Jevon's Paradox?

Economics Political Theory
101

It didn’t have to be. Carbon dioxide is a poison, is it not?

Those are irrelevant to your definition of the verb “poison”.

No, I’m trying to show how your definition “proves too much”. And I still don’t see where I’m begging any question - that is, I don’t see where my conclusion is first assumed as a premise.

With all due respect, do you really see me in this situation as an example of “The Man” trying to oppress you? Come on. And no, I’m not trying to set any logical traps for you, “cutesy” or otherwise. I’m trying to help you understand the logical implications of what you’re saying.

I don’t think I’m playing dumb. From my point of view, many different people have many different definitions for “environmental destruction”. Some people apparently consider a single species going extinct to constitute “environmental destruction”. What you’re trying to do is “define” that term in the same way that one Supreme Court justice infamously “defined” “obscenity” - “I know it when I see it”. That won’t fly with me whatsoever.

I was asking for which influences are not beyond our control. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough.

102

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
No, I’m trying to show how your definition “proves too much”.
[/quote]

OK, how about this one,

“Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure.”

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
With all due respect, do you really see me in this situation as an example of “The Man” trying to oppress you? Come on.
[/quote]

LOL, no, I see it as an example of a rhetorical combatant trying to pin me in to some logical trap, so they can declare rhetorical supremacy. Or, as you would call it,

In any case, I was refering to the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs, which I went on to mention anyways.

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
That won’t fly with me whatsoever.
[/quote]

What will fly is completely sidestepping your previous assertion,

because you have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever of a species which reduces the carrying capacity of its landbase.

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I was asking for which influences are not beyond our control. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough.
[/quote]

Oh. Now that’s a tough one, to which I haven’t come up with a satisfactory answer.

103

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
Ending the state and corporations would be a start!
[/quote]

Now I see who we are dealing with…for the love of god how did I get sucked into this against a Freedom4Me clone? All that time, wasted…

Clearly you’ve already decided that western civilization is evil and doomed as a

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
culture that places maximum accumulation of power and control (i.e. modern western culture) as its greatest good
[/quote]

I’d love to see you try and substantiate this Foucault throwback. This is complete and utter nonsense, which shouldn’t have surprised me, given:

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
It’s no different when the “owner” of a forest decides to clearcut it. Is that particularly beneficial to the inhabitants of the forest (the flora and fauna)? No. But then again, they weren’t asked, now were they?
[/quote]

They were asked but, strangely, they didn’t answer, which everyone thought was strange considering what was at stake. In the end, the “owner” took the silence and non-opposition as tacit consent. I mean, after all, he asked.

In any case, back to our discussion:

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
So even in this case, your case, the action of the market (free market capitalism) is working to reverse phytoplankton scarcity
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
But in what context? That’s like saying beef confinement feedlots are working to restore auroch populations. Growing plankton to feed shrimp farms has nothing to do with the ecology of the open ocean, and I find it completely disgusting and reprehensible to even consider that as a valid point.
[/quote]

Whoopty-do. I don’t. If phytoplankton scarcity was caused by harvesting it from the ocean for such uses, and now it isn’t because it can be cultured and harvested artificially, then YES it IS helping to reverse the decline, isn’t it? The fact is that, however, it wasn’t harvesting that caused this, but rather natural phenomena, which capitalism isn’t making worse by culturing. Again, your example doesn’t support your case.

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
Capitalism is just one (of many) methods of unsustainable production. I’m really trying to figure out if it HAS to be by it’s very design.
[/quote]

But isn’t that irrelevant, according to you? Earlier in this thread, you defended your argument semantically per your argument that because resources are finite and that human demand for them is not, resource depletion must follow.

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
“modern capitalism assumes infinite growth, I think it is safe to assume that is an impossiblilty on a finite world, and is by definition an unsustainable system”.
[/quote]

You keep skirting the advent of economic recycling (mass recycling made economically competitive in production as against other uses of the scarce factors of production) in spite of the fact that free market capitalist production over time tends toward sustainability, and that it does this far better than any other economic system. In any case, let’s keep economic recycling out of the picture for now and continue to address this. The fact is that any human population (assuming infinite temporal existence as a species) producing anything from finite (non-renewable) resources (with no potential for mass recycling!) over a stretch of infinite time semantically must run out of non-renewable resources. Thus resource extinction is guaranteed by the very fact of the existence of humans engaging in production over infinite time using non-renewable (finite) resources. If you don’t see a problem with your formulation, then hey, good luck to you.

Why don’t you try and find out why Jevon’s Paradox only applies to fuels, and why it is only a proposition, because your current application of it as a Law to all production is highly problematic.

104

Obviously optimum satisfaction of human wants is implied in the premise, as there would otherwise be incentive and material available to continue production unabated. (Ie, converting matter and energy into goods that satisfy human wants more optimally than is already in existence).

There is no ‘the’ human. Human wants implies needs or desires among a population of humans that is widespread or strong enough to incentivize production of goods that satisfy or alleviates them.

I am replying to your premise of “Reality is finite, yes or no?” and the suggestion that therefore it is reasonable to assume that production must at some point cease by exploring the implications of this premise.

The sun is finite. Yes or no?

A finite sun means that at some point, H/G and agriculture will no longer be sustainable. Yes or no?
It’s really quite simple; you don’t want to apply the same ridiculous criteria of sustainability (the universe is finite thus matter and energy is finite whereas humans and human production is potentially infinite) to the production methods that you want to espouse as ‘sustainable’ that you do to methods of production that you would consider unsustainable because in your mind you have accepted that all methods of production will in such a situation be unsustainable.

Poisonings have existed before humanity and will persist if humanity should cease to exist.
What company that you can think of has the purchase or production of poison and then subsequent use of that poison for the direct destruction of land or human beings as a business model? How do they make a profit? Are there some people out there who want to be poisoned, or who want their land to be poisoned? Some huge masochistic market?

105

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Now I see who we are dealing with…for the love of god how did I get sucked into this against a Freedom4Me clone? All that time, wasted…
[/quote]

LOL, give me a break… Are you so rhetorically feeble that you MUST only engage with fellow acolytes? And believe me, F4M and I disagree too.

You can’t make it alone.

You can’t eat gold.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Clearly you’ve already decided that western civilization is evil and doomed
[/quote]

Evil? No. Doomed? I’m becoming more convinced, considering this is the best responses I’ve gotten so far,

“Meh, future technology will take care of it.”

“Salmon farms and tree plantations are just as good as functioning ecosystems… Maybe even better, because there’s profit to be had!”

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
I’d love to see you try and substantiate this Foucault throwback. This is complete and utter nonsense
[/quote]

OK, then what is the cultural goal? What is the underlying zeitgeist of our society?

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
They were asked but, strangely, they didn’t answer, which everyone thought was strange considering what was at stake. In the end, the “owner” took the silence and non-opposition as tacit consent. I mean, after all, he asked.
[/quote]

LOL, that’s right… the woods are stupid, and don’t talk. Let’s go jerk off to Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett about how awesome humans are, and how we have it all figured out (except those bloody savages, who think everything has a soul… fucking primitives).

NEPHiLix… is that a reference to the Nephilim? Because THAT is definitely a whole credible can of worms right there… Nibiru, save me!

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Whoopty-do. I don’t. If phytoplankton scarcity was caused by harvesting it from the ocean for such uses, and now it isn’t because it can be cultured and harvested artificially, then YES it IS helping to reverse the decline, isn’t it? The fact is that, however, it wasn’t harvesting that caused this, but rather natural phenomena, which capitalism isn’t making worse by culturing. Again, your example doesn’t support your case.
[/quote]

What are you talking about here? Phytoplankton are dying from climate change. Harvesting them and using them in a farm is NOT the same as having wild populations in the ocean. How are domesticated strains in shrimp ponds going to keep oceanic food webs functioning? It’s completely apples and oranges. Your “point” also assumes that domesticates and wild animals are the same.

Pug vs. grey wolf?

We were having a great conversation before your aggro-hate fest started because I had the audacity to suggest that maximum production and output may be a stupid ultimate societal goal, considering we are killing ourselves (and lots of other things) to do it. I don’t think you have to be a chaod about it.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
But isn’t that irrelevant, according to you? Earlier in this thread, you defended your argument semantically per your argument that because resources are finite and that human demand for them is not, resource depletion must follow.
[/quote]

I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but is that the case? That’s what this whole thread is about,

“Can capitalism as a system of production ever be sustainable, given Jevon’s Paradox?”

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
You keep skirting the advent of economic recycling (mass recycling made economically competitive in production as against other uses of the scarce factors of production) in spite of the fact that free market capitalist production over time tends toward sustainability, and that it does this far better than any other economic system. In any case, let’s keep economic recycling out of the picture for now and continue to address this.
[/quote]

So recycling is your perpetual motion solution? Tell me, aren’t there external input required for recycling? Water and energy come to mind, for me.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
The fact is that any human population (assuming infinite temporal existence as a species) producing anything from finite (non-renewable) resources (with no potential for mass recycling!) over a stretch of infinite time semantically must run out of non-renewable resources.
[/quote]

OK, I’m with you so far…

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Thus resource extinction is guaranteed by the very fact of the existence of humans engaging in production over infinite time using non-renewable (finite) resources. If you don’t see a problem with your formulation, then hey, good luck to you.
[/quote]

LOL, well, it begs the question. If you can figure out what question, you get a gold star!

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Why don’t you try and find out why Jevon’s Paradox only applies to fuels, and why it is only a proposition, because your current application of it as a Law to all production is highly problematic.
[/quote]

I don’t really know a whole lot about it. I came across it, and went to the forums to find out more, or at least see what the rebuttals against it were. If you are so privy to this knowledge, then please, enlighten me padre.

106

[quoteuser=“excel”]
Obviously optimum satisfaction of human wants is implied in the premise, as there would otherwise be incentive and material available to continue production unabated. (Ie, converting matter and energy into goods that satisfy human wants more optimally than is already in existence).
[/quote]

I don’t understand.

[quoteuser=“excel”]
The sun is finite. Yes or no?
[/quote]

Yes.

[quoteuser=“excel”]
A finite sun means that at some point, H/G and agriculture will no longer be sustainable. Yes or no?
[/quote]

Yes.

[quoteuser=“excel”]
It’s really quite simple; you don’t want to apply the same ridiculous criteria of sustainability (the universe is finite thus matter and energy is finite whereas humans and human production is potentially infinite) to the production methods that you want to espouse as ‘sustainable’ that you do to methods of production that you would consider unsustainable because in your mind you have accepted that all methods of production will in such a situation be unsustainable.
[/quote]

You got me. I modified my definition of “sustainable” just for this very reason,

[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
able to continue indefinitely, barring external influences beyond our control.
[/quote]

107

In the infinite growth model that we assume, as long as something exists which is not employed to optimally satisfy human wants, then it must by the definitions of the paradox be employed as a capital good for the production of goods that more optimally does satify human wants.

Will you tell me whether this restatement of my understanding of your position on sustainable v/ unsustainable production is an accurate description of your position:
“Methods of production are sustainable as long as production can continue indefinitely barring external influences beyond our control,
modern methods of production is unsustainable in that production cannot continue indefinitely due to either damage made to the factors of production done by human actors (ie, the damage done has a direct or indirect anthropogenic source) or from the depletion of natural resources. (Which includes only over-harvest, as the amount of matter in the universe and its distribution on the planet is beyond our control).”?

108

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
Are you so rhetorically feeble that you MUST only engage with fellow acolytes?
[/quote]

Yes, that must be it.

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
OK, then what is the cultural goal? What is the underlying zeitgeist of our society?
[/quote]

I would never make a claim that there is a zeitgeist that I’m capable of identifying and defining. You did. And because you can’t substantiate your own definition doesn’t put the onus on me. If you couldn’t substantiate your claim, you shouldn’t have made it. You do this alot.

As for the flora and fauna example, you were the one who claimed that “asking” was relevant, I was pointing out the absurdity hoping that you’ wouldn’t (again) take it literally and respond to that rather than to concede the absurdity of these kinds of comments and simply cut to the chase. I’ll chalk that up to expecting too much from you.

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
Let’s go jerk off…fucking primitives…be a chaod…
[/quote]

Well you are classy, aren’t you?

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
NEPHiLiM… is that a reference to the Nephilim? Because THAT is definitely a whole credible can of worms right there… Nibiru, save me!
[/quote]

It’s a reference to a band, actually, but I see that you’ve applied the same intellectual rigor, mental acuity and research ethic in the formulation of this commentary as you have to all of your other statements/arguments posted on this thread. At least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
What are you talking about here? Phytoplankton are dying from climate change.
[/quote]

Funny, that’s precisely what I said in the same quote you referenced.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
The fact is that, however, it wasn’t harvesting that caused this, but rather natural phenomena, which capitalism isn’t making worse by culturing.
[/quote]

It’s strange what happens when you don’t digest responses before responding, huh?

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
Your “point” also assumes that domesticates and wild animals are the same.
[/quote]

Nope, and if you actually read and digested my responses on this, you’d know that.

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
So recycling is your perpetual motion solution?
[/quote]

One of many but, again, you’re selectively applying the concept of infinity here in order to make your case.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Thus resource extinction is guaranteed by the very fact of the existence of humans engaging in production over infinite time using non-renewable (finite) resources. If you don’t see a problem with your formulation, then hey, good luck to you.
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
LOL, well, it begs the question. If you can figure out what question, you get a gold star!
[/quote]

I’ll take that as a no. Good luck to you, then.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Why don’t you try and find out why Jevon’s Paradox only applies to fuels, and why it is only a proposition, because your current application of it as a Law to all production is highly problematic.
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
I don’t really know a whole lot about it.
[/quote]

Surprise surprise…

[quoteuser=“JLR”]
If you are so privy to this knowledge, then please, enlighten me padre.
[/quote]

Yes because you’ve proven yourself so amenable to counterpoints so far… Why wouldn’t I want to continue this conversation with such an abrasive, abusive and repellent discussant? Hmmmm, let me think…

109

[quoteuser=“excel”]
In the infinite growth model that we assume, as long as something exists which is not employed to optimally satisfy human wants, then it must by the definitions of the paradox be employed as a capital good for the production of goods that more optimally does satify human wants.
[/quote]

OK, I’m with you now. Yes, since the paradox suggests demand is constant and unceasing, I can understand what you are saying here.

[quoteuser=“excel”]
“Methods of production are sustainable as long as production can continue indefinitely barring external influences beyond our control,
modern methods of production is unsustainable in that production cannot continue indefinitely due to either damage made to the factors of production done by human actors (ie, the damage done has a direct or indirect anthropogenic source) or from the depletion of natural resources. (Which includes only over-harvest, as the amount of matter in the universe and its distribution on the planet is beyond our control).”?
[/quote]

I would also include damage done to ecological webs, but yeah, that seems about right.

110

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
I would never make a claim that there is a zeitgeist that I’m capable of identifying and defining. You did. And because you can’t substantiate your own definition doesn’t put the onus on me. If you couldn’t substantiate your claim, you shouldn’t have made it. You do this alot.
[/quote]

Than what is the end goal in production? Or of accumulating capital? Happiness or satisfaction can’t be it, because it does not linearly trend with increases in production.

So why keep producing? What is the point?

But you are able to just say “nuh uh”, and move on, as if you have sufficiently addressed the issue. It’s only fair, I suppose. I usually just reply to assertions in the same fashion.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
As for the flora and fauna example, you were the one who claimed that “asking” was relevant, I was pointing out the absurdity hoping that you’ wouldn’t (again) take it literally and respond to that rather than to concede the absurdity of these kinds of comments and simply cut to the chase.
[/quote]

Spare your patronizing bullcrap. Why is it an absurd proposition? Oh, because you are a reductionist, materialist, humanist, science worshipper who equates shrimp farms with opean ocean ecosystems.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
It’s strange what happens when you don’t digest responses before responding, huh?
[/quote]

LOL, it’s also strange how completely assured you are that climate change is a natural phenomena…

[quoteuser=“NEPHiliX”]
Nope, and if you actually read and digested my responses on this, you’d know that.
[/quote]

Care to explain it then? Remember, I’m a stubborn idiot.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
I’ll take that as a no. Good luck to you, then.
[/quote]

Lazy, lazy. The question begged is,

“Why do you presuppose humans must use non-renewable resources in order to exist?”

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Yes because you’ve proven yourself so amenable to counterpoints so far…
[/quote]

LOL, it must be hard to type while you are up on the cross! We were having a fine conversation before you “outed” me, and became a total douche from thereon, because you had made up your mind that I was some shit-head enviromentalist.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Why wouldn’t I want to continue this conversation with such an abrasive, abusive and repellent discussant? Hmmmm, let me think…
[/quote]

OK, then see you around the block…

111

Do you draw any line for what you’re counting as “injure”? Although it isn’t a chemical, we’re all constantly bombarded by radiation, at least some of which disrupts molecules in our bodies.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m not engaging in rhetoric. Hence I have no desire to declare rhetorical superiority. I try to remain as logical as possible. Logic is not at all the same thing as rhetoric.

Thank you for pointing out which part of your response to EmperorNero was relevant. Now then, just so I’m on the right page, you’re defining “having my home ruined” as “the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs”, right? If so, that brings up two questions in my mind. First, how big of an area are you talking about? Second, going with your definition of the verb “poison”, this means there must be sufficient PCBs in the rivers in your area to kill or injure you. Do you know whether that’s the case?

Otherwise, if you’re not defining “having my home ruined” as “the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs”, then what are you defining it as?

How about cane toads, after they were brought to Australia?

So if you have no idea which influences are not beyond our control, then that means you have no idea which kinds of production are unsustainable.

112

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Do you draw any line for what you’re counting as “injure”?
[/quote]

Sigh, do you draw any line for semantics?

Causing adverse health effects, maybe?

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Although it isn’t a chemical, we’re all constantly bombarded by radiation, at least some of which disrupts molecules in our bodies.
[/quote]

Can we control that? Did we evolve for that contingency?

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Now then, just so I’m on the right page, you’re defining “having my home ruined” as “the rivers in my area being poisoned by PCBs”, right?
[/quote]

Among other things. Generally, it means having the carrying capacity of my landbase reduced.

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
how big of an area are you talking about?
[/quote]

As I said before, I am unable to function atomistically, and therefore am forced to take a holistic approach to this answer,

The universe.

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Second, going with your definition of the verb “poison”, this means there must be sufficient PCBs in the rivers in your area to kill or injure you. Do you know whether that’s the case?
[/quote]

Well, it WOULD certainly be the case if I started eating fish around here, and I DO eat farmed salmon, but I haven’t gotten any blood tests, if that’s what you’re asking. Even if the average daily dose is small, PCBs are known as Persistent Organic Pollutants, so exposure has a cumulative effect.

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
How about cane toads, after they were brought to Australia?
[/quote]

LOL, who brought them there? Next you might start blaming chainsaws for logging!

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
So if you have no idea which influences are not beyond our control, then that means you have no idea which kinds of production are unsustainable.
[/quote]

Hey, it’s not my fault you are too vague to make sense. Who exactly is “our” in this quote?

113

I would have mentioned it, but figured that damage done having an indirect anthropogenic source would cover this.
This makes top-soil erosion an interesting topic, in that the direct damage done is due entirely to external factors beyond our control (currently). Ie, rain fall run-off and wind. On the other hand, if we assume that indirectly, bad management of land can be a factor in this, (in that farmers don’t use different known or unknown methods to combat top-soil erosion, of which there are quite a few), how do we determine which factor should be the deciding one in determining whether production is sustainable?
Ie, we can look at it and say that production is sustainable because the top soil erosion is caused by external factors beyond our control.
Or we can look at it and say that production is unsustainable because the top soil erosion could have been alleviated or stopped completely by applying technologies that we either possess (we have several top soil prevention measures available) or that we could presumably develop.

114

Then luckily, we can assume that nothing is poisoned anywhere, since compared to all the matter and energy contained in the universe, the amount of poison dumped in your backyard is insignificant, even if we dumped all the poison and radiation in the world into it. Problem solved!

115

[quoteuser=“excel”]
This makes top-soil erosion an interesting topic, in that the direct damage done is due entirely to external factors beyond our control (currently). Ie, rain fall run-off and wind. On the other hand, if we assume that indirectly, bad management of land can be a factor in this, (in that farmers don’t use different known or unknown methods to combat top-soil erosion, of which there are quite a few), how do we determine which factor should be the deciding one in determining whether production is sustainable?
[/quote]

First, this post struck me as absurd, because it seems to completely ignore the function of the biosphere is mitigating soil erosion, and therefore essentially tries to sneak by any sort of potential for anthropogenic causality in said soil erosion.

Disregarding that rather important omission, it all comes down to whether or not the production reduces the carrying capacity of the land. If said production exeeds the enviroment’s ability to replenish any resources used, then I would consider the production unsustainable.

[quoteuser=“excel”]
Or we can look at it and say that production is unsustainable because the top soil erosion could have been alleviated or stopped completely by applying technologies that we either possess (we have several top soil prevention measures available) or that we could presumably develop.
[/quote]

Sort of. The sustainability or unsustainability of an economic activity has nothing to do with whether one has the technology to produce in a way that does not reduce (or reduces less, or more slowly) the carrying capacity of the landbase. I mean, technically, we already have the technology to produce sustainably (paleolithic).

You do raise an interesting point, though. There are certainly extant technologies we possess in order to increase the carrying capacities of land (without resorting to the stone age, LOL!). Since we are fortunate enough to have the constant energy input of the Sun, we can devise systems of nutient cycling in which we can produce valuable products over and over again from the same materials.

Integrated farms come to mind. Terra Preta as well.

Of course, the model relies on cyclical nutrient exchange, so it would be tough to reconcile these models with global trade! I think it can be doable, though… perhaps requiring a holistic view of global nutrient cycles. Unfortunately, if production continues, those natural nutrient exchange mechanisms my be gone by the time we try to work with them!

116

[quoteuser=“excel”]
Then luckily, we can assume that nothing is poisoned anywhere, since compared to all the matter and energy contained in the universe, the amount of poison dumped in your backyard is insignificant, even if we dumped all the poison and radiation in the world into it. Problem solved!
[/quote]

Your reasoning is absurd, LOL! As I said before, I am concerned with myself and my own. My concern for what is immediate in my life forces me to care about that which is outside of my immediate area, because of the inheirent inter-relatedness of everything.

I don’t care about averages in the least, so your deduction is silly.

117

Then your holistic reasoning that the entire universe is your concerned area is as absurd.

118

[quoteuser=“excel”]
Then your holistic reasoning that the entire universe is your concerned area is as absurd.
[/quote]

Non sequetur. Why?

119

Because if we magically and without cost dropped 600 trillion tons of cyanide and rat poison onto the surface of OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb the effect on you would be non-existent.

If we dropped 10 tons of cyanide and rat poison on your house, the effect would be immediate and pressing.

So either you don’t give a flying rats anus about what happens on the surface of OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, or you’re already convinced you’re dying because there exists far more than 600 trillion tons of cyanide, as well as all the components of rat poison, already within the universe, and they therefore affect your situation with an equal amount of damage that dropping it all on an exoplaned thousands of lightyears away from earth does.

Ie, your reasoning is absurd.

120

No. It does not. All that is required is some wood to build fences, and if you take care of them, you don’t have to chop down trees everyday to maintain them. Trees grow back, and if you really wanted and were careful, you would not have to worry about deforestation.

What animal husbandry actually does is allow people to satisfy their immediate needs much easier, which then allows people to seek more. Animal husbandry in and of itself does not require very much. All it does is allow people to do not have to spend all day hunting.

One has nothing to do with the other. Besides, every living thing intervenes in ecologies…

Huh?

No, it is not what you said. If it is what you meant, you were very unclear.

Is this your opinion? That the people of America do not matter more than rabbits? I certainly think that most people matter more than rabbits. What is the point of this question?

No, it is not. The United States government could deregulate the prohibitions and rules regarding domestic energy production, such as oil drilling, oil refinement, wind farms, nuclear energy, etc. It does not. War is also incredibly costly, and the Powers That Be in America have yet to reap the rewards of warring for oil. Pipelines won’t be up for another several years or so, the ones that are supposed to connect Iraq to Europe. Whereas, if the PTB preferred, they could deregulate domestic energy restrictions. Your analogy is not accurate.

Is it beneficial to the sheep when the wolf eats it? Did the wolf even ask? What’s your point?

I would like you to substantiate this assertion. It has been my experience that most people here are very much aware of the fact that the state essentially owns us and our property. There is a reason that the analogy of taxation being akin to slavery, in fact the only difference is the matter of degree. It is also why many of us talk about “just” ownership. We consider the state to “unjustly” own things. So, if you please, I would appreciate that you substantiate this ridiculous assertion.

Have nodamic societies ever actually claimed to own the land? Maybe some have, but I’ve been under the impression that nomads are nomads precisely because they don’t own land. When nomads move, all they have done is shift. They have not expanded.

No. I cannot agree to that because it is not true. Growth is not a requisite for capitalism. Capitalism produces growth. It may use this growth to expand further, but it is never a requisite.

This is neither a counterexample nor even a counterargument to my point.

I can only hope you are speaking figuratively, because I see no indication that this will actually happen.

As stated before, socialist leaning societies are the ones that use up resources and have to move on. Capitalist leaning societies do not have this problem. Look at agriculture. We are so wealthy in food that the US government pays farmers to not farm their land. Socialist leaning societies are just the opposite. They need donations from capitalist leaning societies so that their population will not starve to death. Africa is rich in resources, but because of their socialist type economies, you would never know it.

It is true that capitalist societies do expand in many ways, but the key words in my statement were “do not have to”. Capitalist societies do not have to keep expanding, whereas socialist societies "do have to____" keep expanding.

No, for the reasons above.