the system which encourages cruelty. In a more local and community-centric world, where one set of people couldn't so freely infringe upon another, it would be difficult to do such a thing. You said, however, that it was not a problem with the system. But how so? It's not as if we're talking real sadists here, right? These people aren't sadists, as you say, and neither are they pushing others to suffering because they have to survive. It's not therefore sadism for entertainment, like throwing people to the lions, and not cruelty in a heated survival fight.

It is therefore a cruelty that originates from the system of the social productive relations, an unwilled cruelty, which can be blamed on the system as a system-specific thing.

Note how different this cruelty is from both your other examples: real sadists throwing people to the lions, or animals or humans fighting over food and water to survive. Do you agree?

It is connected to capitalism only in the sense that capitalist system enables the average person to accumulate enough disposable income to waste it on products like Coca Cola.
But even though I, so far, let the "cruelty" descriptor slide you still haven't shown me any real cost benefit analysis that would justify calling it that. How much wealth do such factories generate for the local communities versus how much environmental damage is done. People from the third world are willing participants in the business deal I assume and presumably they are not stupid?
It could be that the result is net negative but people buying sugarcane from third world are no more cruel to the third world than the third world is cruel to the first world for selling them components to make an unhealthy beverage.

Maybe they can build their own factory and produce something more sustainable? I mean, the same could be applied to asbestos factories. When they closed down, people went elsewhere and produced something else. No? You deny the people any creative role. They have to wait for someone to come. But what if they find a solution themselves, without your - or Coca Cola's - "HALP".

Maybe? You better be sure if you're going to close down a factory. What if their solution is that the factory remaining open is the best option? Is that OK?

The question is, are Venezuelans suffering for nothing or is a reconstruction around goods other than oil eventually beneficial? It is a very complex question, Kane. Libya also became rich when it found oil. But a blessing became a curse soon enough; when oil production receded, and a global warming induced by overuse of hydrocarbon fuels started to wreck Middle Eastern food balances, the place plunged into a bloodbath. Are the poor suffering from low oil prices? They are. But will they suffer if prices go back to 120 a barrel? Malnourishment spike in 2006-2008 tells us that they will, and that's also the poor.

Again a lot of maybes and hypotheticals. They are clearly suffering now because US doesn't need as much of their oil but maybe this will lead to some better future later. That's not exactly a resounding condemnation of the economics of an advanced country buying resources from a less advanced one whether it's oil or sugar cane.
Of course Venezuelan problems were not caused just by the drop in oil price but by gross mismanagement of the economy by the government which wasn't exactly capitalist was it.

Kane, there's numbers, you know. Transport biofuel (that's the one causing a spike in food prices, there are food-neutral biofuels as well - which begs the question again, why the system produces suffering when it could avoid it) constitutes 0,3% of all fuel use. That was already enough to cause malnourishment. What do you think will happen if that quota rises, but the biomass used is made from food crops and on land useful for food crops? Removing 0,3% of biofuels from transport will not cause a significant GW impact, but it can cause food prices to recede as land is used for food crops again. Moreover don't forget that most of the cars are being used by the rich:
https://en.actualitix.com/doc/maps/wld/ ... ountry.jpg
So the poor are not contributing significantly to either biofuel consumption or global warming. Their per capita emissions in the transport sector are far lower than that of the rich. A yet bigger problem is that seems like greenhouse emissions by currently used biodiesel variants are worse than fossil fuel based diesel...
https://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/upl ... 00x561.png
Tell me now how did this happen in the best system in the world. And why choosing not food-neutral biomass sources, but food-related biomass sources, is not a uniquely capitalist thing? It is not as if biofuel producers are mandated to produce it from food and on arable land good for food, there are other types as well.

How did this happen in the best system in the world? By this you mean producing enough food for itself, export and government mandated biofuel production? As opposed to what system? The communist one that saw USSR being forced to import grain from Canada? What would the price of food be if US today had the agricultural efficiency of USSR with its 325 million people?

[ray245]

I didn't mean necessarily "guns. No, actually, I was too harsh on Kane, hurling insults without thinking about his argument logically.

So now that I thought about it, I see the flaw in his argument and what is the difference between a general problem and a specifically capitalist problem.

Let's start with the "animals pushing weaker animals away from water" comparison. It's pretty clear that it is a fight for survival. If an animal does not get enough water to drink, it will die. So this fight over necessities seems understandable, justified.

Jumping to present day: consumption of, say, Coca Cola is a clear luxury. People's lives are not depending on the consumption of Coke.

So the poor are being deprived of water for no real reason, unlike a survival fight. They are being deprived of water for fun, and this is what turns a harsh world into a sadistic economic system. A uniquely capitalistic sadism, where people can be subjected to cruelty just for excesses.

I know of another example, which is also uniquely capitalist: biofuel, which was causing a malnourishment spike. It's crazy, because the system starves people to fill up a car tank.

So while I can understand a fight for survival, I can never understand and never excuse when one person is subjected to cruelty or killed, for nothing - for the amusement, the excess, of another.

Very big difference to me, if violence is caused by a need to survive, or for nothing. Why were people murdered for diamonds, for example? What's the reason for that? It's not a fight of animals for water, it is a sadistic system.

I'm saying it's still a fight for survival as long as we are existing in a nation-state framework. Poorer countries are more vulnerable to all sort of disasters, man-made or natural. It's difficult to build a sense of international trust. There's no legitimate way to truly protect poorer countries from more wealthy ones other than depending on the goodwill of people.

And that goodwill is quite limited.

[K. A. Pital]

It is connected to capitalism only in the sense that capitalist system enables the average person to accumulate enough disposable income to waste it on products like Coca Cola.

So you finally concede that this is not someting related to openly sadistic people, and it is not related to fighting for survival. Which means, strangely, that my original point stands well. It is related to capitalism - and not to violent people, neither to the evilness of the modern people.

But even though I, so far, let the "cruelty" descriptor slide you still haven't shown me any real cost benefit analysis that would justify calling it that. How much wealth do such factories generate for the local communities versus how much environmental damage is done. People from the third world are willing participants in the business deal I assume and presumably they are not stupid? It could be that the result is net negative but people buying sugarcane from third world are no more cruel to the third world than the third world is cruel to the first world for selling them components to make an unhealthy beverage.

Are you saying that evil Third Worlders are maliciously poisoning the First World? Or Coca Cola originated as a union of poor sugar cane producers in the Third World and proceeded to maliciously poison the innocent First World? Looks like you've realized the flaws, but now engage in blame shifting.

Maybe? You better be sure if you're going to close down a factory. What if their solution is that the factory remaining open is the best option? Is that OK?

No, I shoudn't "be sure" when I do that - I'm not omniscient, neither should I be. When Frances Oldham Kelsey banned thalidomide, she did not have a complex set of mathematic formulas which would evaluate the lost profits of Richardson-Merrell versus disfigured kids. She just didn't let it be produced. You should have faith that humans will find a better way once a bad way is no longer available. Just as she had faith that other less harmful medicines could be made, so I have faith that a less damaging industry can be created by the people, once the damaging industry is gone.

They are clearly suffering now because US doesn't need as much of their oil but maybe this will lead to some better future later. That's not exactly a resounding condemnation of the economics of an advanced country buying resources from a less advanced one whether it's oil or sugar cane.

That "maybe" is because unlike you, for me it is hard to excuse their suffering with a consequentialist trick "but it will be better" - when? You know that it is poor consolation, say, to a person who died in the mines or later from black lung, that thanks to the coal he brought up, someone's furnaces were burning hot and smelted a lot of steel, which was used to build better houses for the next generation.

How did this happen in the best system in the world? By this you mean producing enough food for itself

By this I mean causing food shortages and malnourishment by producing a product that serves only a pure luxury, most of it is consumed in the First World and burned up in automobiles, and it has worse greenhouse emissions footprint than fossil based diesel. That's what I mean, and I asked directly, does this qualify for you as a problem of capitalism? No distractions, please.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm saying it's still a fight for survival as long as we are existing in a nation-state framework.

Wrong. It is not, and has not been for a very long time. If you don't go out to abuse others halfway across the world, you don't die. This is basic logic. It is not a matter of life and death. It is a fight over one's luxury versus one's necessity. When the luxury wins against necessity - as it often does - people get hurt, or can die.

Poorer countries are more vulnerable to all sort of disasters, man-made or natural. It's difficult to build a sense of international trust. There's no legitimate way to truly protect poorer countries from more wealthy ones other than depending on the goodwill of people.

Resolute poor people tend to do wonders in terms of "respect building". But if you keep telling them that they are the problem, they are evil by nature, they are just violent animals and their suffering is their fault, you are making it harder for them to fight for their rights when it's most needed. You can tell these things to me, I won't be swayed.

And that goodwill is quite limited.

Maybe it is because we are operating in a system that greatly encourages selfish action, to such an extent that you can reach an innumerable gap between you and the poor, and become a God, if you act selfishly. So people act Pavlovian, big surprise.

[ray245]

Wrong. It is not, and has not been for a very long time. If you don't go out to abuse others halfway across the world, you don't die. This is basic logic. It is not a matter of life and death. It is a fight over one's luxury versus one's necessity. When the luxury wins against necessity - as it often does - people get hurt, or can die.

I'm not talking about individual humans but as collective society or nation-states. Poor nation-states like Bangladesh are effectively powerless in making any response to their water crisis. People have raised issues about it, but there are no concrete actions taken because there is no protection offered to poorer states.

Resolute poor people tend to do wonders in terms of "respect building". But if you keep telling them that they are the problem, they are evil by nature, they are just violent animals and their suffering is their fault, you are making it harder for them to fight for their rights when it's most needed. You can tell these things to me, I won't be swayed.

I never said that. Their suffering is not their fault but by the circumstances of the world, they are living in. Without wealth and resources, any reaction taken by them are limited in effectiveness. One victory does not cover up 10 defeats elsewhere.

Maybe it is because we are operating in a system that greatly encourages selfish action, to such an extent that you can reach an innumerable gap between you and the poor, and become a God, if you act selfishly. So people act Pavlovian, big surprise.

My point is you really can't overturn such a system because all it takes is a single selfish individual(or state/ organization) to bring an egalitarian system down. And because humans aren't completely altruistic, there's a limit to any egalitarian system we can build.

I'm all for trying to build a more egalitarian society, but I think there's a limit to how egalitarian we can get.

[K. A. Pital]

People have raised issues about it, but there are no concrete actions taken because there is no protection offered to poorer states.

If no champion of the poor among the nation-states rises, then you have to protect yourself without relying on others and be resolute and strong, tht's all I can say. It can be hard. But others can also help if they sympathize with your goals.

I never said that. Their suffering is not their fault but by the circumstances of the world, they are living in. Without wealth and resources, any reaction taken by them are limited in effectiveness. One victory does not cover up 10 defeats elsewhere.

There are many victories and many struggles; too many to list, even. It's not so bleak, and from defeats we learn something as well. Yes, it is a period of many reactionary trends now, but it can change. And even if it does not, it is better to live and die believing in this, than to be a corporate stooge.

My point is you really can't overturn such a system because all it takes is a single selfish individual(or state/ organization) to bring an egalitarian system down. And because humans aren't completely altruistic, there's a limit to any egalitarian system we can build. I'm all for trying to build a more egalitarian society, but I think there's a limit to how egalitarian we can get.

We can discover this limit - if it is really as you say, we will progress right until we hit it and no further. We will discover the limits of our moral guidance, and we would be still trying daily to reconcile a moral choice with what actually happens.

[ray245]

If no champion of the poor among the nation-states rises, then you have to protect yourself without relying on others and be resolute and strong, tht's all I can say. It can be hard. But others can also help if they sympathize with your goals.

That sympathy is usually tied to their own self-interest in different ways. You can't protect yourself if you don't have any means to do so. Saying it's hard is not a concrete evidence that it is possible.

There are many victories and many struggles; too many to list, even. It's not so bleak, and from defeats we learn something as well. Yes, it is a period of many reactionary trends now, but it can change. And even if it does not, it is better to live and die believing in this, than to be a corporate stooge.

Only if there is a wider trend or pattern that emerges. You need to show this isn't an isolated success story. Whether we believe in whatever narrative or dreams we want is not the matter at stake here. I'm not interested in beliefs. I'm interested in whether there is sufficient evidence to show we are moving towards a more positive trend.

We can discover this limit - if it is really as you say, we will progress right until we hit it and no further. We will discover the limits of our moral guidance, and we would be still trying daily to reconcile a moral choice with what actually happens.

But even discovering the limit doesn't help us in any way. In some places, they can't wait for the discovery of such a limit. They've already seen the limits of human empathy. It's not enough to really turn their lives in any way.

We're already on the track to irreversible global warming. We don't have forever to discover the limits to human empathy. If we can't find it in time, then it's effectively as good as saying the limit is not enough to help everyone.

[K. A. Pital]

We're already on the track to irreversible global warming. We don't have forever to discover the limits to human empathy.

I'm the revolutionary here, but what do you want me to do, ray? To promise you it will be okay, because a bunch of formulas or scientific facts told me that? I can't promise that. You're not interested in believing - that's good. But we operated in conditions of uncertainty. We can't be certain, but we still have to make decisions.

We don't have forever, you are right, and food stocks are running low - stock to use ratio for food crops is about to hit rock bottom


But I don't have the answers you want to hear.

Going back to the Cape Town water crisis:

In response to the water shortage, the agricultural sector reduced water consumption by 50%, contributing to the loss of 37,000 jobs in the sector nationally, and leading to an estimated 50,000 being pushed below the poverty line due to job losses and inflation due to increases in the price of food.

Seems like we're about to find out if anyone gives a shit very soon.

[Kane Starkiller]

So you finally concede that this is not someting related to openly sadistic people, and it is not related to fighting for survival. Which means, strangely, that my original point stands well. It is related to capitalism - and not to violent people, neither to the evilness of the modern people.

I think I was exceedingly clear in my position: capitalism successfully creates wealth which is then up to humans to use or misuse. Humans will often tend to misuse it due to the influence of millions of years of evolution. Trying to turn that into some kind of concession that capitalism is bad economic system is a complete distortion of my rather simple argument.

Are you saying that evil Third Worlders are maliciously poisoning the First World? Or Coca Cola originated as a union of poor sugar cane producers in the Third World and proceeded to maliciously poison the innocent First World? Looks like you've realized the flaws, but now engage in blame shifting.

Are you honestly under the impression that that was the point of my comparison? No of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying that both side suffer consequences but also have benefits from the deal. The entire rise of East Asia was closely linked to intense trade with the West.

No, I shoudn't "be sure" when I do that - I'm not omniscient, neither should I be. When Frances Oldham Kelsey banned thalidomide, she did not have a complex set of mathematic formulas which would evaluate the lost profits of Richardson-Merrell versus disfigured kids. She just didn't let it be produced. You should have faith that humans will find a better way once a bad way is no longer available. Just as she had faith that other less harmful medicines could be made, so I have faith that a less damaging industry can be created by the people, once the damaging industry is gone.

As far as I can tell Kelsey was a professional with a relevant education working for FDA when she made that specific call. But if you open up any drug on the market you'll see a section wheren side effects are discussed. Every single drug is a cost-benefit compromise. Like when you go for leukemia treatment and your hair falls out and you are weak and sick.
Which brings me back to my point: all these deals are individual cost-benefit analysis and there is no one "correct" answer and certainly not a single blanket answer about any factory in the third world.

That "maybe" is because unlike you, for me it is hard to excuse their suffering with a consequentialist trick "but it will be better" - when? You know that it is poor consolation, say, to a person who died in the mines or later from black lung, that thanks to the coal he brought up, someone's furnaces were burning hot and smelted a lot of steel, which was used to build better houses for the next generation.

But you are the one using the trick not I. You said that maybe Venezuelans suffering today because of lower oil demand is not for nothing and maybe it will be better in the future right? My point is that saying maybe it will be better is a weak argument against capitalism.

By this I mean causing food shortages and malnourishment by producing a product that serves only a pure luxury, most of it is consumed in the First World and burned up in automobiles, and it has worse greenhouse emissions footprint than fossil based diesel. That's what I mean, and I asked directly, does this qualify for you as a problem of capitalism? No distractions, please.

It's not a distraction to point out that you are taking 99% of what capitalism does for granted to complain about 1%.
You act as if it goes without saying that US produces surplus food to send to world markets and decrease the prices and capitalism doesn't get any points for that. But when some of that surplus food (and it's still a surplus) gets converted to biofules then it's outrage time.
Communism couldn't even get to the point where you had any surplus grain production.
There is no problem in pointing out the failings of capitalism as long as you acknowledge it's still head and shoulders above any competition.

[ray245]

I'm the revolutionary here, but what do you want me to do, ray? To promise you it will be okay, because a bunch of formulas or scientific facts told me that? I can't promise that. You're not interested in believing - that's good. But we operated in conditions of uncertainty. We can't be certain, but we still have to make decisions.

We don't have forever, you are right, and food stocks are running low - stock to use ratio for food crops is about to hit rock bottom
But I don't have the answers you want to hear.

I never need you to promise anything. My entire point so far is not about what you want to believe in, but simply understand we might not be a successful species as we thought.

This isn't about whether it is morally right to improve the existing world. This is simply about whether humanity is capable of sufficient morality to actually improve the world. Whether humanity goes down fighting to save ourselves and be moral is not my point of focus. I'm simply interested in finding out what's the success ratio if you will.

[K. A. Pital]

I think I was exceedingly clear in my position: capitalism successfully creates wealth which is then up to humans to use or misuse. Humans will often tend to misuse it due to the influence of millions of years of evolution. Trying to turn that into some kind of concession that capitalism is bad economic system is a complete distortion of my rather simple argument.

I am not distorting your argument Kane, and I do not care about it, in fact. You tried to spin this into a story of prehistoric violence. But it wasn't, because prehistoric people fought for survival, not for a bottle of Coke. You also said peope were thrown to the lions, but this is an obvious instance of direct malicious intent, sadism. You said that the people are at fault, while capitalism is blameless. However, people are not sadistic and not fighting over survival. But they make other people suffer for non-essential things, for their amusement, their addictions, whatever. The only explanation left is that the system allows and encourages impersonalization and atomization to such a scale that you can kill a person without ever knowing that you did. The system will do it for you. Hence, a specifically capitalist thing - impersonalized interaction.

Are you honestly under the impression that that was the point of my comparison? No of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying that both side suffer consequences but also have benefits from the deal. The entire rise of East Asia was closely linked to intense trade with the West.

How is it fair that "both sides suffer consequences", if only one side chose to create the corporation? The West chose to poison itself when Coca Cola & the like was created, way before "the rise of East Asia". None of the Third World countries could be held responsible for the creation of that corporation and its subsequent abuses. That was my point.

As far as I can tell Kelsey was a professional with a relevant education working for FDA when she made that specific call. But if you open up any drug on the market you'll see a section wheren side effects are discussed. Every single drug is a cost-benefit compromise. Like when you go for leukemia treatment and your hair falls out and you are weak and sick. Which brings me back to my point: all these deals are individual cost-benefit analysis and there is no one "correct" answer and certainly not a single blanket answer about any factory in the third world.

No, what I'm getting at, Kane, is that there is never a perfect formulaic "cost benefit analysis", there's no ability to compensate suffering with happiness, it's not mathematics. Kelsey was not sitting there with a utilitarian calculator thinking that degraded child limbs cost XXXX US dollars in lost profit - OK, that's acceptable! You're not outraged that the right of a basically unborn child not to be born with degraded limbs, disabled for life, prevented the shareholders of drugmakers and, partially, their workers, to get a certain monetary benefit, right? But they also had families to feed. Why the right of unborn children to have limbs overrode? After all, there's no calculation that says limbs costs so and so much. Maybe the job creation by the pharma industry would feed millions of people, so the thousands born limbless would be an OK price to pay, don't you think?

Why the double standard?

You are a crude utilitarian, a consequentialist.
If I say that one (1) person has a right not to suffer, and this right outweighs the right of all other humans to enjoy Coca Cola, you'd be outraged, probably. Suffering can't be compensated. And unlike happiness, which is a nebulous uncalculable thing - suffering exists, at least at a base level, objectively.

But you are the one using the trick not I. You said that maybe Venezuelans suffering today because of lower oil demand is not for nothing and maybe it will be better in the future right? My point is that saying maybe it will be better is a weak argument against capitalism.

Kane I don't have the intention to use a "trick", hence the maybe. I'm not sure it will be better, and it may be Venezuelans are also suffering for nothing (US shale producers aren't experiencing suffering, that's for sure). Maybe I should also turn my gaze towards the successful US energy companies and how they're immiserating formerly prosperous oil nations - Middle East, South America, etc. Or turn my gaze to the people suffering from price spikes when oil is expensive. The problem is this again:

I can't offer you formulas, can you calculate? In what, kilohumans? How are you going to go about your calculation, Kane?

It's not a distraction to point out that you are taking 99% of what capitalism does for granted to complain about 1%. You act as if it goes without saying that US produces surplus food to send to world markets and decrease the prices and capitalism doesn't get any points for that. But when some of that surplus food (and it's still a surplus) gets converted to biofules then it's outrage time.

Um... sure it does get points for producing the essentials which are needed to avoid suffering. But it does not get points for depriving some people of these essentials, and it's not something where suffering of one person could be compensated by another one's obesity. People are people and each person has a right not to suffer. It's not a matter of how much money that person has, it is a matter of humanity. If you have thirsty people and people who drink soda like water, the fact some people drink soda like water is not a compensation for the suffering of the first people. There is only one question I often wonder about: is every person provided with base necessities? Is every person able to get food and water? If not, then it is not compensated by the fact that other people can overconsume to their heart's content elsewhere.

Communism couldn't even get to the point where you had any surplus grain production.

Not sure who you mean by communism, USSR probably. Before 1971 we were a net grain exporter - kind of hard to do that without a surplus grain production... *shrugs* Don't let this derail you, though.

There is no problem in pointing out the failings of capitalism as long as you acknowledge it's still head and shoulders above any competition.

It's not a game, Kane, and it's not about "competition".

I used to be a bit like you, crunching numbers trying to figure out, OK, this, that, more iron, less iron, what does this mean. Sure, a lot of Indians died under British rule, but maybe railways? Or a lot of people died building the canals, but maybe... dunno, water? Caloric intake? Transport? Civilization? People died in the mines, but maybe coal? WAS ALL THE SUFFERING WORTH IT GIVE ME A FORMULA

What I found out is that the matter of human dignity and self-development cannot be reduced to a primitive calculation. It was not a good day on which I understood that, and it made all the genocides and conquest in the name of "CIVILIZATION" very questionable, and sad.

Can capitalism give me back cost-free pristine beaches and untouched forests, once they are irreversibly destroyed? Can it? In what is it measured?

Or will it just become another rich toy, a reservation where nature still exists unspoilt, but to enter, you must be filthy rich?