Where Free-Market Economists Go Wrong
- Thread starter CaseyJones
- Start date
No, I don't worship anyone - a lot of this I had already found out on my own when I was a kid - then when I got access to the internet, dieoff.org was not that hard to find and offered a very good synthesis of the issues that further clarified a lot of things. Also, a lot of that literature is from the pre-internet days, especially from the 70s and most of the people who first developed these ideas are dead or not active anymore so Jay Hanson happened to be the person who integrated all of these things and brought them to the attention of the Internet 10-15 years ago.
That's why what I posted is from his website - because it is still the best source for info. Which is very sad because there almost isn't a day that Ayn Rand is not talked about in the mainstream media but Georgescu-Roegen, William Catton Jr., and the rest of the 1960s and 1970s thinkers are forgotten.
However, it would not be a bad idea for you to comment on the actual content of what was posted, not on the people behind them
That's why what I posted is from his website - because it is still the best source for info. Which is very sad because there almost isn't a day that Ayn Rand is not talked about in the mainstream media but Georgescu-Roegen, William Catton Jr., and the rest of the 1960s and 1970s thinkers are forgotten.
However, it would not be a bad idea for you to comment on the actual content of what was posted, not on the people behind them
I agree with a lot of his conclusions regarding democracy. Namely, that it's really a plutocracy. Which is sort of what I was saying in the Agenda 21 thread (that you didn't review any of the information I posted)...that even "sustainability" was just being used as a force for economic gain, and much of what is being implemented (and it is being implemented) were nothing more than abuse of private property rights for land developers and "green" industrialists.
He thinks humans are too genetically stupid to survive without oil. So much so that he named his website DIEOFF.ORG and advocates for massive depopulation efforts (I guess he thinks we're too stupid to be so stupid we'll die). Seems pretty deranged and dangerous to me.
Ayn Rand is a successful author and philosopher, of course people write about her everyday. The reason nobody writes about this guy is because he's just a dude that knows everything, yet can't seem to grasp the simple concept of supply and demand...despite the fact that he is surrounded by it in his personal and professional life on a continual basis.
He thinks humans are too genetically stupid to survive without oil. So much so that he named his website DIEOFF.ORG and advocates for massive depopulation efforts (I guess he thinks we're too stupid to be so stupid we'll die). Seems pretty deranged and dangerous to me.
Ayn Rand is a successful author and philosopher, of course people write about her everyday. The reason nobody writes about this guy is because he's just a dude that knows everything, yet can't seem to grasp the simple concept of supply and demand...despite the fact that he is surrounded by it in his personal and professional life on a continual basis.
Economics is a social science, which means there are is no pi, as society represents infinite variables which can skew any attempt to quantify human behavior into a hard set of numbers and rules. There's no iron clad set of numbers with which to debunk it. When I want toothpaste, I go buy some. If there was no more toothpaste, I'd find another way to brush my teeth and so on. Hanson's peak oil boogeyman being used as justification for killing 50% of the world's population is basically scientific heresy...so if that's the reality you subscribe to, I hope when the peak oil rapture comes you'll step up to the plate and give your life for the greater good, comrade. I'll probably get a horse.
1) You didn't answer the question
2) Where the hell did you get the "justification for killing 50% of the world's population" idea from? That only proves you didn't read what was posted and most certainly didn't listen to the interview
3) You realize that the so called "peak oil boogeyman" theory had accurately predicted the peak of oil production pretty much everywhere it has been applied. Hubbert predicted a peak for the US in the early 1970s, 1971 it indeed peaked, and for the world in the early 2000s - productions has been flat since 2005 despite soaring prices...
2) Where the hell did you get the "justification for killing 50% of the world's population" idea from? That only proves you didn't read what was posted and most certainly didn't listen to the interview
3) You realize that the so called "peak oil boogeyman" theory had accurately predicted the peak of oil production pretty much everywhere it has been applied. Hubbert predicted a peak for the US in the early 1970s, 1971 it indeed peaked, and for the world in the early 2000s - productions has been flat since 2005 despite soaring prices...
I don't dispute the validity of the concept of peak oil or that it can be accurately predicted by experts, but I do reject the dystopian apocalypse conspiracy theory pushed by Hanson and others. The earth receives 5,000 X the amount of energy humans consume every year from the sun. That doesn't include wind, geothermal, etc, etc. Any scientist worth his biomass would immediately begin researching and promoting alternatives, if they thought there was a high probability of such a turn of events and not try to capitalize and create fear.
Too many assumptions and generalizations for me to take that serious. One things for sure, if my electricity only works at night or at certain times of day, I'd adapt a lifestyle more in tune with the amount of energy available. This would include adapting a lifestyle to suit zero grid energy.
Humans only need 5 things to survive, and electricity is not one of them.
Humans only need 5 things to survive, and electricity is not one of them.
Just look at the comments, Thag. Many of the commentators utilized the authors math equation to demonstrate how inefficiently we are current using and storing electricity and that there are more efficient ways.
I think Hanson and others, in their own writings, and yourself are committing to a huge fallacy that flies in the face of everything we know about human innovation, what motivates men to be innovative, and how resilient we are as a species. They LOCK in so many current statistics so that the metrics always support their thesis that man is a disease on the planet and will eventually die. True, we will eventually die. Not true that oil or energy will have anything to do with it. They're just cashing in (a capitalist endeavor to say the least) on your desire to feel smart, your fear of global warming, and your fear of the unknown. It appears they've taken a wholly oversimplified argument and used it to create a cult following of pseudo-science buffs who want to debunk humanity.
That shit is dangerous.
I think Hanson and others, in their own writings, and yourself are committing to a huge fallacy that flies in the face of everything we know about human innovation, what motivates men to be innovative, and how resilient we are as a species. They LOCK in so many current statistics so that the metrics always support their thesis that man is a disease on the planet and will eventually die. True, we will eventually die. Not true that oil or energy will have anything to do with it. They're just cashing in (a capitalist endeavor to say the least) on your desire to feel smart, your fear of global warming, and your fear of the unknown. It appears they've taken a wholly oversimplified argument and used it to create a cult following of pseudo-science buffs who want to debunk humanity.
That shit is dangerous.