Luckily, we can choose to reject reality and believe whatever makes us feel better.
I feel best believing the biosphere is gonna force humanity to “find out” for the last century of fuckin around with a recklessly unplanned terraform.
Love how the collective of humanity needs to find out because the richest few fucked around.
You can always find these people and make them find out. They are actively committing genocide against the human race.
But the rich are supplying a demand. And a ton of innovation wouldn’t be there without them.
Imagine thinking CEOs drive innovation lmao
Why does it seem like there are a ton more conservatives here on Lemmy than there were on Reddit?
My theory is they just had a habit of getting banned so they weren't as visable
I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.
They have the right to be here and express their thoughts.
What they don't have is a right to our attention.
Ignore them and block accounts that get annoying.
Happy to have them here. I almost never agree with them, but not only is it good to have your opinion challenged (though often wearying to have to repeat yourself), it's good for THEM to have their opinion challenged too. Maybe only 1/100 will change their opinion after being challenged and seeing that their opinion is very much in the minority, but that's 1/100 more than if we were all chatting away in a safe space with no opposing views.
(and to be clear, no I don't think shit like nazis, devout racists etc is an 'opposing view' that deserves any debate)
Idk. I’m on kbin and haven’t experienced that. Usually when I wish violent death on conservatives I get a ton of upvotes.
I mean, I think they're definitely still in the minority. It seems like there's a larger proportion of them here than on reddit. I see more of their opinions here. Maybe that's just how the algo works here regarding upvotes & downvotes and how comments are displayed.
It’s worst on lemmy.world I’ve noticed. Beehaw was right to defederate. Y’all need to tell them in the kindest possible words to go die over and over again until they don’t come back or you’ll end up like voat.
For every person that choose to leave reddit...
There's 5-10 "conservatives" who were ip banned and dont have a choice between Reddit and Lemmy.
They are not getting down-voted into nothingness for refusing to tow the party line.
I appreciate the variety of opinions presented here. Plus (in my experience) the conversation has been civil.
Yeah. I hardcore disagree with conservatives as a libertarian socialist myself, but I always want to hear what people who disagree with me (and people who agree with me) are saying, and engage in civil conversation with people who actually believe what they say.
The problem for me comes when shills (people who don't believe what they say but get paid to say it) come into the conversation, or when people use outright disingenuous arguments (usually strawmans).
Assuming any conservative is arguing in good faith is your first mistake.
You very well may be correct, but I always like to assume people are good and are arguing in good faith until proven otherwise.
If I can "steelman" (opposite of strawman) their position, and argue against it easilly, I see no reason not to do so, and that also makes for a better argument for other people viewing the comment thread who may believe the false notion that climate change is either fake or not caused by humans.
To me, trying to argue that climate change is fake or not caused by humans is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat. Very easy to debunk.
That is a recipe for wasting a huge amount of time in people whose main goal is to waste your time.
You mean like the disinformation that this user is literally spreading in this very thread?
If they actually believe it, I would like to argue the factual point, which is very easy to do. If they don't believe what they are saying, then yes, I have a problem with it.
There is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. If they choose to not listen to evidence and hard facts, then they lost the debate. If they say that big money funded those studies, simply point them to the Big Oil-funded studies claiming that climate change is false, and the fact that they originally found that it was true, and then tried to bury it.
People posting the same few thoroughly debunked ideas over and over gets really old.
But they kinda do. Imagine Samsung or Apple stopping innovation. Company goes bankrupt.
You think Tim Apple is coming up with their innovations? Lol
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company.
So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
That's a good point. You must have a really smart boss to come up with ideas like that.
So you feel entitled and experienced enough to lead a company?
He’s very good with financials and supply chains, I’ll give him that.
And since the profits can be invested into research, it is somewhat linked.
No it doesn't. Worker-owned co-ops exist. Didn't you say you're in Germany? You should know all about that.
I don’t know what you think of us Germans. But we are rational capitalists. And I do believe to know a lot about it.
No, you misunderstand. I'm all for the idea. You just seem to be unaware that it exists. Learn about your own country:
In the last link it literally says: “These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firm”
These concepts only work in relatively small companies.
And first off all, this company might be ranked relatively high in Spain, but it still is just Spain.
Further, to my understanding, the group could be actually described as multiple smaller companies housed under a big one. So that explains that party.
I'm just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.
It's like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things. You're so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has "mechanisms" for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.
Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some "counter" that, in your mind, confirms that you've always been right (it doesn't), and everyone who's arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.
It can never just be, "hey I didn't know that about my country, that's interesting. Maybe I should reconsider..." Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn't work is not based in reality. They're fucking thriving. You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.
The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something... Like it's protecting itself from new information. It's fascinating.
I'm just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.
I am a connoisseur of discussion. A man who enjoys discourse.
But indeed what I stated are my firm beliefs. And those beliefs have not yet failed me.
It's like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things.
It always depends on the information. Some information just has less weight to it.
You're so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has "mechanisms" for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.
Now I feel like I've been put on the spot. This might apply on some of my standpoints. But none so far in our discussion here.
Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some "counter" that, in your mind, confirms that you've always been right (it doesn't),
Oh, just because the Information I have given, does not convince you or support your standpoint, doesn’t make it invalid.
I’d like to pull up the Infinite Monkey Theorem at this point. A few false informations can also lead to the correct outcome.
But now I have lost the thread.
and everyone who's arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.
And are you not trying to prove me wrong? Is it not, that you claim my standpoints to be somewhat flawed, and yours must be the ultimate ratio?
It can never just be, "hey I didn't know that about my country, that's interesting. Maybe I should reconsider..."
I do reconsider when it’s to my benefit. But as said before, my standpoints have yet to fail me.
Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn't work is not based in reality. They're fucking thriving.
Average wealth per person in Germany is lower than in Italy or Greece. some german article to back up my claims Germany are not thriving. The German government is thriving.
You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.
Because it has the highest and second highest taxes in many sectors. And the government uses this money to influence other countries to their benefit.
My people are not thriving. I wished for a concept similar to Switzerland. Still high taxes, but the money stays in the country without attempts to control European politics.
The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something... Like it's protecting itself from new information. It's fascinating.
From my standpoint of course, this is the opposite standpoint.
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation.
I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.
My dude, your argument boils down to "this is the way we've always done it so this is the way it must be".
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN'T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
My dude, your argument boils down to "this is the way we've always done it so this is the way it must be".
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN'T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn?
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,…
Of course the world would continue to turn.
That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?
Yes. It very well might be.
But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break.
The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
And that’s a good thing.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level.
The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies.
Just take a look at AI at this point.
AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations.
Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Same with medical advancements,
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
And sooner or later I will hopefully have children.
And when the average summer day is 60c and crops fail every single year, and Nestle has taken half our drinking water, and the smoke in the air from wildfires is giving everyone asthma, and deadly storms happen year round, and the coasts erode, and wars break out for the remaining water/etc, what will you tell them? Will you tell them to look at the brilliant 'innovator' CEO's who intentionally shut down electric cars? The CEO's who found out climate change was happening sixty years ago and intentionally hid it to keep themselves rich, what do you tell your kids about that?
What innovation is worth your children dying early?
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).
Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.
You know, as a member of the SSBN force, occasionally during thermonuclear launch exercises I take a moment to regret the death of humanity and the biosphere. People like you, on the other hand, are what steels my resolve to flip the switch with gusto. I hope you know that I'll be thinking of you, should I receive the order to commence procedures to launch.
You sound like a fragile personality. You might be in the wrong occupation.
Or you might be talking bullshit. Because I doubt that you would have internet on a submarine.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all?
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running.
Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others.
Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
Hey guy uhhh
Check the planet. It is literally burning right now and we are all going to either die, or have our lives massively changed by this climate catastrophe.
Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.
Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.
None of them will burn.
What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere.
And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.
So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire.
And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.
I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
LOL.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Capitalism fails every ~8 years requiring the use of vast amounts of public funds to keep afloat. I'd also say if fails daily if you look at all the needless suffering occuring in the world today, especially in the most "free market" countries and the countries these exploit. We have "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else," as Jon Stewart would say.
I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.
And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.
I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.
And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.
The methods to combat climate change are already there. We already have the means for weather engineering.
The future is inevitable. And so is every step towards it.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
The 'future' is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn't make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you're talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It's all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of 'termination shock' and countless others.
But most of it is still invested in stocks. So those few links have relatively little impact.
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That's not relatively little. That's insane.
And stocks doesn't automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That's not relatively little. That's insane.
I have only overflown the Oxford paper. Caught my attention with the affect of increasing taxing the rich. Interesting take, but purely theoretical with no reasonable adaption possibility. The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
And stocks doesn't automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Jokes aside. The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
This is an oft-repeated talking point but usually contradicted by data. Sounds smart but isn't smart.
Rich people are people and most people don't just up and leave behind places they've built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they're not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That's a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Who says I haven't done that already?
The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there's no need for them. I'll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
Rich people are people and most people don't just up and leave behind places they've built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they're not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That's a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
As I said, it depends on the country and the relative situation to other countries.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Who says I haven't done that already?
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there's no need for them. I'll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
Companies such as Linde plc are no scam. They existed far longer than the climate drama. Their value just increased because demand in their products increased as well.
Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
Oh no, I was called a bootlicker and my ego will now collapse…
Are you sure it's not the demand driving the demand? The rich are the supply-side of "supply and demand".
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.
"Infinite need" implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn't exist.
I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.
Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?
Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.
What’s an explosion motor? Motor ain’t supposed to explode.
.... Do you really not know how combustion engines work?
They use combustion.
Shhh shhh. You gotta use crayons for the big words.
English is not my primary language. I believe it was explosion motor what you have written at first.
And while I am no expert of the workings of a modern combustion engine, I do indeed have an understanding of how a combustion engine works.
I also know what reaction takes place and I know the average fuel consumption of an average European car.
I also know what reaction takes place
If it's not an explosion, what is it?
Because literally any other answer that's not a synonym for explosion is wrong...
It’s a controlled combustion. Not an explosion. Explosion is uncontrolled expansion of gases (also includes expansion without chemical reaction)
That's wrong, and it wasn't even entertaining...
Ribbit
I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.
But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development.
Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate.
So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.
Luckily, we can choose to reject reality and believe whatever makes us feel better.
I feel best believing the biosphere is gonna force humanity to “find out” for the last century of fuckin around with a recklessly unplanned terraform.
Love how the collective of humanity needs to find out because the richest few fucked around.
You can always find these people and make them find out. They are actively committing genocide against the human race.
But the rich are supplying a demand. And a ton of innovation wouldn’t be there without them.
Imagine thinking CEOs drive innovation lmao
Why does it seem like there are a ton more conservatives here on Lemmy than there were on Reddit?
My theory is they just had a habit of getting banned so they weren't as visable
I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.
They have the right to be here and express their thoughts.
What they don't have is a right to our attention.
Ignore them and block accounts that get annoying.
Happy to have them here. I almost never agree with them, but not only is it good to have your opinion challenged (though often wearying to have to repeat yourself), it's good for THEM to have their opinion challenged too. Maybe only 1/100 will change their opinion after being challenged and seeing that their opinion is very much in the minority, but that's 1/100 more than if we were all chatting away in a safe space with no opposing views.
(and to be clear, no I don't think shit like nazis, devout racists etc is an 'opposing view' that deserves any debate)
Idk. I’m on kbin and haven’t experienced that. Usually when I wish violent death on conservatives I get a ton of upvotes.
I mean, I think they're definitely still in the minority. It seems like there's a larger proportion of them here than on reddit. I see more of their opinions here. Maybe that's just how the algo works here regarding upvotes & downvotes and how comments are displayed.
It’s worst on lemmy.world I’ve noticed. Beehaw was right to defederate. Y’all need to tell them in the kindest possible words to go die over and over again until they don’t come back or you’ll end up like voat.
For every person that choose to leave reddit...
There's 5-10 "conservatives" who were ip banned and dont have a choice between Reddit and Lemmy.
They are not getting down-voted into nothingness for refusing to tow the party line.
I appreciate the variety of opinions presented here. Plus (in my experience) the conversation has been civil.
Yeah. I hardcore disagree with conservatives as a libertarian socialist myself, but I always want to hear what people who disagree with me (and people who agree with me) are saying, and engage in civil conversation with people who actually believe what they say.
The problem for me comes when shills (people who don't believe what they say but get paid to say it) come into the conversation, or when people use outright disingenuous arguments (usually strawmans).
Assuming any conservative is arguing in good faith is your first mistake.
You very well may be correct, but I always like to assume people are good and are arguing in good faith until proven otherwise.
If I can "steelman" (opposite of strawman) their position, and argue against it easilly, I see no reason not to do so, and that also makes for a better argument for other people viewing the comment thread who may believe the false notion that climate change is either fake or not caused by humans.
To me, trying to argue that climate change is fake or not caused by humans is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat. Very easy to debunk.
That is a recipe for wasting a huge amount of time in people whose main goal is to waste your time.
You mean like the disinformation that this user is literally spreading in this very thread?
If they actually believe it, I would like to argue the factual point, which is very easy to do. If they don't believe what they are saying, then yes, I have a problem with it.
There is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. If they choose to not listen to evidence and hard facts, then they lost the debate. If they say that big money funded those studies, simply point them to the Big Oil-funded studies claiming that climate change is false, and the fact that they originally found that it was true, and then tried to bury it.
People posting the same few thoroughly debunked ideas over and over gets really old.
But they kinda do. Imagine Samsung or Apple stopping innovation. Company goes bankrupt.
You think Tim Apple is coming up with their innovations? Lol
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company. So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
That's a good point. You must have a really smart boss to come up with ideas like that.
So you feel entitled and experienced enough to lead a company?
He’s very good with financials and supply chains, I’ll give him that.
And since the profits can be invested into research, it is somewhat linked.
No it doesn't. Worker-owned co-ops exist. Didn't you say you're in Germany? You should know all about that.
I don’t know what you think of us Germans. But we are rational capitalists. And I do believe to know a lot about it.
No, you misunderstand. I'm all for the idea. You just seem to be unaware that it exists. Learn about your own country:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/07/in-germany-workers-help-run-their-companies-and-its-going-great/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
https://www.ibisworld.com/germany/industry/cooperatives/937/
Here's a non-German example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
In the last link it literally says: “These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firm”
These concepts only work in relatively small companies. And first off all, this company might be ranked relatively high in Spain, but it still is just Spain.
Further, to my understanding, the group could be actually described as multiple smaller companies housed under a big one. So that explains that party.
I'm just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.
It's like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things. You're so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has "mechanisms" for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.
Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some "counter" that, in your mind, confirms that you've always been right (it doesn't), and everyone who's arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.
It can never just be, "hey I didn't know that about my country, that's interesting. Maybe I should reconsider..." Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn't work is not based in reality. They're fucking thriving. You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.
The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something... Like it's protecting itself from new information. It's fascinating.
I am a connoisseur of discussion. A man who enjoys discourse. But indeed what I stated are my firm beliefs. And those beliefs have not yet failed me.
It always depends on the information. Some information just has less weight to it.
Now I feel like I've been put on the spot. This might apply on some of my standpoints. But none so far in our discussion here.
Oh, just because the Information I have given, does not convince you or support your standpoint, doesn’t make it invalid. I’d like to pull up the Infinite Monkey Theorem at this point. A few false informations can also lead to the correct outcome. But now I have lost the thread.
And are you not trying to prove me wrong? Is it not, that you claim my standpoints to be somewhat flawed, and yours must be the ultimate ratio?
I do reconsider when it’s to my benefit. But as said before, my standpoints have yet to fail me.
Average wealth per person in Germany is lower than in Italy or Greece. some german article to back up my claims Germany are not thriving. The German government is thriving.
Because it has the highest and second highest taxes in many sectors. And the government uses this money to influence other countries to their benefit. My people are not thriving. I wished for a concept similar to Switzerland. Still high taxes, but the money stays in the country without attempts to control European politics.
From my standpoint of course, this is the opposite standpoint.
Oh brother
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
... A simple "wrong" would've just been fine....
Edit:
for those who missed the reference
Nah I like this better
.... It's the response that Billy Madison gives to that quote....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Ec7rCsNFn30
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.
My dude, your argument boils down to "this is the way we've always done it so this is the way it must be".
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN'T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,… Of course the world would continue to turn.
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191
https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s
Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
And that’s a good thing.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.
And when the average summer day is 60c and crops fail every single year, and Nestle has taken half our drinking water, and the smoke in the air from wildfires is giving everyone asthma, and deadly storms happen year round, and the coasts erode, and wars break out for the remaining water/etc, what will you tell them? Will you tell them to look at the brilliant 'innovator' CEO's who intentionally shut down electric cars? The CEO's who found out climate change was happening sixty years ago and intentionally hid it to keep themselves rich, what do you tell your kids about that?
What innovation is worth your children dying early?
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).
Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.
You know, as a member of the SSBN force, occasionally during thermonuclear launch exercises I take a moment to regret the death of humanity and the biosphere. People like you, on the other hand, are what steels my resolve to flip the switch with gusto. I hope you know that I'll be thinking of you, should I receive the order to commence procedures to launch.
You sound like a fragile personality. You might be in the wrong occupation.
Or you might be talking bullshit. Because I doubt that you would have internet on a submarine.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running. Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others. Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
Hey guy uhhh
Check the planet. It is literally burning right now and we are all going to either die, or have our lives massively changed by this climate catastrophe.
Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.
Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.
None of them will burn.
What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere. And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.
So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire. And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.
LOL.
Capitalism fails every ~8 years requiring the use of vast amounts of public funds to keep afloat. I'd also say if fails daily if you look at all the needless suffering occuring in the world today, especially in the most "free market" countries and the countries these exploit. We have "socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else," as Jon Stewart would say.
I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.
And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.
I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.
And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.
Oh brother
I might lighten you up a bit.
The methods to combat climate change are already there. We already have the means for weather engineering.
The future is inevitable. And so is every step towards it.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
The 'future' is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn't make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you're talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It's all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of 'termination shock' and countless others.
Have a look at the scientific literature: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stratospheric-aerosol-injection-tactics-and-costs-Smith-Wagner/e4e5a78335eda8c16557b32af915798b06091362#cited-papers
Would you seriously risk the future of life on Earth on something this experimental?
I fear this arrogance will kill a lot of people and cause a lot of suffering.
Also
This kind of futurist accelerationist thinking hasn't turned out well in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism?wprov=sfla1 It always ends up feeding into Fascism. I wonder why.
Somehow double posted. So this is now a blank comment.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/03/asia/china-weather-modification-cloud-seeding-intl-hnk/index.html
It is already done. And the consequences are relatively easy to estimate. Much easier actually than the complex mechanics of world climate change.
Ok Raiden
Who or what is Raiden?
Ribbit
I have no motive other than my own profit. And I do not profit from a conversation here, other than to quench my thirst for discussion.
So please refrain from accusing me of propaganda.
btw they do store a lot of their money in vaults where it doesnt benefit the economy at all.
This is in the form of expensive art that stays in containers in tax-free zones, and offshore accounts in tax havens.
Please educate yourself.
https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/how-wealthy-sell-treasures-tax-free
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2017/09/7-charts-show-how-rich-hide-their-cash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315
But most of it is still invested in stocks. So those few links have relatively little impact.
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That's not relatively little. That's insane.
And stocks doesn't automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
I have only overflown the Oxford paper. Caught my attention with the affect of increasing taxing the rich. Interesting take, but purely theoretical with no reasonable adaption possibility. The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Jokes aside. The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future. Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
This is an oft-repeated talking point but usually contradicted by data. Sounds smart but isn't smart.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-dont-move-they-just-pay/
Rich people are people and most people don't just up and leave behind places they've built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they're not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That's a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
Who says I haven't done that already?
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there's no need for them. I'll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
You don't have to take my word for it: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/chamath-palihapitiya-esg-investing-is-a-complete-fraud.html
Yes and No. it leads depends on the country and where it is still tolerable and where it is not. In Germany and France we already see people leave. link to a german article. you will need a translator.
As I said, it depends on the country and the relative situation to other countries.
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Companies such as Linde plc are no scam. They existed far longer than the climate drama. Their value just increased because demand in their products increased as well. Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
I will look later into that article.
Wealth hoarding is a massive problem irl
No it’s not. It has already been studied, that with an inflation rate of roughly 2 percent, that people are more willing to spend.
And currently we exceed this by far. And people do spend their money in an attempt to get the most out of it.
So wealth hoarding is currently no problem. And in a well managed economical state, it as well becomes no problem.
You mean the innovation that's destroying the planet? Ok bro.
The worst kind of bootlicking.
Oh no, I was called a bootlicker and my ego will now collapse…
Are you sure it's not the demand driving the demand? The rich are the supply-side of "supply and demand".
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.
"Infinite need" implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn't exist.
I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.
Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?
Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.
Nestle is stealing water from the people who need it. Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/27/california-nestle-water-san-bernardino-forest-drought https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/us/nestle-water-california.html
It's not their water to begin with.
Also in some places (Flint, MI comes to mind), tap water in undrinkable due to neglect, since fixing it costs more money than ignoring the health of the population. Source: https://apnews.com/article/health-michigan-rick-snyder-flint-detroit-a4578736862f47b980ae61ca72129811
Like the
explosion motorcombustion engine?What’s an explosion motor? Motor ain’t supposed to explode.
.... Do you really not know how combustion engines work?
They use combustion.
Shhh shhh. You gotta use crayons for the big words.
English is not my primary language. I believe it was explosion motor what you have written at first.
And while I am no expert of the workings of a modern combustion engine, I do indeed have an understanding of how a combustion engine works.
I also know what reaction takes place and I know the average fuel consumption of an average European car.
If it's not an explosion, what is it?
Because literally any other answer that's not a synonym for explosion is wrong...
It’s a controlled combustion. Not an explosion. Explosion is uncontrolled expansion of gases (also includes expansion without chemical reaction)
That's wrong, and it wasn't even entertaining...
Ribbit
I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.
But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development. Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate. So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.
Thanks to denial, I'm immortal!
Inspector 5 gave me his blessing!
How could he bring me into this world knowing I would die?