Comrade,

Good to have a discussion. I'll try to keep this up with ya, but I'm kinda busy
Lets duel

>> ^griefer_queafer:
Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

Suppose that the leaders pay attention to scientific findings, and they realize that things have to change. Yes, the ‘insurance’ is a form of self-regulation for capitalism to increase industry and corporate markets. But, as is typical of a capitalist, they are trying to make a business out of saving the planet, at the risk of millions of lives.
My friend, Corporations are merely the bourgeoisie in a new form. Corporations are merely organized institutions to serve bourgeoisie interest, an interest in gaining capital.
The regulation is not a true regulation, however. What they are doing here is selling an idea of ‘regulation’. True regulation would be addressing all the points in our economic systems and finding the ‘open systems’ and making them a ‘closed system’, in the permaculture sense. Reduction of waste. Control of production to meet the needs, not the wants. We don’t need to produce thousands of cars that will never get sold solely for the insane and desperate hope that they somehow could.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?
Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

neo-capitalist? In what ways have we moved beyond the worker? Are you to tell me that an office worker is not alienated in the cubicle? Are you to tell me that the the sweatshop labor in china, Indonesia, India, etc are not workers? Are you to tell me that nowhere on the planet, workers are paid in slave wages with the boss reaping profit off surplus value? Are you to tell me that workers control their hours, control their pay based on labor and the value of the product?

I think you have some tarnished definitions. Corporations are the logical outcome of Capitalism. Corporations operate on capitalist principles. We do not live in a post-industrial society. Manufacturing and productive have increased substantially, less workers are needed for high-tech facilities, but in the United States and other developed Imperialist countries, we don’t see the worker. We are alienated from them, and we exist as fragmented consumers. We are needed to buy these products so this economy and corporations can continue to exist. Neo-capitalism? Perhaps, but capitalism nonetheless. The changes aren’t as substantial as it may seem. Things have just become harder to see in post-modernism.
So what’s growth?
Destruction of the natural environment, say, the Amazon, for cattle ranches. Increased production to meet an increased demand. This is unsustainable, because Capitalism favors the increased demand. What do corporations want Americans to do? Consume. BUY BUY BUY. This is all very obvious. We see it everyday. Hell, just look at Christmas. Where do the resources come from to make these products and where do they end? We take it from the earth and it winds up in a dumpster or landfill. The resources aren’t returned, there is no equal exchange, energy is wasted in the inefficiency of our system.
Paper pulp released into the rivers. Environmental damage of the Niger River Delta for the oil, with acid rain so powerful it eats the tin-roofs of the shacks were the local villagers live. People that live on that land that don’t get ANYTHING from the energy companies except the corporate hired gunmen to maintain a ‘favorable business climate'. How then, is this 'favorable bussiness climate' POSTIVE for the planet? Its not positive for the planet or for any of us.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?


But they aren’t trying to fundamentally change anything. They want the Maldives to go under so they can sell them the fucking life rafts! Capitalists/Corporations don’t give a shit about the mass amount of human suffering that will occur. They just want to maintain their profit margin, seize the planets resources, privatize everything, and maintain control over the worker. You are a worker, I am a worker. Even intellect and academia is a commodity that is bought and sold. We are the proletariat. We have a boss, we don’t control our hours, our labor is sold for surplus value, at the cost of our liberties and our security on this planet.

Ok monsieur regresso-Marx, I have some pretty fundamental problems with your thinking here.

First of all, I agree with Zizek when he says that we need to apply Marx to our current world, but you seem to be adopting a position that is untenable, MAINLY because of the ways in which you don't seem to be accounting for the ways in which capitalist ideology has radically changed. As a result, your well-found materialist charges against Zakaria's argument become insanely vulnerable (teetering on self-harming). For now, I would like to probe you a bit more on some of the points you bring up.

The reason why this is bullshit, utter, utter bullshit is because Capitalism DIRECTLY influences our carbon emissions, and thus, the human agency in Climate Change.

So I am unclear as to why this qualifies as an indictment. Are you sure it is capitalism, in and of itself, that is to blame here? You might think about industrialization as it occurs in the socialist context. It seems like what you are saying is merely this: capitalism is blind to its own violent core, and by trying to use its own means to clean up its own mess, its only acting in its own interest.

Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

What is the alternative for me (someone who is for the time-being beholden to the rules of capital) in going against the destruction of the earth? Fact is, CORPORATIONS, in view of something like 'growth' and self-preservation, have really changed the game here, and have really done a lot to work towards reversing this process.

Capitalism favors CONSTANT growth. No growth means no money gained. In fact, the very rise of the Bourgeoisie class came about from the opening of new markets from the Age of Exploration. New markets mean new demand, this increases production to meet this demand, this requires more factories, more resources used, further stress on the planet, more emissions.

Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?

Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

Spending money with a form of insurance is ultimately a short term goal. Yes, countries kept in poverty by imperialist powers need some $$$ to push them past unsustainable practices, but they could get there themselves if Imperialist powers didn't have interest there already. Think about where we get our resources, where most goods are produced and manufactured. Think where they go, to us. Capitalism wants us to buy more. I feel like the connections are very easy to see.

Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?

Environmental destruction will continue unless the actual system is changed.

Hmmm... i would usually agree with such a statement, had it not been preceded with such misguided nonsense. Tighten up your thinking, comrade.

This is very well produced but highly biased account of the use of government spending geared to appeal to pro-capitalists and libertarians in the US.

One can't look at government spending without taking into account the positive effects of the multiplier effect say in the context of recovery during the great depression, the growth of public infrastructure and provision of welfare services to the citizens. It's a tool of economic policy, one that has been used to great success in many other first world nations that have better health and economic indicators then the US.

One can't take one policy scheme and then essential lay all of a nations ills on it. Is it a problem right now for the US? yes. Is it a necessary tool considering the state of the US economy currently. yes. Rock and a hard place.

>> ^all4naught:
>> ^gwiz665:
The reality is that relilgion is an outdated mechanism, which should have been rooted out long ago.

And, is that a scientifically verifiable fact? Or is it an opinion which is not provable, but should be believed nonetheless...like, oh, faith?


Apologies for not replying to this sooner. I didn't see it.

My "opinion" is readily observable - what positive effect does religion have on society now? Comfort, community and..? There are better ways of being comforted, better ways of being in a community and better ways to get to know the world. Faith is something that can be practiced in private, sure, it is also the root of organized religion, which is nothing but a mechanism to keep weak men in power over strong, stupid men.

No matter what the question, banning blankfist is always the best possible answer.

I was against the return of choggie and so I'm definitely against the return of 420. At least choggie has some positive effect at times.

That being said, with choggie having returned, I'll do my best to give him a fair chance.

*mute would be a good invocaton for no sound clip, and I´d make it a category like brief, not a channel.

There is actually one more thing I´d like to see:
It would be sweet if the headlines of the sidebar content were clickable!

That way clicking on "Newest SiftTalk Posts" would bring you to Sift Talk, clicking on "Top rated Comments" to the recent comments page sorted by highest rating, Top 15 Sifters of All Time to the Member Rankings and so on.

I am no expert, but this seems easy to implement and I feel it would have a positive effect on usability.

I remember reading a study that showed some positive results of healing, not faith healing, but some kind of healing where the patiente had psysical contact with the healer. I'm not sure what kind of healing this would be because I've only heard on changing energy fields in the air and placing stones and crystals on the patient.
But anyway, the positive result simple came from having physical contact with another person and that this released chemicals and whatnot that had a positive effect on your health.
So the positive effect had nothing to do with what the healer thought helped (energy and all that crap) but it could show some positive results from something.

Ponceleon, I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused about the logic of positive emotions not having an effect on one's health. If it does seem that negative emotions have a negative effect, then wouldn't feeling happy imply less feeling crappy, meaning less negative effect? Wouldn't that make it a positive effect?

Yehoshua, you seem to pawn all responsibility off on the Palestinians, just as many Palestinians would pawn off all responsibility on you. Violence begets violence, and there is no reason to believe that Israeli violence has any more of a positive effect on Palestinian leadership than the reverse.

Are Israeli hearts and minds that unwinable?
Why does the Ghandi or MLK have to be Palestinian?
Shouldn't a strong, rational, influential voice for peace be just as welcome on either side of this aged blood feud?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

thanks for the promote...:D

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*promote

Tags for this video have been changed from 'CNN, Magic, Mushrooms, long, lasting, positive, effects, news' to 'CNN, Magic, Mushrooms, long, lasting, positive, effects, news, psilocybin' - edited by kronosposeidon

Electable liberals gotta constantly rebrand, distort and hide their true nature. Obamarx didn't run as a "proud liberal" and neither did Shrillary or Swill Clinton; they ran as 'centrists', another fabricated title.

Higher unemployment, printing monopoly money, raising taxes and weakening foreign policy don't seem to be having any positive effects whatsoever.

It takes all of the lamestream media (minus those meanies over at Fox) to keep pushing this hype and failure while ignoring reality.

Even bowing to the Saudi King, the emperor wears no clothes.

As a cop buddy told me, "Signs saying 'No Firearms' don't have any positive effect. No criminal has ever gone to rob a bank and said, 'Oh, gee... I can't bring my gun in here.'"

But they do deter law-abiding citizens from carrying with the appropriate permits. Therefore, nothing good really comes from "no gun" zones, regardless of the arguable efficacy of having one in a situation where you need to use it.

>> ^WaterDweller:
I mush prefer the longer, safer route through meditation, hypnosis and lucid dreaming, rather than risky shortcuts like shrooms and stuff.


^ This is what I mean! You don't need drugs! Don't cheat!