> In total, the average American consumes five times more energy than the average global citizen, 10 times more than the average Chinese, and nearly 20 times more than the average Indian. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810
>>31427854 i do subdue mine. Because i know that it does not matter what civilization or group runs the world, it all comes down to taking shit from our planet and making shit we want. My ancestors, and yours im assuming, had the intestinal fortitude to fuck over other competing societies so that you can have the lions share of the planet and its wealth. If they didnt, then we would all be living in Russia tier countries. It would be alot like communism, everyone has the same shit, everyone is miserable, but not as miserable as they could be
>>31427964 I used to live in the city anon. funny enough, it taught me alot about "primeval" people. We are predators, having both endurance and cunning. Nature has spoke to me, and it is cold, dark and unforgiving. Monsoons kill families, blizzards destroy crops, sandstorms and volcanoes bury towns alive. All existence on the planet is competition, and we are one of the most successful species on this planet
I agree. I think this is a task humans can achieve. For fuck's sake we went to the moon. I think we can figure out how to organize resources in a less insane way. Don't you? Perhaps we could use some of our technology. I'm sure we could have some mathematicians armed with high-speed computers have a go at it. Heard of optimization/operations research before? The beautiful thing is you can optimize anything (although presently all we do is maximize profit).
Nobodie's advocating for a return to the stone age, but the inheret wastefulness of our current society is going to kill us.
Why do people have such wasteful ways? Why do people live in fucking suburbs with freshwater ated every day on fucking lawns and gas wasted every day because driving is the only ay around due to no public transportation?
Shit like that is gonna look hilarious as resources continue to decline and people can't afford to waste what we squander
>If there wasnt a need for it (or if it wasnt the most efficient way to get what we want), we wouldnt make it. we are kinda practical like that.
This begs a pretty large discussion. If I had time with you I think I could get you to at least have an honest grasp of what people like me think of capitalism and its sacred efficiency.
Just an example: I'm about to finish a major in math next semester. One of the things I studied was linear optimization, which uses an incredibly powerful algorithm called the Simplex Method to maximize or minimize a given variable subject to constraints. It's only been around for the last half century or so, and is so powerful because we have computers that can run operations on huge amounts of variables (couldn't do so in the past).
Technological optimization processes like these are independent of economic system. The only thing that would change is what variable you're optimizing (say, water per person instead of profit). There are many other things like this.
Efficiency in production is much more a result of technological-mathematical techniques than profit motive. Even if they were created as a result of profit motive, they can't be undiscovered and can easily be adapted to a non-profit based system.
>>31428214 You are essentially talking about rationing for the common good of humanity.
what you are not grasping is a couple minor details
>Humanity hates each other >Humans have greed. If it is even conceivable to have it, men will die to get it. >Rational individuals like yourself are not immune from the same weaknesses that plague man, unless of course you have trained your spirit and mind for quite some time >If you take humans all out of the equation and rule humanity via AI, you have essentially reduced people to sheep, with the computer as a shepherd
>This is the truth /pol/. The west takes lumber, oil, gems, minerals and coal from the third world.
The third world is a corrupt shithole that doesn't respect property rights. If their resources weren't nationalized, their owners could refuse to sell them if they thought they were getting a raw deal. Either way, we are certainly not "taking" them.
>It builds little products in factories in the second world, handing out some nickels here and there.
The alternative being prostitution, crime, or subsistence farming. The western sweatshops pay more than what they would otherwise get.
>And none of it makes you any happier.
>And the meanwhile, 850 million people are trying to scrape by on less than a buck a day.
And if we redistributed the worlds wealth, they'd all get maybe $100 or even $1000 -- once. See how productive the world gets when the entirety of your labor is sent to billions of third worlders.
>Then you send them your trash.
Which, again, we either pay them for or their corrupt governments allow.
It would seem that some humans do indeed hate some other humans. I contend this is a problem that can be dealt with, since some humans also like other humans.
>Humans have greed.
Quite true. Some call it "attachment." This can also be dealt with. Communality (do not read: communism) can go a long way towards minimizing greed, as we can easily see in certain pre-industrial systems of social organization.
>Rational individuals like yourself are not immune from the same weaknesses that plague man.
>unless of course you have trained your spirit and mind for quite some time
So you agree with my response to point two.
>If you take humans all out of the equation and rule humanity via AI
I don't advocate this. Technology can be used to help, in much the same way its used to help capitalism along.
>>31426641 shows how lost you are when you believe material possessions provide a decent quality of life. All you are going to realise is you need more possessions. Chase that fantasy bro and tell me im right when you are on your death bed
>>31428402 >Run out of gas Impossible. We have alternatives, big oil companies just won't permit them now. >run out of water Impossible, until catastrophic event happens, and then we can filter and distill it. >run out of food Also impossible until catastrophic event happens, like volcano causing volcanic winter, which is completely not our fault.
Hardly. I understand the world is complicated and that designing an alternative system would not even come close to utopia. My goal here is not utopia so much as averting the destruction of our species and or planet.
>>31428442 >It would seem that some humans do indeed hate some other humans. I contend this is a problem that can be dealt with, since some humans also like other humans.
We like each others women, money, and food. in that order. What in human history supports you in your move to pacify a species of super-predators?
>Quite true. Some call it "attachment." This can also be dealt with. Communality (do not read: communism) can go a long way towards minimizing greed, as we can easily see in certain pre-industrial systems of social organization.
Industrialization was a pandora's box. You can't put it back in. You may somehow minimize greed. However, there will always be the ambitious and slightly sociopathic that could not care. What shall you do with them? And rationing does not work long. People want what they know they can have.
And finally, you have a lack of leadership in your system. Please solve. If AI is not in your equation, and you accept that men, are by nature, flawed, then what is your solution
>We like each others women, money, and food. in that order. What in human history supports you in your move to pacify a species of super-predators?
I take inspiration from communal organizations which have existed in the past and currently exist. Voluntary self-sufficient communes can clearly exist in small-scale societies, and horizontal industrial organization can probably be applied seamlessly to large scale urban environments. The Paris Commune is an example of the latter, with Mondragon serving as a better modern approximation to horizontal organization in industry.
>And finally, you have a lack of leadership in your system.
Consensus organized along the lines of representative democracy seems like a good place to start, although I don't envision some kind of massive "World Council" to run the show. Ideally we would have smaller communities spread about which are self-sufficient and self-organizing. This would also allow for a variety of social configurations that cater to the varying personalities of individuals. Naturally, it would be crucial for each of these communities to interact nonviolently (do not read: all hunky dory perfect).
America has a net gain in forested land. Population growth is stagnant and even negative in the first world. Carbon output and pollution is down per capita. OP is still a faggot repeating '80s eco-mantra.
>>31428653 You espouse self sufficiency. Great. You are missing that most industrial or post-industrial societies are not self-sufficient and must move surplus supplies to poorer regions of the world and obtain raw material from other regions.
So while we all go back to your Luddite 1700s world commune, there will be riots of people who do not want to raise horses and want their car. Or the company that needs to move 100 metric tons of iron ore to refinery via horrible trains or even worse, diesel trucks.
>Consensus organized along the lines of representative democracy seems like a good place to start, although I don't envision some kind of massive "World Council" to run the show. Ideally we would have smaller communities spread about which are self-sufficient and self-organizing. This would also allow for a variety of social configurations that cater to the varying personalities of individuals. Naturally, it would be crucial for each of these communities to interact nonviolently.
You do understand that you would be repeating history correct? >town A has widget town B wants >town A wants _____ bushels of wheat for widget >town B cannot or will not trade said bushels for widget.
Now either town A grows more economically powerful and eventually absorbs town B, or town B uses force to things from town A.
Either way, you have the makings of a pseudo empire
>>31428549 See? Green or commie there's no difference The greens want to sacrifice the well-being of millions of people and the advances of technology because "muh planet" The commies want to sacrifice the well-being of millions of people and the advances of technology because "muh greed"
I assure you that when we really run out of some resource because of the "inherent wastefulness" it will be the evil greedy capitalists that will progress us forward, not the government. If we only have solar power left it will be the evil capitalists that will make more efficent solar panels.
You can't have a planned economy because you can't have 100% information, you can't control every possible variable and you can't predict everything. That's why planned economy moves us backwards, not forwards - it only relies on what we know now and not on what could happen.
A free market economy moves seemingly chaotically but it's always a steady progress because the more efficent solutions win.
That is indeed a slice of reality. But you can't cherry pick!
Has a certain amount of material prosperity coincided with all this environmental destruction? Clearly, although I think this is generally overrated since it doesn't seem to bring humans happiness (I'm talking about McDonalds and Toys R Us, not hospitals. Yes, you can have one without the other.)
Carbon output and pollution per capita has never been the issue. The earth's atmosphere doesn't increase in size with babies born, ya big dummy.
I cannot have all the answers, and don't profess to. I have ideas, so do many others.
But I have come to realize two important points which capitalists always miss.
1. Global capitalism cannot continue indefinitely 2. Alternative systems exist, and there's good evidence to suggest they are better for all manner of reasons.
I agree the imperialist problem is a problem, and have wrestled with it myself. This is why I think humanity's economic problems are reflective of a deeper problem regarding our understanding of what the purpose of life is. Presently we organize around material prosperity of a minority as the end all be all, but I think a moderate amount of material prosperity for all + creativity and community are better goals to organize around.
The thing that irritates me most about this thread is how retards against the environment act as if we all have to suddenly become communist primals in order to live sustainably.
Buying locally-grown food, making things last longer, gently curbing overpopulation (Already largely done in the West), and continuing to research newer, more efficient technologies for producing all the goodies we love and enjoy would go a long way in helping us to attain that sustainability. I'm sure some retards like to equate that with going back to the stone age, but they're just that: Retards.
For those interesting in reaching the stars: It's not gonna happen if everything goes to shit here on Earth and vicious wars over dwindling resources bring any and all space exploration to a screeching halt.
Really, growth plain and simply cannot continue forever, we need to look at maintaining what we already have until we've got the means to actually colonize said stars. If that means having to go through the bother of patching up your jeans instead of throwing them out, toughen up buttercup and do it.
it wont. like a bacteria, it evolves to its environment. It will be some form of capitalism im sure, but nothing like today. Your grandkids will not understand the economics of today
>This is why I think humanity's economic problems are reflective of a deeper problem regarding our understanding of what the purpose of life is. Presently we organize around material prosperity of a minority as the end all be all, but I think a moderate amount of material prosperity for all + creativity and community are better goals to organize around.
so a world philosophy/religion. And the dissenters and heretics and apostates? what shall we do with them?
you are so enamored with equality, you would rather live as a slave among equals than try to be free among the unequal.
Man was created equal to other men. He becomes unequal by manifesting genetics, opportunity, education, culture, ambition and luck. Equality is for children
>>31429082 >For those interesting in going across the oceans: It's not gonna happen if everything goes to shit here in Europe and vicious wars over dwindling resources bring any and all world exploration to a screeching halt.
as long as humanity is divided, warring and competing, we stand a chance
Alright, listen here fuck face because I'm only going to say this once. The only reason the world isn't a massive insufferable shithole where everyone either dies or spends weeks looking for food is because of rampant industrialization. Without industry you wouldn't have plumbing, transport, machinery, the internet blah blah blah you know the deal.
Most importantly you wouldn't have food. Modern machinery and farming practices make it possible for the majority of the world to have a good chance of receiving a meal today. Farm machinery allows small family farms to produce massive yield from THOUSANDS of acres. Transport systems allow the safe transport of that food to processing facilities, or boats for export. For as many people as there are starving in africa/india/china how many of them would be outright dead if it wasn't for the millions of tons of food aid that ships, rail, road and aircraft deliver? All of that shit doesn't just get wished out of the sky with liberal wizard magic, it needs industry to be accomplished.
By all means go live innawoods and hunt your own food with sticks and spears, just don't cut down a tree or exploit that precious creature to make something like living more bearable, you fucking ingrate. It's easy to call industry an environmental bogeyman when your stomach is full and militants aren't trying to steal the only food you've come across in weeks.
>>31429082 >For those interesting in reaching the stars: It's not gonna happen if everything goes to shit here on Earth and vicious wars over dwindling resources bring any and all space exploration to a screeching halt.
We could already be exploring the stars if it wasn't for your socialist bullshit which brought US and EU to stagnation.
This is probably the 1000th time I've heard this argument. Supposing you're completely correct and that all technological innovation is due to capitalism (although many a humanist scientist might take offense to this idea), I don't see why that precludes the possibility of redirecting the useage of such infrastructure and innovation towards more humanist ideals.
Computers, internet, plumbing and industrial production aren't going to be "un-invented" just because we change our economic system.
Finally, we produce, if I recall correctly, roughly 7 times as much calories as are necessary to feed every man, woman and child on Earth a nutritionally balanced diet.
Most of this goes toward making Americans fat and filling up landfills with half-eaten burgers and rotten vegetables.
>>31429194 >Then why not direct that evolution towards a more logical end? Directing evolution is halting it. You can't plan evolution. You can't plan progress. You can't predict the future Albert Einstein is not the result of central planning. Every single advance in technology is not the result of central planning because central planning can't predict advances in technology
>>31429210 it's already been happening. Competition breeds better bottom lines and better products. You will never find a single CEO that doesn't want to produce their product faster, cheaper or more efficiently.
The trick is enough regulation to promote multiple companies but not so much regulation where those companies conspire together to hurt the consumer. For it to work you have to keep competition alive
>Do you know what the future holds? if not, it will evolve to be more efficient on its own that you holding its hand
It always staggers me when people think that the human race will achieve more without trying than with trying.
In this regard, capitalism takes on the role of a deity. You don't have to do anything to try and make the world better because you can rest assured capitalism is already doing it. At the end of the day, I think it's a cop-out and a shitty excuse to justify a self-centered, petty existence rather than facing hard problems seriously and probing into ourselves to find the motivation to act.
Obviously, I do not know what the future holds. But I think I, and you, and all of us putting our heads together has a much better idea of what the future would, could or should look like than an abstract, non-conscious system of economic organization based on the works of 18th century thinkers.
>Opportunity costs meets global economy. more people live more productive lives by selling yachts with finite resources than feeding African hordes. Its cruel, its probably a sin, but its the numbers.
Go preach trickle down economics to the people of Detroit, or better yet Congo. Tell them that you're sorry that 5 million children die every year from diarrhea when it can be cured for pennies, but you hope yacht-money reaches them in a generation or three. Or ten. Or never. They've been waiting for a few hundred years after all.
I love how /pol/ has all the faith in the world that humanity will colonize the solar system and mine the Kuiper Belt, but finds the notion that ending all starvation at the cost of some 150 billion a year is laughably ridiculous.
Again, this isn't about me. My own hypocrisies and ethical shortfalls are my business in a sense, although I would gladly lean on you my brother that we might help each other do more good.
I love it when it gets to this point though- in a sense, the morality of what I'm trying to say can't be argued against- who can really say no to feeding more mouths or becoming more content with less?
My life is difficult just like yours. I live under this system just like everyone else. I prosper in a sense because of fortunate circumstances at birth (No, I do not feel a drop of "white guilt."), but I'm working on ironing out those hypocrisies in my life just like anyone else who aspires to be better does.
Ya dig? I hope you're doing the same and I wish you the best.
>>31429418 >It always staggers me when people think that the human race will achieve more without trying than with trying.
summed up a lil more simply than the truth, but kinda. Your system seeks to subdue greed. Capitalism, like a water mill, uses a natural source (human greed) to power it. The only caveat is making sure the flow of natural power is constant. Dam it too much (too much regulation) and your watermill wont turn without your input (stimulus). Let the flood gates go, and the watermill will destroy itself
> Obviously, I do not know what the future holds. But I think I, and you, and all of us putting our heads together has a much better idea of what the future would, could or should look like than an abstract, non-conscious system of economic organization based on the works of 18th century thinkers
go play God with a fucking bacteria if you want to feel important
>Go preach trickle down economics to the people of Detroit, or better yet Congo. Tell them that you're sorry that 5 million children die every year from diarrhea when it can be cured for pennies, but you hope yacht-money reaches them in a generation or three. Or ten. Or never. They've been waiting for a few hundred years after all
its not trickle down. Straight up, people are starving because CEOs and the middle class want to live like they know they can. But now ask them to give it all up. Because its not your lil 150 billion. There are systemic things in the third world you will have to unfuck, and it will cost trillions. Or just take it from them like the tyrant you always imagined yourself to be.
The people of the Congo would do the same shit in our shoes. Hell, Europe was the laughing stock of the world for a millennia. If they were smarter, they would have taken over and stolen every resource they could have from Europe.
>>31429453 >ending all starvation at the cost of some 150 billion a year is laughably ridiculous Giving niggers food is destructive to the niggers because now they expect that everyone will send them food instead of figuring out how to make food themselves. If they can't make food themselves let them fucking die. Why should I care? It's their fault that they're idiots. Get out of the fucking desert or let the white man colonize you because it seems that he's smarter than you dumb black shits
>>31428719 >america has forest gain good, but the third world losing its forests is the concern now. either way, america is what, 5% of total land? >pop growth is stagnant in the first world third world is the problem, and a lot of the first world is still massively overpopulated >carbon output and pollution is down per capita but more people total means more total pollution. per capita decline means nothing when total pop increases >OP is a faggot kinda. so are you.
Human greed is an irrational force that fuels heroin addictions as much as it fuels deforestation in Brazil. It knows no boundaries and no self-restraint. It takes, takes, takes and needs more, more, more. In a world where all things are finite and there are 7 billion people, this only means death and poverty on a massive scale.
>go play God with a fucking bacteria if you want to feel important
I get the feeling you're less interested in having a conversation than making jabs on the internet. It's okay to be wrong, and I don't mean that in some kind of paternalistic way. A wise man once told me that there is nothing greater than realizing you are wrong. Impossible to say that without sounding full of it but whatever.
>The people of the Congo would do the same shit in our shoes.
I agree. I'm not suggesting we're morally inferior, but the onus of the situation is on us. We live off the blood, sweat and tears of the third world. We owe it to ourselves and to them to right this injustice.
>But now ask them to give it all up. Because its not your lil 150 billion.
I have no problem asking westerners to live more quietly and humbly. I am confident it would make them more happy, less stressed and more aware of the value of community/family/friends/learning/hobbies. One side-effect of capitalism is that it diminishes the value of everything that doesn't create profit, and that includes all of those things.
Finally, I find the idea of ownership as embodied in our legal system to be completely ridiculous. Philosophically, there are just things and people. Ownership is a totally man-made idea that relies on a state to exist. > If they were smarter, they would have taken over and stolen every resource they could have from Europe.
In the past, people were often less obsessed with power, grandeur and historical reputation than simply living life with family and friends quietly, anonymously and happily. We need more of that and less delusions of grandeur.
That is not your morality. If it were, you would feed people.
You do not feed people. You beg men with guns to point them at people you hate so you can rob them and fulfill your delusional fantasy that you contribute anything at all.
You do this because you know you are worthless. You do this because you know that the very day after your useless corpse is put in the ground you will be forgotten because you did not matter to anyone.
Meanwhile. Henry Ford's name is found in every corner of the world.
I am not an advocate of Soviet-style Communism, nor anything remotely like it. I don't think states are a good idea, generally speaking.
One problem with trying to imagine alternate systems is that our brains already think in, and are deeply attached to, the status quo of our everyday lives.
Often, we accidentally restrict our imagination to the confines of the status quo (ex, imagining the space program couldn't happen without a state because it happened with a state historically).
The whole point of imagining alternatives is to throw out all the old news and start from a blank slate-- what COULD the world look like, or have looked like? Then we can think about how we can get there, or if we can etc. You're free to think for yourself, from the bottom up, anon. That power is extraordinary. Don't waste it clinging to a dead system.
I'll do the constructive thing and remind myself that the only way to escape this kind of attack is by being more true to what I already know is true.
And I'm not all that into fame and grandeur, to be honest. Old Henry will end up just like the rest of us: a forgotten name on a dead planet in a massive universe with no ultimate meaning and nobody to testify to the fact that you ever existed.
>>31429832 You are operating under the idea that you can control human want. You are right, it is a totally irrational force, it destroys alot. But build infrastructure around it, use it to power society, and it creates as well.
>I agree. I'm not suggesting we're morally inferior, but the onus of the situation is on us. We live off the blood, sweat and tears of the third world. We owe it to ourselves and to them to right this injustice.
the only thing we owe them is the fruit of their labors, and leaving their countries the fuck alone. If they are willing to trade, so be it if we benefit more from the trade than them
>I have no problem asking westerners to live more quietly and humbly. I am confident it would make them more happy, less stressed and more aware of the value of community/family/friends/learning/hobbies. One side-effect of capitalism is that it diminishes the value of everything that doesn't create profit, and that includes all of those things.
But will they oblige? Or will you use force on them to get what you want, becoming exactly what you hate?
>In the past, people were often less obsessed with power, grandeur and historical reputation than simply living life with family and friends quietly, anonymously and happily. We need more of that and less delusions of grandeur.
Who is Genghis Khan? Alexander the Great? Andrew Carnegie? Saladin? Fucking christ OP, history is filled with ambitious men who utilized lesser men to bend the world to an individuals will
Man, you have got to look more closely at history.
The US has done nothing but interfere in any country that might refuse to trade with it. This whole idea of "free trade" between countries (where one has a massive military, a CIA and 7000 nukes, and the other has sticks and AKs) is pure fiction.
Maybe the best single example, just for its irony, is Peru. We instigated a coup to overthrow Allende because he wanted to nationalize Peruvian metal resources and socialize land ownership. And who came in after him? None other than the Prince of Free Markets himself, Milton Friedman, happily dishing out Voluntary Trade to Peruvians under their new American-sponsored dictator, Pinochet.
>>31429912 imagining what could have happened and what has happened are two different things entirely. I have to base my worldview on what has happened and on what works and what doesn't. Anything else is purely the realm of speculation and fantasy until proven otherwise.
>simply removing fauna & flora isn't that hard to recover from apparently.
Old growth forest takes centuries to regenerate, and it can't be done by humans. Ecosystems are extremely delicate and complex, and the effects of removing organisms/habitation has far-reaching consequences, many of which we don't even know yet.
And that's JUST deforestation. When you add in carbon emissions (I'm not getting into that debate in this thread), dams, nuclear waste, oil spills, nitrate fertilizers, over-fishing, soil depletion from industrial agriculture, hydrology damage from pollution and redirecting streams (the list goes on), you have a MAJOR, MAJOR ecological problem on your hands.
>>31429897 yeah that's better, we're more receptive to outright aggression than snark, if you were such an oldfag you'd had know that
Anyway, my point is that ideas like yours are specific to an extremely luxurious first world lifestyle, and only people who have what we have would ever even come close to entertaining the idea that we're meant to give shit away. I shouldn't have brought race into it immediately but I hope nobody is gonna pretend that isn't also a factor.
How about this, which is more important, feeding all the niggers or saving the planet?
>>31430070 >the only thing we owe them is the fruit of their labors, and leaving their countries the fuck alone. If they are willing to trade, so be it if we benefit more from the trade than them
apparently you missed that part. Any american should be ashamed for some of the actions done in their name.
And free trade does happen. Country A supplies Country B with timber, minerals etc. Country A gets returned products. Easy peasy.
Where shit fucks up is IMF and food banks give surplus subsistence goods to Country A, essentially putting it on welfare. Country A now has no need to do anything other than be a resource whore for Countries B,C,D and E. All of whom do not actually let Country A self-determination with its trade or even government system
You are a parasite. If you don't believe me, go live on The Farm in Tennessee. It's everything you claim to be. There you will learn just how worthless you are as the people who have successfully run that commune for decades kick your sorry ass to the curb.
My parents are wealthy and are paying for my schooling out of pocket, although I think college tuition is insane and that the "Have fun with your debt" line is generally unsympathetic and disingenuous.
>The Farm in Tenessee
No thanks, I'm more of a Catholic Worker kind of guy.
100% correct. Chomsky often points this out-- states behave exactly the same way in the international arena regardless of their internal organization or the quality of their propoganda.
Hence why I am opposed to states (at least modern militarized, policed states) in addition to capitalism. In fact, I think statehood and capitalism are inseparable, since private property relies on a system of violent coercion to construct and enforce the legal delineation of who owns what. This may be contrasted with the libertarian "free market" opposition to government, which I think is theoretically primitive and historically unaware.
Yes, there is a "Marxist standard" and it's called "false consciousness" aka "oh no it's not really like that!"
There's a term for you too, dearie: USEFUL IDIOT.
Since you are an ignorant twat, I highly recommend you educate yourself by looking into the fate of the Mensheviks. Here's a hint: there's a guy buried in Mexico by the name of Leo Trotsky with an ice pick in his skull.
>>31426349 you already made a thread faggot and its still here.
>humans are the problem >humans should let the government tax and murder them more You don't care about the environment one bit; you care about control. You want the right to kill people, rob them of everything they have while still benefiting from their labor and their minds, and you want to rape the environment even worse than any corporation would by using such alchemy as carbon credits.
Face it: freedom leads to technology which saves the environment and regressive trash like yourself who want to fuck over all people and even the environment too deserve the very suffering for yourselves that you wish to impose on others.
Enviroloons should be forced to live in cargo containers, castrated, and made to eat worms or whatever that they keep trying to force on us. And, when the enviroloons get old, they shouldn't be given medical care since they wish for that to be denied to old people anyways.
>>31426845 >This wouldn't happen if we didn't make rubber ducks in the first place. But those are important so what can ya do? You're right, those ducks shouldn't have existed. Because they were made and lost, scientists discoverd ocean currents which you faggots have been claiming will fuck up the world because of global warming. Imagine how much less annoying you cunts would be if those ducks didn't exist?
>>31431013 What kills mankind is the cancer of marxism. We need to cut that cancer out and throw it into gas chambers
>My suggestion is that we reorganize our economic system before it kills us The economic system killing us is your fucking delusion, you have no single proof of it happening, it just a theory that exists inside your stupid head
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.