Great. Now you're hugely more efficient at converting an ecosystem that provides ecosystem services into something else.
You've also created more centralization and risk.
Topic: Capital and the Perfect Society - page 2. (Read 3860 times)
You've also created more centralization and risk.
economic growth is an increase in [economic efficiency]. eg, I buy an excavator and now I need 100 less people to dig dirt. My out/in ratio has increased. Technological innovation (the invention of the excavator) has created economic growth.
Great. Now you're hugely more efficient at converting an ecosystem that provides ecosystem services into something else.
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
Whoa whoa just a sec! Trade is free? Where? What do you mean by "economic growth"?
Producing more what for less what?
[resources in] X [economic efficiency] = [resources out]
economic growth is an increase in [economic efficiency]. eg, I buy an excavator and now I need 100 less people to dig dirt. My out/in ratio has increased. Technological innovation (the invention of the excavator) has created economic growth.
We don't have completely free trade and never will as long as the state exists.
I just don't get you, man. You say you want to educate us, but then when we ask questions, you say "go learn it yourself". You say you want to defend the environment, but when asked for methods, all you offer is killing and enslaving people. I don't think you fully understand the philosophy you preach.
But hey, thanks for that link, I found an Ecosystem service Crude Oil provides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
Of course, you have to harvest it, first...
But hey, thanks for that link, I found an Ecosystem service Crude Oil provides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
Of course, you have to harvest it, first...
Now, as to those other resources, the ones which undergo transformation or which do provide ecosystem resources. Could you provide examples?
I think you need a refresher course on ecosystem services. If you're smart, you'll be able to look at the ecosystem services themselves, and then work your way backwards (or forwards) to determine which resources those are that are providing the ecosystem services. As for ones which undergo transformation, just imagine various processes such as: burning, eating, and destruction of the environment that other resources are dependent on.
Here's your refresher course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services
A simple "no" would have sufficed.
What an unnecessary comment. The answer to your question would be "yes", not "no". However, I'm not interested in being your slave teacher. Educate yourself for a change. I'm not going to call you what you should be called, because I'm going to refrain from that, although you deserve it completely.
Now, as to those other resources, the ones which undergo transformation or which do provide ecosystem resources. Could you provide examples?
I think you need a refresher course on ecosystem services. If you're smart, you'll be able to look at the ecosystem services themselves, and then work your way backwards (or forwards) to determine which resources those are that are providing the ecosystem services. As for ones which undergo transformation, just imagine various processes such as: burning, eating, and destruction of the environment that other resources are dependent on.
Here's your refresher course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services
A simple "no" would have sufficed.
Now, as to those other resources, the ones which undergo transformation or which do provide ecosystem resources. Could you provide examples?
I think you need a refresher course on ecosystem services. If you're smart, you'll be able to look at the ecosystem services themselves, and then work your way backwards (or forwards) to determine which resources those are that are providing the ecosystem services. As for ones which undergo transformation, just imagine various processes such as: burning, eating, and destruction of the environment that other resources are dependent on.
Here's your refresher course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services
I think you are conflating value with price. People still value the utility of their mobile phones as they did 20 years ago, but the price has come down dramatically.
And I think you are conflating utility with value. People throw away mobile phones every day, along with the rare-earth minerals used to produce them.
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
Economic growth is not sustainable. Economic growth is in fact not desirable. It's a horrific solution which is exactly analogous to living off your principle rather than your interest. The biosphere is our principle. The goal is to live off its interest.
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
Whoa whoa just a sec! Trade is free? Where? What do you mean by "economic growth"?
Producing more what for less what?
In a perfect society, capital is both abundant and highly-valued. This contradicts the law of supply and demand. In the free market, a thing can either be abundant or highly-valued, but not both. Thus, a free-market is incompatible with a perfect society.
I think you are conflating value with price. People still value the utility of their mobile phones as they did 20 years ago, but the price has come down dramatically.
I disagree with the premise. In a free market capital is abundant and cheap, due to the innovations that result from voluntary trade.
+1
Savings grow when money is stable or deflationary. Guess what will help with that?
Fair enough.
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
Consumption grows when trade is free. Savings do not grow. That was the point of this thread.
Savings grow when money is stable or deflationary. Guess what will help with that?
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
Consumption grows when trade is free. Savings do not grow. That was the point of this thread.
I think you are conflating value with price. People still value the utility of their mobile phones as they did 20 years ago, but the price has come down dramatically.
And I think you are conflating utility with value. People throw away mobile phones every day, along with the rare-earth minerals used to produce them.
Yeah, because they're abundant and cheap. This is the whole point of economic growth; producing more for less. The economy grows fastest when trade is free.
I think you are conflating value with price. People still value the utility of their mobile phones as they did 20 years ago, but the price has come down dramatically.
And I think you are conflating utility with value. People throw away mobile phones every day, along with the rare-earth minerals used to produce them.
Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.
Carbon sequestration.
It provides that same benefit in holding tanks.
Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.
Carbon sequestration.
Furthermore, it does nothing to bolster any point you'd like to make regarding the harvesting of resources which undergo transformation during harvesting or resources which do provide ecosystem resources.
Well, you're the one who is supposed to know all about ecosystem services. Presumably you have the research resources to find out what ecosystem services crude oil provides while in the ground. Saying you don't know is tantamount to saying none. If you believe there to be some service it provides, do the research, and present it. I've never turned away solid evidence. Your problem was with the "ever more effort and technology to harvest said resource to its end." not with what happens after the harvest.
Now, as to those other resources, the ones which undergo transformation or which do provide ecosystem resources. Could you provide examples?
Ah. OK, just wanted to make sure that's your answer on the matter. "None."
I didn't say none. I don't know whether it is none or not. Do you?
Quote
Now, just one more question. What's your problem with it being harvested, if it provides no benefit where it is?
The problems would be Cases 2, 3 and 4.
Case 2: If you're only going to retain it, harvesting it is a waste.
Case 3: You have maligned case 3. There is the risk of accident. The Gulf Oil Spill did not occur due to it being stored. It occurred during harvesting. What kind of imbecile are you? And even without an accident, we have certain environmental destruction due to the infrastructure of harvesting.
Case 4: It's already retained in the ground.
Your arguments are rather absurd, and are indicative of one who is a little desperate. Furthermore, it does nothing to bolster any point you'd like to make regarding the harvesting of resources which undergo transformation during harvesting or resources which do provide ecosystem resources.
The other three can be met by efficiently and cleanly harvesting it and retaining it in tankers.
I will not continue this discussion if you're going to say non-truths.
Case 2: Clearly not, given the emissions produced.
Case 3: Clearly not, given the Gulf oil spill.
Case 4: Clearly not, given the trajectory of fuel economy of engines over time.
case 2: If it's retained, then it's not burned. If it's not burned, it doesn't produce emissions.
case 3: You cannot cite an accident and say "That's why you can't retain it." An accidental release is, by definition, not retaining it.
case 4: If it's retained, it's available for future use.
Quote
So, I ask again:
Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.
What is lost to the environment when there is no more oil left in the ground?
Tell me what "Ecosystem services" crude oil provides while in it's natural state.
What is lost to the environment when there is no more oil left in the ground?
I already answered that question. In my last post, I directed you to where that answer resides. However, I would now like to point you to the first sentence in this post for your consideration.
"I'm not aware of what the science says on the matter. It might be something, but let's assume it provides no ecosystem services."
Ah. OK, just wanted to make sure that's your answer on the matter. "None."
Now, just one more question. What's your problem with it being harvested, if it provides no benefit where it is?
Jump to: