@ChaosEngine

I see what you're saying. I wasn't trying to reduce everything about a person to environmental factors. Certainly our choices have a huge impact on how we turn out. Instead I was disagreeing with the specific notion that personal preferences are primarily choices. Certainly we choose which preferences to nurture and how much to nurture them, though. I love Chocolate Chip Mint ice cream, but I don't eat it every day because I'm skirting obesity (statistically speaking for my weight and height) as it is.

Yeah, for the second part I think I just got thrown by how you worded it.

how ironic that i was reading THIS article today:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/22483-a-world-of-environmental-degradation-all-in-just-one-month

stay awesome dag!

While I don't disagree with the critique, "doing what you can with what you got" comes to mind.

In the absence of any other mass moving method, this seems logical if not environmentally aware in the slightest.

@Sotto_The issue is the power and influence one corporation has over the world's food supply and those who would use their influence in the Department of Agriculture and the Supreme court to implement sweeping legislation or hinder the free will of the small, medium, large or other farmers who would have nothing to do with Monsanto's seeds or who wish only to use sumbunall of their products, not whether a farmer is given their rice for free in an ethical fashion to grow some proprietary rice (ever try to grow rice? S'pretty dependent on climate and seasons, rainfall and other environmental conditions, not to mention the hectares it requires to cultivate) as opposed to say leafy greens of all kinds, sweet potatoes, squash, all of which are much more easily cultivated AND, have shorter seed to fruit times as well as requiring much less space AND, are chock-full of Vitamin A.
We don't even mention here Paprika, Red Pepper, Cayenne, Chili Powder, which are WAY higher in Vitamin A and pretty much grow like weeds when cultivated by morons.

Shaky and hollow point your study cited as well, to support what is obviously a fishy prospect providing this option to poorer countries when you consider the back-door dealing that a corporation like M practices and their track-record of driving small farmers out of business with endless litigation and an army of lah-yahs, investigators, all petty thugs and criminals on their payroll.

A no-brainer? Yeah, if you spout the party-line and din't use your brain but instead cited an "official' study from a 'recognized', 'expert's' journal.

Again, loaded language in your closing with the assumption that most opponents and vocal activists of GMO crops are science deniers. Broad, brush-strokes my friend.
Labels.

I for one want these motherfucker's labs under extreme scrutiny and their science tested and re-tested by those not on their payrolls or whose interests do not include stocks in their concerns. I also want heirloom seeds, regardless of yields, whose fruits produce fertile seeds.

MOST GMO crop's fruited seeds are as sterile as your argument, the genetic markers tweaked similarly to insure that the market on common-sense and centuries-honored methods be cornered and rendered inadequate.

@Trancecoach: We're not going to agree, and that's fine. This'll be my last reply.

Retailer strong-arming: Imagine Apple makes up 95% of Best Buy's tablet sales. Off-brand-X wants to sell tablets at Best Buy. Apple says: If you sell Off-brand-X tablets, we will not let you sell our tablets. Off-brand-X is likely to only provide a tiny profit to Best Buy, compared to Apple, so they comply. (This actually happened, in a different form, with Intel paying computer manufacturers to not use AMD processors. See here). Also see price-fixing.

Widget-distribution-prevention: This is just an extension of the previous point.

Buying up all of the competitors: Ma Bell. Old AT&T. That should be enough said. But, if that's not enough, now Ma Bell is nearly entirely re-formed. The US was one government approval away from having cell carriers limited to Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T. That's been spoiled, now, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that future continuing on to two carriers colluding and price-fixing (as Verizon and AT&T pretty much have freedom to do anyway). This is another quasi-natural-monopoly situation (or at least a tragedy of the commons situation), in that the radio spectrum is not infinite. To keep the spectrum usable at all, blocks of frequencies are doled out to radio/TV/cellular/military/etc. etc. with stiff penalties for interference.

Patents: Patents present a litany of problems, but the world without them is even worse. You have two things happen, both of which are bad:
1) New technology remains veiled in secrecy indefinitely; no one else can riff on it even after patents would normally have expired
2) My previous point. The marginal utility of R&D decreases drastically based on the likelihood of a competitor being able to get hold of your secrets before you can profit on them sufficiently.
This is exactly why patents were created. It's a temporary monopoly granted by the government in exchange for the promise that the knowledge will be released to the universe after X years.

Predatory pricing: If excessive, it's illegal. That's why it doesn't happen very often. In a country with anti-trust laws, you just want to hurt your competitor, you don't want to drive them out of the market.

Natural monopolies: Since you brought this one up, you can choose your energy service because the government forces the utility to lease its lines and to decouple distribution from production. That is to say, you have a free market in production because the distribution is not free. See here. My state is the same way.

Misinformation: Who vets marketing claims in a free market? My competitor says that their food is organic. Well--hell, so is mine! They're environmentally conscientious? So am I! Their drug cures cancer? Mine cures it even better!

Oh, shit. Someone caught me in a lie! Well, I'll just force the media to ignore it and ramp up my disinformation campaign.

All markets are free at inception, and no markets are free in practice. Why do you think this is?

A few ways to suppress competition, off the top of my head?
Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof strongarms retailers into not carrying competitors products.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof pays off widget manufacturers to not provide widgets to competitors.

Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof simply buys and buries competitors, disruptive technologies, whatever.

Free market with patents (antithetical concepts?): Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof refuses to license patents to competitors.

Free market without patents (this has too many problems to enumerate, but just picking one): Espionage. R&D is squandered when a competitor steals your trade secrets/reverse engineers your products, sells it for a pittance.

Price dumping. Dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof with large cash reserves simply prices upstarts out of the market.

This list is just off the cuff, is by no means exhaustive, ignores other things like:

1) "Natural" monopolies (utilities, roads, railways, etc.)
2) Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers
a) Side note: In a free market, this is the only place you can go to for environmental protection, avoidance of the tragedy of the commons.

Edit: Okay, I may have overstated my case. Very small-scale interpersonal markets can be free. That farmer's market that's too small to attract the big guys, that's pretty free. There's a scale at which it collapses, though.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

It's funny you feel they are different things. As I see it, there is a finite amount of money, if one small group gets an unfair share (inequality) then the other groups MUST also get an unfair share. Equality (or to you, anti-inequality) means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity. When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly.
To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty, but at the expense of the populace of MOST of the world which is falling deeper into it. This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them. They have, in most part, become a heavy hand of the business world, bought and paid for with hundreds of millions in bribes (contributions) around the world. They then write laws, regulations, programs, and create loopholes that can only be advantageous to the rich and powerful while reducing the programs designed to fight poverty and force the payment of living wages.
Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like, it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis. History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt. I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France) along with a large percentage of the unapologetic 1%, then the people can redistribute their wealth without government intervention, that placates the Right Wing, right?
FYI: Thymology is not a word in the dictionary...at least not yet. Praxeology is the study of human behavior. It is not yet at a point where it's an accurate predictor. Sorry, but I don't see a "Foundation" story starting here. (sifi where human behavior CAN be accurately predicted mathematically)

Actually, if you watch the previous videos in this series (listed in the menu at the end of this one), you'll see that he did not at all "forget" about fuels, food, environmental effects. . . In fact, those are the topics that the previous videos address.

The claim is that seasteading will address the problems of food, fuel, and environment.... But you have to watch the videos before you know that. Select the cause you care about to navigate to the appropriate video.


The video also estimates that only about 13% of the population will live on these seasteads. You, of course, won't be among them since, it's unlikely (albeit possible) that you'll start re-programming your mind, at this point. As some have said before me, for any new model to be widely accepted, you have to wait for the older generations to die. In the meantime, it's good educate the younger ones.

okay, this had me right up until he announced that this was more than philosophy - That he wanted me to sign up. I could sign up, but that wouldn't make water world a reality - ever.
Did he really just suggest we abandon land and live on floating islands?

He forgot about storms, waves, wind, fuels, food, environmental effects, ocean wildlife, and so much more.

Actually my liberal professor mentioned this and made me think. It is true that people are causing environmental problems--so then the problem becomes solving them--not current population. Forced sterilization for example. Of course the liberal professor hated that idea--but proposed no other idea of her own--frucking waste of space if you ask me.

Hi eric, all is well thanks! Actually making videos for my work at an environmental consultancy agency nowadays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNBpH5mgAgw&hd=1

I'm sorry to say Reddit kind of pulled me away from videosift. Hope you're doing well too!

Two weeks ago I got into an argument with someone on facebook (a total stranger) and they decided to call CPS to retaliate. They said the vintage barn wood bunk beds I built two weeks ago were an environmental hazard. CPS came, then a week later the cops came, trying to get in our house. My wife refused to let them in both times. We are still under investigation.

We are literally leaving the entire country permenantly as soon as our paperwork is in order (we've been planning this for some time).

Nothing I said is an exaggeration, it is all true, and your fears are 100% well founded.

You simply can't SEE a scenario without force, because you've drunk the Kool Aid, Stormsinger, we all have.

Anarcho-Capitalism sounds good in ether, eliminate the state's influence on yer shit. Hire private security firms to dole-out justice, and fuck the police. Sounds REAL good. Privatizing currency structures, anything goes. Sounds righteous and fair-Keeps out gangsters who will eventually become masters.

Eliminate compulsory taxation. Good thing. Ombudsman-like dispute resolution rather than laws and a punishment to follow. Sounds fucking SANE to me. Problem is , with all the robots programmed by the state for the past 100 years, it's kinna hard to convince idiots that something like this could work....to free them from the inevitability of the failure of the current paradigm. About the only problems I can see with a switch would be how to maintain environmental impact standards, but these problems' solutions would become evident when people become responsible for themselves, for another's well-being within the social structure, and their own destinies.

Democracy (the meaning, 'rule of the people') has been lost to the rule of a very few, and historically it never works for very long before assholes find a way around it.


You're in a pot of water being slowly heated, Stormsinger-Warm 'n cozy now, melting skin from your screaming carcass later.

World leaders are cumulatively an agency for international corporations. NATFA, MAI, TPP, and every g8, g12, gWhatever summit are all secretive meetings with the same end result: to break down barriers to trade and facilitate greater corporate profit. These agreements give corporations the power to supersede local labour, environmental and trade laws and they have been layering one agreement atop another for years.

Thank you to Wikileaks for exposing what protesters on the ground have always known but weren't able to prove. Once thought of as lunatics, they are now the most sane among us. It's going to be a sad world if we don't stand up to corporate money in politics, although they'll be keeping us happy in the meantime with cheap goods and entertainment and status-quo, happy-happy news reporting from mainstream media.