http://www.slate.com/articles/healt h_and_science/science/20

>>8673198
Because high IQ leads to an unhappy life.

>slate
It's already ideological as fuck.

They're not wrong, if you fight lies with facts then what's going to change? Assuming it's just you and the other guy and nobody else is watching, you're both just going to argue over what are actually facts and what are lies. It's better to just come to terms with what you feel is true and leave them alone, otherwise it's just going to deteriorate you.

I didn't actually read the article I'm just ranting.

>>8673198
Modern academia and the culture surrounding it is far too leftist. The bad type of leftist. One of the few things I agree with /pol/

Take global warming as an example. YES, it's fucking real. But that doesn't mean that humanity's progress should be impaired worldwide by banning an efficient and cheap source of energy, that's an absolutely fucking retarded idea that only an economically-retarded left can come up with. An intelligent and rational scientist would note the fact that it's happening, then proceed to note that no one should be panicked into lobbying the government to destroy its own energy sector, and to explain how technology will eventually fix it in the near decade or two. The smart decision is taking the optimal path, the dumb decision is taking the emotional path. Last I checked, science was all about isolating your emotions from it so they don't interfere with the cold facts.

>>8673244
ugh

>>8673292
>ugh! I'm a very virtuous leftist and this offends me!

>>8673198
People are allowed to go out and slaughter 77 people. I'm certain they can get away with this paltry offense.

>>8673244
>Let's fuck the planet guys, don't want to ruin the economy after all.

Jesus fucking christ anon, get you priorities right.

>>8673364
> implying the planet will be harmed
It's a giant ball of rock that has survived worse than anything we can throw at it. The planet will be fine. The economy is how human beings have managed to maintain a modern society instead of starving and dying from minor scrapes that get infected. You trash that, and humanity suffers. Not that leftists care about such things, they just want everyone too be equal, and the easiest way to do that is to make everyone equally miserable.

>>8673364
>>Let's fuck the planet guys
I want:

>1) Scientific publishing proving that the current trend will continue magically fucking the Earth, even after peak oil
>2) That it is completely linear and a better alternative being invented meanwhile is physically impossible to happen in this Universe
>3) That no future technology will ever be able to fix Earth (even after humanity develops terraforming capabilities)
>4) That banning oil usage in the US will automatically be followed by a worldwide ban, as opposed to China and Russia directly jumping in and using even more of the now-cheap oil
>5) That we're permanently anchored to the Earth and will never in our entire existence leave it due to its exponentially rising G force

Unless you provide all of the above, I'll be forced to automatically categorize your post as the next retarded leftist blabber and fear-mongering

>>8673364
Fuck the future of humanity. If browsing this board can teach you anything, it's that humanity is a plague which has no business existing in perpetuity. If we're going to eat ourselves to death we should just accept it, and take another bite.

>>8673372
>>8673375
you're both idiots for believing in the false left vs right dichotomy. The second guy is an idiot doubly so because he thinks gravity is a force

>>8673375
>I want
Big delusional baby

>>8673378
no argument

>>8673380
no argument

>>8673383
"no argument" is not an assertion that you are correct. Furthermore, there's no point in arguing on the internet.
Gravity still isn't a force.

>>8673385
My initial post didn't imply that I'm correct, it implied that he is wrong.

He asserts that the current humanity "kills" the Earth, therefor I asked for his scientific proof (which should, obviously, be aligned with the points). No other claims were made from my side requiring proof.

This nonsense from the left is exactly how and why this happened. Good read for those interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

>>8673372
>The planet will be fine
It quite clearly won't be. Humans are already responsible for a mass extinction event.

>But anon, that's all happened before

Yes but two things:
>I don't want to live in Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome
>WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP IT

>>8673375
>No arguments

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that rightists have a low IQ.

>>8673443
> I don't want to live in Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome
Zero proof that this is an issue.
> WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP IT
Zero proof of this either.

>>8673451

Don't worry, the person you're replying to just read the slate article and is arguing with emotion rather than fact. As we can both observe, this is clearly not working to people who have 2 brain cells to rub together.

>>8673451
>Zero proof of this either.
>There is zero proof that alternatives to fossil fuels exist

Shit anon best alert the media, that whole "nuclear power" business apparently doesn't exist.

>Zero proof that this is an issue.
> Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/abs/nature09678.html

Of the 704 species that could be assigned conservation status, 32.8% are in categories with elevated risk of extinction. Declines in abundance are associated with bleaching and diseases driven by elevated sea surface temperatures, with extinction risk further exacerbated by local-scale anthropogenic disturbances.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/560

But let me guess, all this is perfectly fine.

>>8673372
>It's a giant ball of rock that has survived worse than anything we can throw at it. The planet will be fine.

Nobody is talking about the ball of rock when they say the planet will be harmed, you stupid motherfucker.

>>8673458

ur right, we should dedicate ourselves to making sure every living thing will never die ever. After all, if an animal goes extinct, and we are smart, it's gotta be our faults.


I wonder who we can blame for the millions of species that went extinct before the industrial revolution, though...

>>8673465
>Literally no arguments

Brainlets, out!

>>8673465
>ur right, we should dedicate ourselves to making sure every living thing will never die ever.

No, just making sure that we don't make them go extinct you dozey bastard

>>8673458
>what is natural selection
waah why aren't you intervening and artifically tampering with the environment?
fuck off
fuck off

>>8673469

Animals will go extinct either way, usually due to the progress of another species. We progress at a significant rate, and we still manage to mitigate damage to other animals.

It's nature you leftist fagit

>>8673473
>Animals will go extinct either way

No they won't you moron

>>8673475

Again, I point to the MILLIONS of species that went extinct prior to the industrial revolution.


You can plug your ears and say "lol not an argument" all you want but that doesn't make it true.

>>8673378
You're the biggest idiot for being b8ed into arguing with idiots.

>>8673471
>Didn't read the articles

It quite clearly shows that they've only been placed in this state by human activity.

>>8673473
>Animals will go extinct either way

Oh well then, lets just fuck the environment. Who needs ecosystems anyway?

>>8673372
>The planet's going to be fine because I say so

>>8673375
>I want 100% proof that I need to before I try to make this planet a better place!
That's why you capitalists shouldn't be allowed in any government. Everything you do ever is not supposed to be the best for everyone, it is only supposed to help with your personal greed. That's how you Americans live. All your wealth goes to a few fortunate people, who buy your media to tell that it's all fine while you make a thread asking whether your burn is 2nd or 3rd degree and what to do about it. Just think about it man, there is no fucking human progress in that. There is no prevention of human suffering. It's just the illusion of progress and the illusion of opportunity. You see your demigods flying around in their private jets to their summer homes and think your country's still got it when the truth is that there is no reason why anyone is supposed to have that much money and there is no reason why anyone should be conditioned to emulate this kind of lifestyle.

>>8673479
So what is your alternate solution to handling the climate change crisis?

>>8673479

Animals who cannot adapt to the changing system (a system will always change. You're on a science board so you should be familiar with the second law of thermodynamics) will go extinct. Humans are utilizing the system around us for progress. I will always value human progression over that of a stupid fish that only has 100 fish brothers left that cannot live outside of a 2 degree range of temperature


How are you on a science board if all of this evades you?

>>8673479
> Oh well then, lets just fuck the environment. Who needs ecosystems anyway?

Exactly. We have technology that can replicate any benefits of the species that go extinct, and we can easily just invent new technology to counteract other consequences. So why should we destroy the economy over something that is literally not an actual problem, and has only been portrayed as such by leftist fearmongers and the lying media?

The progression is amazing!

>climate change isn't real
>ok, it's happening but it's not man-made
>well, man-made climate change is real but there are too many assholes around to do anything about it anyway

>>8673198
>Slate

Just let them dig their own graves, senpai. Never tell an enemy when they're making a mistake.

>>8673482
Using proven technologies to reduce our impact on the planet. Nuclear for example could easily meet our energy needs. Beyond that there's CCS and in a few years hopefully electric vehicles.

>>8673484
>>8673486
Sorry I didn't realise I was being baited. After all there's no way someone can unironically doing things like apply thermodynamics to a non-thermodynamic system, or believe that we have technology that can replace and entire ecosystem.

>>8673487
The solution is culling human population.
You have entire countries of nothing but 3rd world degenerates that breed and breed even though they can't sustain themselves let alone a child.

Once we have more room in the world and less populations, we'll have a lessening affect on our climate. Simple.

>>8673487

That's not what we are saying at all you idiot

Let me summarize it for you:

It's *not* real, but even if it was, it doesn't matter.

>>8673491

>"After all there's no way someone can unironically doing things like apply thermodynamics to a non-thermodynamic system"
>Doesn't know what roll the sun plays in the environment


You're at best scientifically ignorant and at worst a scientific regressionist. Either way, you belong on le reddit politics board and not on any form of science board

>>8673491
Nuclear as in Nuclear plants? The sort that fail and destroy more of the environment than 500 smelters running 24/7 for a year could do? That's stupid.

>>8673481
> MUH CAPITALISTS
That capitalism that you're so quick to decry is the only reason you're alive to criticize it. You think people invent new technology out of the goodness of their hearts? Nope, that's just a utopian fantasy. In the real world, scientific progress occurs because there is money to be made. Capitalism is the single biggest reason behind the decline of human suffering in the world, it has lifted more people out of poverty than literally anything else in human history. By attacking that, you attack the very foundation of all civilization and scientific progress. So if you want to live as a stone age primitive, go ahead. But don't try to drag the rest of us down with you just because you can't stand the idea of people behaving rationally and pursuing their own self interest.

>>8673493
>>8673494
Oh you guys.

>>8673491
>Nuclear for example could easily meet our energy needs.
Leftists oppose that too, so until you get rid of them there's zero chance of that happening. And, of course, once they're gone there will be no one who buys into your AGW doomsday cult, so it still won't happen.

>>8673496
Chernobyl fucked the region surrounding it for estimated 30K years. Sure power plant meltdowns are exceedingly rare, but they happen. The jap reactor was damaged due to nature not us. Putting your faith in chance is the dumbest way to prevent anything negative from happening to our planet.

How about this:

There should be a /political science general/ thread where /pol/ and /sci/ settle their differences and come to logical agreements

>>8673503
Politics and science don't go together at all.

File: Tom.jpg (44KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x400px

>>8673503
>/pol/
>/logic/

>>8673504
W-what about Technocracy?

>>8673503

>logical agreements

don't be silly

>>8673506
A fantasy.

>>8673495
>Capitalism brought me smartphones, so everything should be sacrificed for it!
You know what measure is? Like, in the sense of a balance between things? It's not all black and white. Criticizing capitalism without boundaries is not communism. Try to understand that before writing down your generic capitalism defense speech.

>>8673494
>>8673501
>le nuclear disaster meme
After the disaster, the other reactors in Chernobyl were operational until 2000.
Even the effects of worst nuclear disaster in history was nowhere near the disaster it was portrayed. And that was with the slavs running a stress test with tons of flaws and no containment structure.

>>8673510
Fine

Technologically-oriented libertarian government?

>>8673511
Balance is only useful when the other side has something worthwhile. The fact that every single attempt at socialism has failed miserably is evidence that there is no reason for balance. Why should we try to balance a capitalist society with a shithole like North Korea or Venezuela?

>>8673513
Science is successful when you remove emotions from it.
To rule over anything you need to be guided by your emotions.

They mutually cancel each other out.

File: 1368229729968.jpg (781KB, 1864x1398px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1864x1398px

>it's a "self righteous liberals" episode

No one is producing facts. Not the people who manipulate, take out of context, purposely smear, or outright fabricate stories, like your modern mainstream media. And at the same time Trump and Co. are gaming the system to present their own fairly distorted take on things.

Lets not pretend anyone is really operating off of a factual basis here. CNN was legitimately pushing a story about a "secret M16 agent with rumors of Trump having a Russian prostitute piss fetish" a few weeks ago.

This is the age of misinfo and you are going to have to approach anything anyone says with a big fat truck of salt.

>>8673516
>To rule over anything you need to be guided by your emotions.
What? How is a council of experts voting on a topic related to emotions in any way? Switzerland doesn't seem emotional at all, it seems quite autistic in administrating itself

>>8673512
Yet the area surrounding Chernobyl reactor 4 is still fucked with no signs it will ever recover.

Relying solely on nuclear energy is the single stupidest post i've read thus far. Putting all your eggs in one basket increases the chances one will break, and all you need is one nuclear reactor to break to doom us all.

>>8673494
>>8673501
According to history, nuclear power plant meltdowns are caused by two things:

>poor/archaic technology (no longer an issue)
>filling it with retards or starving people

Faith has nothing to do with it, meltdowns are basically 100% preventable.

>>8673519
Bias. Just like you can't agree with me on this subject, you'll never have 100% unbiased opinions factoring into a vote.

>>8673521
They're preventable if the reactors are run by people who aren't horribly corrupt or incompetent. Which means not by human beings.

>>8673523
And why is a proposal of a Technocracy (which is supposed to limit bias) bad?

>>8673515
This post is so retarded it's hard to know where to start.
>The fact that every single attempt at socialism has failed miserably
Other than the stupid immigration policies, it's worked pretty well in Scandinavia.

>is evidence that there is no reason for balance.
Restraining rapacious capitalism isn't wanting to become even a socialist state, let alone a communist one.

>Why should we try to balance a capitalist society with a shithole like North Korea or Venezuela?

What the fuck have either of those two failed states go to do with capitalism? I get the feeling you don't know what capitalism is, anon. You see those two states are broadly communist, we don't want that. Just some restraint to be shown by the current capitalist system.

>>8673521
Then how did the tsunami and earthquake off japan cause the nuclear reactor to almost meltdown?

>>8673525
Who said it was bad? I sure as heck didn't. I said it was a fantasy because it is. Unless you're ruling over robots you can control 100% you'll never achieve an autocracy because emotions.

>>8673524
Good point, let's just shut down all of human society then because lol you can't trust anyone right?

>>8673527
You should be asking why such a cataclysmic event DIDN'T cause a meltdown

>>8673526
> Scandinavia
If your country is basically 100% white people, anything can work.

>>8673527
Swamped the back up generator preventing the cooling systems working. Modern reactors can use the steam produced from the heating of water within the reactor to power it's backup systems.

>>8673530
No, I'm saying we should hurry up with building our new robot overlords.

>>8673515
>There is America and there is North Korea
You obviously really don't understand what balance is. You sound like some brain washed kid raised in the cold war. Educate yourself.

>>8673533
Made me laugh

>>8673534
So failures aren't entirely man made

>>8673526
>Restraining rapacious capitalism isn't wanting to become even a socialist state, let alone a communist one.
> Just some restraint to be shown by the current capitalist system.
What evidence is there that capitalism should be restrained? You've provided none.

>>8673536
shut the fuck up

>>8673539
Who said that it was?

>>8673540
See >>8673458 A couple of articles (of which there are many) that show that human activity is pushing ecosystems to the limit of what they can endure.

>>8673539
Also,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Aftermath

>Japanese authorities later admitted to lax standards and poor oversight

>>8673529
And that's why we need a /polsci/ thread - to settle stuff like this, because both of us will keep disagreeing for a couple of hours

I personally remain in favor of a libertarian technocracy being the most efficient form of government *right now*, especially with the fact that Colonization: Part 2 is right in front of us, and this is the specific government that boosts a nation's development into that sphere. I'm sure that most of /sci/ agree with me, as everyone here has the age of NASA and space rivalry as the golden age of science, which was a de-facto rivalry between a libertarian and a communist technocracy, two polar forms of technological focus that need to be further explored

>>8673543
Who cares if the ecosystem can or can't endure something? We have technology to handle any loss of productivity that might result from species going extinct or whatever else you're whining about. You haven't done anything to show that there's a real problem that needs to be addressed, you're just demanding that civilization turn away from the thing that has been behind virtually every improvement for the last two centuries just because it hurts your precious feelings.

>>8673546
> to settle stuff like this
It's never settled because it isn't about facts. Leftists don't care about facts, only feelings, and those aren't going to change no matter how many facts they're presented with that debunk their dogma.

>>8673548
>We have technology to handle any loss of productivity that might result from species going extinct

What evidence is there that we have the technology to keep an entire artificial ecosystem going?

>>8673550
> to keep an entire artificial ecosystem going?
We don't need to, all we need to do is invent technology that can take the place of the things that benefit us. The vast majority of species are worthless and their extinction would be no loss, and the ones that are somehow useful can easily be preserved or replaced.

>>8673556
>The vast majority of species are worthless and their extinction would be no loss

Wew lad. You've got to be trolling with this shit. Still waiting for that magic technology that can keep replace ecosystems, by lets make it easy for you:
>What technology do we have available that can help the fishing industry handle any loss of productivity from overfishing.

>>8673244
Global warming would have already been solved if leftists hadn't sided with the oil companies to kill the nuclear industry through over regulation.

>>8673560
Loss of productivity creates demand for technology to remedy that loss. That demand makes it profitable to invent something to meet the demand, leading to investment in scientific development that will produce the technology needed to solve the problem. If the problem is real, then there will be money to be made in creating a solution, and so it will be created. This is a simply case of supply and demand, maybe you should try reading up on basic economics before you run your mouth off and reveal how retarded you are.

>>8673566
I'm not seeing any evidence anon. Where's the evidence anon?

>>8673568
The history of the last two centuries is full of examples of this. Problem arrises, profits can be made in solving, so someone invents new technology that solves it. That has been the story behind practically every major technological advancement in history.

>>8673574
So you have no evidence that we have a technology do we have available that can help the fishing industry handle any loss of productivity from overfishing.

Just appealing to muh economic """"theory"""" as if anything is possible.

>>8673198
No need to get all emotional and start swearing.

>>8673375
Please refer to this thread >>8668752 for confirmation that you're a literal brainlet.

Kindly kill yourself on the way out

Well I mean facts are clearly ineffective in communicating facts. Obviously we need non-facts to help people know the facts. Kellyanne knows all about it.

>>8673584
Damn you sure are exhibiting high levels of frustration my friend, did the post trigger you?

Also, I fail to see any answers to any of the points, a link to a thread discussing global warming is not a valid argument, sorry

>>8673517
>that pic
ew
i bet you want to bang her you perv

>>8673587
The evidence is right there my intellectually challenged friend. You just have to read, your mother did teach you that, right?

>>8673589
Hah, I seem to have missed it my friend!

Please do assist me into linking one (1) reply that answers any of my points, as I seem to be mentally impaired enough to not see any

>>8673593
I would do that, but I fear I would be robbing you of a valuable learning opportunity. Namely, that sometimes you have to try real hard to understand something. It'll help you in the long run.

By saying
>u r dum leftist
>u r dum liberal
you automatically invalidate any point you wanted to make and no one will listen to you. Just make your point and say nothing more if you are genuinely interested in persuading someone. Maybe these "tactics" work at the "debates" your small town church holds, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.

>>8673597
> You called me a leftist so I'm going to ignore everything you say
That just proves that you really are a leftist. Congratulations.

>>8673600
Not an argument.

>>8673600
HA! Jokes on you, I'm actually an Objecitivist. As such I'm certainly the most rational person itt, moreover my impeccable rationality can discern worthwhile posts from retarded meme spewing. If the depth of your logical reasoning is "ur a leftist", then no, your posts aren't worth my (or anyone else's) time. Thanks for trying though, one day your rational inquiry might be such that it could rival my own, that day isn't today, however.

>>8673606
I don't care, since there's zero point to arguing with leftists. If someone is a leftist, then they value feelings over facts and thus no amount of facts will dissuade them. Speaking with them is pointless.

>>8673549
ITS NOT ABOUT LEFT OR RIGHT YOU STUPID FUCKING FAGGOT ITS ABOUT THE FUCKING SOCIETY AS WE KNOW AND LOVE HAVING A DOMINO EFFECT OF CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURES FROM RETARDS LIKE YOU SEEING CLEAR EVIDENCE OF YEARS OF DATA COMING TO FRUITION AND GOING LALALA NOT REAL FUCKING LEFTIES

FUCK

FUCK
FUCK

FUCK

FUCK

SCI USED TO BE THE BEST BOARD ON THIS FUCKING WEBSITE

NOW EVERY THREAD IS SHIT UP WITH GOD DAMN IGNORANCE FLAUNTING STUPID POLNIGGERS THAT SPEW BASELESS NONSENSE COMPLETELY UNFETTERED AND CONSTANTLY ASK FOR EVIDENCE DESPITE IT BEING RIGHT THE FUCK IN FRONT OF THEM

WHY CANT YOU EVER PROVIDE YOUR OWN EVIDENCE

WHY IS IT ALWAYS STUPID FUCKING BRAINLET COUNTERPOINTS IN EVERY THREAD ABOUT CLIMATE

FUCK REFUGEES
FUCK LEFTIES
FUCK THE RIGHT
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOH GAIN IN ACTIVELY HARMING THE ADVANCEMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT DISMANTLE THE POWER OF OIL COMPANIES

WHERE DO YOU THINK TECHNOLOGIES WILL MAGICALLY APPARATE FROM TO REPLACE DYING ECOSYSTEMS WHEN WERE ALL FUCKED FROM THE EFFECTS OF IT BEFOREHAND

FUCK

FUCK

FUCK YOU

>>8673616
>FLAUNTING STUPID POLNIGGERS THAT SPEW BASELESS NONSENSE

You're free to make a /polsci/ thread and debate them there

>>8673616
Not an argument.

>>8673616
You're the one claiming that it will be a problem, so lets see your evidence first. Until then, why should we wreck the economy over something when you have zero evidence to show that it's a real problem?

>>8673198
The article is right what do you want. Nothing unscientific about it.

It's just useless to do fact checking to affect some public opinion because it's all the same shit. The average person doesn't have any capability to judge by themselves whether something is true or fake, they don't even have the capability to realize whether the people telling him whether something is true of fake are bullshitting him or not. Therefore even if you use a perfect logical rebuttal against fake thing X and nobody makes a counter argument no matter how weak, a person who thinks X SHOULD be true will just default to thinking you're bullshitting him.

The amount of people on the fence who can be actually swayed in their opinion is growing smaller, and what's worse swaying them to either side isn't often about facts but sad pictures or dying brown people or sad pictures of someone getting stabbed a brown person or eventually blacked images and cuckold analogies.

>>8673624
>I need evidence that the collapse of ecosystems will be a bad thing

Take overfishing, that's both bad for the environment and bad for the economy.

>>8673600
So what?

>>8673616
You are absolutely correct, but you need to calm the fuck down.

>>8673198
Arguments is about emotions, no facts.
This is why mostly all scientists go out politics.

>>8673627
If it's so bad for the economy, then why are people doing it? Fact is it's profitable, so why not do it? When it stops being a good idea, it will stop being profitable and people will stop doing it. Environazis have always tried to portray industry as the villain, when in truth industry has been the one doing more to preserve the useful parts of the world than anyone else. After all, if you cut down all the trees then that's no more profit for you, which is why industry replants trees so they can continue to make money. If some random fish goes extinct, but the economy isn't harmed, then what's the problem? It wasn't worth anything, so no loss. And if it is worth something, then industry won't let it go extinct because they'll be able to continue making money off of it.

>>8673640
>If it's so bad for the economy, then why are people doing it?

Because of rapacious capitalism. Fishermen are independent of each other, so one isn't going to stop unless the others stops (which they won't do, because Nash Equilibrium). Worse still, since scarcity drives up prices as the seas are overfished, it becomes [math] more [/math] profitable to continue. That is until there's no more fish left, at which point the industry bottoms out.

> And if it is worth something, then industry won't let it go extinct because they'll be able to continue making money off of it.

Well I'd like to see them start, that'll be a positive step towards reigning in some of capitalisms more destructive parts.

>>8673515
You think you aren't benefiting from facets of socialism in the modern first world ?

>>8673640
>Why think further than a few days ahead? What's the problem? WHAT CAN POSSIBLY HAPPEN?
You are an idiot man.

>When it stops being a good idea, it will stop being profitable and people will stop doing it.
It will stop being profitable when it's too late. Your fish is extinct, your ecosystem is weakened further, people lose their jobs, things go to shit. Yeah, sure you will of course still be fine in your basement, but the damage is real.

>industry replants trees so they can continue to make money.
If you look at the biomass of trees on this planet the number is shrinking rapidly, so while it might be the case in some places, it's still not enough.

>>8673648
> Because of rapacious capitalism.
> MUH CAPITALISM
And now we get to the real point. You're not trying to solve a problem, you just don't like capitalism. In reality, as normal fishing declines that creates incentives for industry to find alternatives like fish farms and develop new technology and methods to meet the demand for fish. Capitalism produces its own solutions.

> Well I'd like to see them start, that'll be a positive step towards reigning in some of capitalisms more destructive parts.
There isn't anything destructive to reign in. You just imagine there is because you ignore half of the equation in favor of liberal dogma.

>>8673655
Name a single benefit that socialism provides that capitalism cannot provide more effectively.

>>8673659
You really need to get out of your black/white thinking about political systems. It really makes you look like an ignorant idiot.

>>8673661
Basic science research

>>8673659
>Ignored the main point.

Also I love capitalism, I'm just not dumb enough to think that unfettered capitalism is only a good thing.

>fish farms
Don't work.

>>8673666
That capitalism does much more effectively. You really think people do scientific research out of the goodness of their hearts? No, that's nothing but a utopian fantasy. Profit is what drives scientific research. Capitalism produces far more research than socialism ever has.

>>8673663
There's no point m8

Insane leaps of logic coupled with blindly dicksucking political labels instead of addressing the actual issues they're associated with is just impossible to debate with.

>>8673669
Publicly funded research is responsible for the vast majority of paradigm shifts in science. Research from the industrial sector is far more short sighted.

>>8673661
Health care.

>>8673669
Name one great scientific leap that was done by the industry. Protip: Improving some generator to be 1% more effective is not a great scientific leap. And that is usually what happens in industrial research. Slow, gradual improvements for the sake of profit. The leaps are done in free research, funded independently. You need both, and you can have both.

>>8673678
> Health care.
Yet US private health care was so much more effective than the socialized medicine of the rest of the world that people would fly in from all over the world for treatment. And then when king nigger tried to socialize the health care industry, costs skyrocketed.

>>8673564
this to be honest.

not only that but siding with free trade jews and just moving the pollution to china where its 10x worse than here in america.

they really fucked up.

>>8673678
> Name one great scientific leap that was done by the industry.
Government has been dicking around with fusion power for decades with zero results. The private sector started working on it only a few years ago and they're on schedule to have an operational commercial reactor in 2020. Private beats public in scientific leaps.

>>8673693
>not only that but siding with free trade jews and just moving the pollution to china where its 10x worse than here in america.
This is total bullshit. China still produces less pollution per capita than USA does and is currently in the process of getting their heads out of their asses since people are choking. Moving shit to China was probably the best thing for environment.

>>8673678
>Health care.

I don't see the Soviet Union providing free healthcare anymore lmao

>b-but t-thats not fair t-the soviets collapsed due to econ-

And how exactly do you think is health care funded?

>>8673697
And we are back to black ad white comparisons

>>8673696
>China still produces less pollution per capita than USA does
so it produces way more than we do as they have about 1.3 billion people.

and you're forgetting that many chinese are complete poorfag so they dont consume as much as us for now but that will instantly change in a couple of decades.

not only will china produces more pollution per capita, but they will have about 6x our population.

>and is currently in the process of getting their heads out of their asses since people are choking
never gonna happen, ill believe it when i see it.

>Moving shit to China was probably the best thing for environment.
increasing pollution by 10x was good? they're the entire fucking REASON we have just reached a record high in CO2.

if you're going to be a liberal faggot about this, im glad global warming will be flooding mostly liberal cities that voted hillary, they consume the most in the first place and they're going to PAY for their bullshit.

>>8673678
Did you know that most of our space technology wasn't developed by NASA but rather the military industrial complex?

>>8673695
>operational commercial reactor in 2020.

Source

>>8673704
In all seriousness, do you not understand why per capita comparisons are used or are you ignoring why they're used to make some asinine point.

>>8673704
>we do as they have about 1.3 billion people.
And? It doesn't fucking matter with outsourcing. If you move production to China, China is just gonna pollute what you would've done either way.
>increasing pollution by 10x was good? they're the entire fucking REASON we have just reached a record high in CO2.
You're blaming China because it starts outputting CO2 at the levels of western nations per capita. The problem is they are way more capable of actually acting on the climate change and pollution.

>>8673695
Yes, the industrial sector is building a COMMERCIAL reactor before the academic sector

>>8673710
>do you not understand why per capita comparisons are used
you're not fooling anyone with per capita.

china has 4x our population, do the math and realize that they produce WAY more CO2 than we do by far.

and you're still ignoring the fact that most chinese are 3rd world poorfags that will be consuming up the ass the moment they get a chance.

I can't wait for liberal faggot cities to flood and CO2 production to magically lower by 90% once liberal faggots stop buying so much retarded shit like they do.

>>8673710
> per capita comparisons
Don't matter
The fact is that China produces far more pollution than any other country on the planet. And in the US, liberal cities are the real sources of pollution. Get rid of them, and the problem goes away.

>>8673711
>If you move production to China, China is just gonna pollute what you would've done either way.
we have better methods for manufacturing and we have actual regulations that reduce our own pollution, but go ahead and keep being a retard.

>You're blaming China because it starts outputting CO2 at the levels of western nations per capita.
yes, and the jews abusing slave labor on top of that obviously.

> The problem is they are way more capable of actually acting on the climate change and pollution.
which is why their school children are choking to death on smog?

good try faggots.

>>8673716
>I can't wait for liberal faggot cities to flood and CO2 production to magically lower by 90% once liberal faggots stop buying so much retarded shit like they do.
Kek. It's the american conservative 3 cars, cheap fuel, and no public transport lifestyle producing the most CO2. Not hippies biking in cities or using public transport.

>>8673714
The academics don't even have a damn thing beyond tons of papers written to justify their own existence. Industry, on the other hand, actually gets shit done.

File: thepinacleofdispair.jpg (307KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1200x900px

>>8673198
>postmodernism isn't going to destroy western civilization they said

>>8673722
You mean industry is supposed to have some reactor that might or might not happen while academics have already made several while being constantly underfunded?

>>8673721
>Kek. It's the american conservative 3 cars, cheap fuel, and no public transport lifestyle producing the most CO2.
nope, its liberal faggot cities that mostly voted hillary.

the problem will solve itself, enjoy the floods.

>>8673721
> It's the american conservative 3 cars, cheap fuel, and no public transport lifestyle producing the most CO2.
Bullshit. California produces more pollution than any other state, and it is infested with liberals.

>>8673722
Do you understand that the academics build the scientific foundations behind industrial development?

>>8673721
>Not hippies biking in cities or using public transport.
you realize most conservatives live in the country side right?

you realize most pollution comes from cities right?

get your head out of your ass.

>>8673716
>>8673718
I honestly can't believe how dumb you are. This just had to be bait. Larger countries obviously produce more in absolute terms, but that makes any comparison pointless, what we'd like to know is "if we scaled up x to y, which would be bigger?"

I don't know why I'm bothering, you don't care, you're emotionally wedded to this. Which is fucking pathetic btw.

>>8673729
Well maybe look at the population of your states before posting.
>>8673732
>Densely packed urban environment with tons of industrial production and huge population output more CO2 and literal nowhere
CAPTAIN PER CAPITA FAG

>>8673733
>Larger countries obviously produce more in absolute terms, but that makes any comparison pointless,
>DUDE POLLUTION DOESNT MATTER AS LONG AS PER CAPITA IS LOWER LMAO.
>DUDE CHINA ISNT POLLUTING AT ALL BECAUSE THEIR PER CAPITA IS LOWER THAN OURS.
>1000 PEOPLE POLLUTING PER 2x CAPITA MORE THAN 1 BILLION CHINESE MEANS THE CHINESE DID NOTHING WRONG.
i think you're done here.

>>8673737
>>Densely packed urban environment with tons of industrial production and huge population output more CO2 and literal nowhere
thanks for proving my point, you produce more per capita as well btw.

enjoy the floods.

>>8673741
You're again doing the thing with putting retarded arbitrary splits to say that someone is polluting more because 2 rednecks on the country side with all industry supporting them moved to the city are producing less COs than a city packed with people and producing everything for the rest of the country.

>>8673198
Did you actually read the article? Because it's not what you think it is. (I still think it's bullshit).

>>8673744
>http://www.zdnet.com/article/un-cities-contribute-70-percent-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
>UN: Cities contribute 70 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions
>The report, "Hot Cities: battle-ground for climate change" from the United Nations Human Settlement Program, or UN-HABITAT, shows that while the world's cities only cover 2 percent of global land area, they account for a staggering 70 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions.
now fuck off nigger.

>>8673738
>DUDE CHINA ISNT POLLUTING AT ALL BECAUSE THEIR PER CAPITA IS LOWER THAN OURS.
Ebin strawmen dumbass.

>1000 PEOPLE POLLUTING PER 2x CAPITA MORE THAN 1 BILLION CHINESE MEANS THE CHINESE DID NOTHING WRONG.

This isn't even coherent, take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard and try again.

>[math] pollution \propto population [/math]
Let's say we shrunk China's population down to the size of the US, who'd pollute more? Simple fact is as a population grows it's going to pollute more, the fact that 1.3 billion people pollute proportionally less than 300 million is quite incredible.

>>8673751
>DENSELY PACKED URBAN ENVIRONMENTS WITH TONS OF PEOPLE BELONGING TO DEVELOPED NATIONS AND WITH COUNTRIES INDUSTRY IN THEM ARE PRODUCING EMISSION
STOP BEING A FUCKING RETARD. 2% of landmass means jackshit.

>>8673754
> Let's say we shrunk China's population down to the size of the US, who'd pollute more?
Doesn't matter because China ISN'T THE SIZE OF THE US. You may as well argue "Let's say the moon is made of cheese or that water boils at -50 degrees." The fact is that China pollutes more than the US, and the reason for that is that liberals had the bright idea to give all our industry to a country that doesn't give a shit about pollution.

>>8673198
The state of the universe indeed.

>>8673761
They don't give a shit about pollution yet they, while shouldering the burden of outsourced shit by western nations, still manage to produce less pollution per every Chinese person. Which means that
a) They support other nations with their exports which means they shoulder other people's CO2 emission.
b) Their actual per capita emission is even lower so they are doing much more to help the environment than USA

Yes surely voting for Republicans planning to deregulate everything environment related and bring back the jobs to the USA to pollute is the way.

>>8673761
This isn't a hard concept. You can't do comparisons between countries with out taking into account the differing populations. Lets try a more concrete example, Say we have two countries A and B, A has a population of 1000 and had 10 murders in a year. B has a population of 100,000 and also had 10 murders. Are you really going to claim that the murder rate is the same in both countries? Or are you going to control for population?

I can't believe I've got to explain this.

>>8673770
He is emotionally attached to this, I recommend abandoning any attempts to have an argument.

>>8673767
> Yes surely voting for Republicans planning to deregulate everything environment related and bring back the jobs to the USA to pollute is the way.
Regulation just creates cost of compliance, which reduces efficiency and thus means more resources must be expended to produce anything. That means that in order to produce something, you need to pollute even more than if there weren't regulations. Government regulation makes things worse, not better. China has massive government regulation and its cities are choked in smog, while the US has less government and much clearer skies.

>>8673669
>>8673691
>>8673695
etc
Just to let you know you're a retard.
Your drivel has been the cringiest I've read in weeks. Congrats.
Please, please leave this board, right now, go outside, and step out in front of a truck.
I'm dead serious, kill yourself.
You're a stain.

>>8673777
You sound like an asshurt child.

>>8673775
>China has massive government regulation and its cities are choked in smog
Wrong. Regulation isn't some magic quantity. China's cities are choked because they house tons of people and industry is/was mostly unregulated when it comes to emission.
>while the US has less government and much clearer skies.
Please draw a diagram of developed nations and number of environmental regulations/emission per capita. I assure you USA is not anywhere near the best in that.

>>8673781
Die you mentally defective cunt.

>>8673777
Heavenly trips of truth confirm

>>8673218
this

>>8673503
badly memed my friend

File: lolnothingmatters.png (47KB, 591x286px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 591x286px

>>8673198
from the article

>>8673510
But China

>>8673198
>some literal who blogger
>vs trump's spokesperson saying they have "alternative" facts

her premise is correct, we live in times of emotion, just look at climate deniers

Why are there retards in this thread defending china? Is china shilling on 4chan?

China pollutes more than any other country in the world. The only way china could be worse would be if 800 million of them were lifted out of absolute "never leave your subsistence farming village in your life" poverty levels.

Yes, thats right, currently the major cities in china and industrialized regions only account for around 400 million of the population.

>>8673881
> Why are there retards in this thread defending china? Is china shilling on 4chan?
Leftists want us all to be like china.

>>8673782
> regulations only make things worse because they're the wrong sort of regulation!
Look at the 2008 financial crisis. Look at the great depression before it. Regulation makes things worse, not better.

>>8673889
nice alternative history you got there

>>8673889
The 2008 financial crisis happened because of weakening regulation lmfao.

Banks can't be trusted to function correctly without big government's dick up their ass all the time, I think that's been proven by now. They aren't free market, they are not any market. Everything about them is artificial.

>>8673899
The financial crisis was caused by regulation that forced the banks to give loans to people who had zero business buying homes, all in the name of increasing home ownership among blacks. In the name of "diversity," minorities and their cronies in government crashed the economy, then turned around and blamed the banks and tried to use it as a justification for even more regulation.

> Banks can't be trusted to function correctly without big government's dick up their ass all the time
Banks functioned fine for more than a century before government decided to take control. If you'll notice, all the major bank failures in US history happened AFTER the creation of the fed.

>>8673902
>non-white people crashed the banks
>the state of pol

>>8673903
Also white liberals in government who bought in to the idea that banks should be forced to lend to blacks because RACISM.

>>8673899
>>8673898
Regulations caused the financial crisis. Try reading up on the subject, it's pretty clear that the behavior of the banks was self destructive and they only acted that way because the government forced them to. No business wants to implode, it wants to go on making money. Crisises like 2008 are caused when the government forces businesses to do things that are not in their best interests.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2015/01/26/government-policies-caused-the-financial-crisis-and-made-the-recession-worse
http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/government-policies-caused-the-financial-crisis-and-made-the
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2009/did-deregulation-cause-financial-crisis

>>8673898
The fed caused the great depression.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/
> I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

>>8673914
>No business wants to implode, it wants to go on making money.
Read this again and again and again.

>>8673934
No business wants to implode because they're profit motivated. Surviving means more profit than dying. The government, however, doesn't care if businesses survive, and the government is perfectly happy to drive businesses to ruin by forcing them to do self destructive things through regulation. Banks don't want to collapse, so they don't willingly do things that might cause them to collapse. It was the government that forced them to.

>>8673941
>No business wants to implode because they're profit motivated. Surviving means more profit than dying.
>Banks don't want to collapse, so they don't willingly do things that might cause them to collapse.

>>8673946
Since you seem to be having trouble understanding, I'll break it down for you:

- Businesses want to make money and will do things to maximize the amount of money they make.

- Surviving means that they make more money.

- Dying means that they don't make as much money.

- Businesses want to make more money, so they will try to survive.

- Businesses will not do things that result in dying.

- A massive crash is not caused by businesses, because they don't want to die and will not do things that result in a crash.

- The only way to make a business do something that would result in a crash is if they are forced to do it.

- The government forces businesses to do things through regulation.

- Government regulation forced businesses to do things that led to the crash.

>>8673503
>political science

lmoa

File: 1486969531325.png (13KB, 488x407px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 488x407px

>>8673292

File: 1486969443432.png (35KB, 615x542px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 615x542px

>>8673292
you aren't making any sense

File: 1486969087274.png (43KB, 610x444px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 610x444px

>>8673292

>Slate
>science

Pick one.

>>8673494
look
> most reactors in germany are over 50 years old
>leftists made laws against the deoveplement and building of new reactors
>now imagine how much safer a car from today is over a 50 year old car

also new types of reactors could use the stuff thats waste for the oldones

>>8673520
no its in fact a big nature reservate since humans tend to stay away from there

>>8673198
anyone have the archive link?

i don't wanna give them clicks for writing this shit

>>8673539
the desaster was man made they should have constructed the backup generators in a way that they didnt filled with water

>>8673575
aquaculture is the technology

>>8673461
Then maybe they should stop saying the planet is the one being harmed, you daft moron.

>>8673244

Efficiency always rules over feelings, and humanity has reached a stated where it just can't stop progressing.

Cut oil consumption, cut mineral extraction and leave people living in slums, incapable of adjusting to the new levels of population, poverty would increase and conflict become so common that a true dystopian society would form, a society where everyone is saying "eh! Lets not exctract 1.000.000 tons of litium or Tungsten because it will end in about 70 years.

If there is a window for the human population to expand out of this planet is now, as species we have around 60 years before we lose the window of oportunity that the consumption society is giving us.

If we fail to do this, there will be no new oportunities for serveral million years, until there are new cycles of extinction that reorganizes all the resources we extracted from the surface and creates new oil for the next ones to fall under the same problems as we did.

Its not a matter of choosing progress or not, but rather a colective desition of what should be our place in the universe.

>>8674099
yea ok whatever

>>8673244
>But that doesn't mean that humanity's progress should be impaired worldwide by banning an efficient and cheap source of energy, that's an absolutely fucking retarded idea that only an economically-retarded left can come up with.
1) No climate scientist suggest an outright ban on fossil fuels
2) A push for renewable energy is widely considered an investment that will make sense economically. Especially when factoring in the global impact of mitigating global warming (but the right doesn't care about the rest of the world, even though our economy is affected by global economies).
3) Nobody realistic believes we can simply "fix it" with some technology that pops up within a decade or two. You're literally relying on a miracle. That's always the wrong way to do things.

>>8674137
> No climate scientist suggest an outright ban on fossil fuels
Of course not, they just want a massive tax on fossil fuels that will result in the exact same thing: The economy crashing as transportation costs shoot through the roof, food prices rising and people all over the world starving, and modern civilization grinding to a halt because "green" energy is completely unable to replace fossil fuels and the left is constantly blocking nuclear power.

>tfw too intelligent to use facts

>>8674157
The price of gas was literally double just over a year ago and it didn't crash the economy. It was annoying but we were fine. Then again, a "massive tax" on fossil fuels is not a commonly proposed solution. That is completely fabricated out of your fears.

>>8673527
Because surprise surprise, gentleman's agreements and not challenging authority when they're in the wrong leads to dangerous abuses. This has been a problem in Japan for a very long time.

>>8673666
Which is why we're all using Russian processors and Russian jet engines and Russian machining equipment, right?

>>8674173
> implying liberals would be content with just doubling
Also, the price of gas isn't the only thing that would be impacted by the carbon tax that the warmists have been demanding. Literally all energy costs would rise, since the vast majority of all power generation in the world comes from fossil fuels.

>>8673198
Idiots. I'm not reading the newspaper for facts or emotions: we need reasonings and argumentations. What good is a fact or opinion without any reason?

>>8673492

it never ceases to amaze me how utterly and completely this website is basically becoming stormchan. it's infecting every board and every poster.

anyways it just seems strange to me for anyone who browses 4chan to look down on others as degenerate. earlier today on this very board I saw a thread about a guy who stopped wiping his ass for a week to see if he could relate to ancient people, and that's pretty tame compared to some of the horrible shit that gets posted to this hellhole daily

>>8673954

You seem to be implying that there aren't irresponsible people in literally every field of every vocation of every society on planet earth. Business is filled with irresponsible people just like government is filled with irresponsible people just like this fucking board if probably filled with irresponsible people

>science indicates a scientifically sound way to argue that gets results
>/sci/ientists don't like the answer they found so they reject it
lol

>>8674095
or maybe you should grow up and realize that "save the livable section of the earth's crust" is a pedantic difference that nobody is stupid enough to need pointed out to them, you literal retard

>>8674278
There are some irresponsible people in business. The difference between business and government is that in business, irresponsible people get weeded out fast, whereas in government they're allowed to run things into the ground without consequence. In business, if you make bad decisions that lose money, you get fired and you're done. Government is a democracy, whereas business is a meritocracy.

>>8673396
>submitted to postmodern cultural studies
anybody on either side that doesn't stop reading there is retarded

>>8674296
The fact there was even a postmodern cultural studies journal to publish it shows how badly the left has corrupted academia.

File: HYPERFIREMADFROG.jpg (78KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x500px

>>8673616
turn down your caps

JUST KIDDING IM MAD FOR THE SAME REASON

>>8673492
You realise that their existence is required for yours, right? Those 'third world degenerates' live on pennies while extracting and processing the metal ore, growing the crops, making the clothes and recycling the rubbish that allows the first world to function. And it doesn't cost the first world a penny because for every dollar of 'aid' sent over there twenty four dollars are extracted again by the multinational corporations running the whole operation.

>>8673477
>Again, I point to the MILLIONS of species that went extinct prior to the industrial revolution.

In under a century? They all went extinct in 100 years did they? Nice one retard.

>>8674325
>The fact there was even a postmodern cultural studies journal to publish it shows how badly the left has corrupted academia.

In what way?

>>8673198
I hate everything everybody has posted in this thread, and am quite angry about it.

Are any of you convinced to change your positions?

>>8674419
If you can't see what's wrong with having a postmodern cultural studies journal, I really don't know what to say to you. It's like having an academic journal for 50 Shades of Grey fanfiction.

>>8674429

No please, give me a detailed critique of the perceived issue, like someone educated on the subject would actually do.

>>8674157
Taxation is theft though.

>>8673616
>SCI USED TO BE THE BEST BOARD ON THIS FUCKING WEBSITE

You don't honestly believe this, do you?

>>8674429
Anyone who targets the "le postmodernism" bogeyman should be shot

>>8674718
>You don't honestly believe this, do you?
That may be more a comment on the other boards than on /sci/

>>8673616
The left is correct, though

>>8673198

all the tech blogs are swamped with rants about trump, I just want to read about new research...

>>8674724
"le postmodernism"
they literally use the words "postmodern" to describe themselves.
>>8674444
>>8674724
if you don't see what's wrong with it, please go find a journal covering any of these buzzwords:
postmodernism, colonialism, intersectionality, post-colonialism, autoethnobiography
I could go on, but it's just an alphabet soup of horseshit. the if you're on here you should be able to find articles relating, and if you've got the reading comprehension to actually understand the points under the mound of pretentious wording, it's spitting in the eye of the scientific method.
I'd link some studies I've stumbled on but they're all from my uni library's collection and every time I try to link them it doesn't work

>>8673696
>per capita

They produce much more overall but they have an over 4x larger population.

>>8674825
They just consume less. When they've improved their quality of life to the same level we will be seeing greater consumption like in Japan and finally like in the USA.

>>8674848
yeah poor people buy less shit. don't know how that proves your point

>>8673198
Emotions are too inconsistent I say we use instincts instead, my instincts tell me I should behead anyone who doesnt agree with me.

>>8673378
>Fuck the future of humanity. If browsing this board can teach you anything, it's that humanity is a plague
CRAAAAAAAAWLIIIIIING IIIIIIN MY SKIIIIIIIIN

>>8674850
As they get richer they will buy more shit. That's the point. While they may have lower per capita consumption now they; A) won't for long (it's increasing), and; B) they still have greater absolute pollution.

>>8673378
My instinct tells me I should beat you up.

>>8673443
>mass extinction event.
Big deal.

>>8674865
your instincts would be the end of you

>>8674099
>>8674106
The contrast between the seriousness of the first post and the second one's reply just fucking cracked me up

>>8673881
trump is anti china, therefore they must be pro-china.

they cant admit that they were wrong about free trade and letting china do everything.

they're afraid of actually having to work in a factory instead of using that nice chinese slave labor and getting free shit from our government.

>>8674858
that implies that higher value products inherently produce more pollution, which is an unsubstantiated claim

>>8674873
My instincts say you are wrong.

Science is dead, the liberals killed her.
F

>>8673198
Because Slate is garbage, my dude.

>>8673198
>Slate
Even below CNN in quality, nobody cares.

>>8673443
>rightist have a low IQ
Confirmation bias

>>8673244
???
Must you label everything into two irrelevant archaic groupings? Especially when most so-called "leftist" political standings are more about structures and refined factual systems than so-called "rightist" political standings, which are more about tradition and sentimentality; and that's generalising as fuck because left and right aren't good descriptors. Even breaking them into subcategories isn't good enough. They're vague buzzwords for people who don't know what they're talking about.

File: Brautigan-60-edited.jpg (791KB, 1706x1929px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1706x1929px

hey guys, why don't we all take this time to enjoy a lovely discourse over the unabomber's manifesto on post industrial society

>>8673198
>http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/02/counter_lies_with_emotions_not_facts.html

It's called rhetoric. You don't have to "give up on facts"

*alternative emotions

>>8673198
you fucking spergs, the point is the retards in general have completely disregarded facts in favor of just saying whatever the fuck they want and arguing against them with facts doesnt work since they simply dont give a shit, so at this point its more effective to just use emotion anyway since at least they will respond to it

stop sperging out ffs

>>8673198
>(((Zimmerman)))

>>8673244
>and to explain how technology will eventually fix it in the near decade or two
That is an unjustified assumption on your part. Do you really want to gamble the survival of humanity on this bet? If we already knew what technology we are going to invent in the future then we would already invent it now. People in the 70ies thought we would have moon cities, flying cars and nuclear reactors in every house by now. Look how that worked out.

>>8673495
>You think people invent new technology out of the goodness of their hearts? Nope, that's just a utopian fantasy. In the real world, scientific progress occurs because there is money to be made

The innate desire for technological progress and understanding existed long before capitalism, look at the immense works of scientific effort that happened in the u.s.s.r? I get that it's the only world you've ever known and have been brainwashed with a false narrative but believe it or not humans are not solely donkeys in need of carrots. Now capitalism is so far the greatest system of prosperity we have devised as a species to date but what do you know about that? You think what we have today is capitalism? it isn't it's corporatism.

>>8676173
Everyone understands that, the point is they are not dousing the fire with foam, they are fighting fire with fire. They are using it as an excuse to intensify their own particular brand of emotional appeals which will only cause more problems.

The point is to find ways to stop people falling for emotional appeals in general.

>>8676416
Corporatism is capitalism poisoned by too much government. Without government interference, corporations are kept in check by competition. It's only once they're able to amass more power and control through government rent seeking that it becomes corporatism. The more government regulation that has been piled on over the years, the more we've moved away from capitalism and toward corporatism. What we need now is less government. That will restore competition to the market and lead to far more technological progress than any government could achieve. There's a reason why the USSR no longer exists. Communism doesn't produce anything but equal misery, and it certainly doesn't produce technological advancement.

>>8677023
I think you'll find that it's capitalism poisoning government.

>Without government interference, corporations are kept in check by competition

kek.

>>8677023
>Without government interference, corporations are kept in check by competition.
Totally. In fact corporations love a good competition. They only buy up all those small companies to spite the govt. They would stop if the govt backed off.

>>8677173
>>8677174

Name a single harmful monopoly that didn't depend on the government to keep its position.

>>8678645
Since we made laws against them? None. Some companies are allowed to hold control of a localized industry in exchange for some autonomy, especially in pricing. This happens with large infrastructure and stuff, like your electric company.

>>8679198
Got any proof that those laws were even necessary in the first place?

>>8673499
Yeah, but it's important to look good, not do the right thing. Nuclear = scary. Duh don't you read?

>>8679198
wrong.
the regulations for starting a business are a defacto barricade against competition for existing conglomerates

>>8679200
We've had these laws for over 100 years, so don't pretend like we'd be better off without them. Yes, the laws are necessary. AT&T was forced to break up because they owned a major electric company, which allowed them to subsidize themselves into cheaper operations than any competition could ever have. Obviously unfair.

>>8679258
Sure regulations are a barricade, but at the moment it's hardly restrictive. New businesses pop up all the time. Conglomerates are happy to buy them up. As long as regulations aren't overly restrictive, they are beneficial to prevent monopolistic practices.

File: image.jpg (20KB, 587x440px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 587x440px

>>8673292

>>8679447
Extremist ideologues are extremely irrational.

>>8673505
>/pol/ is one person

File: ff5aa509-2bfa-4a49-cac3-617166dbf437.png (864KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1280x960px

>>8673616
This is our fate, anon. Calm down and accept it.

>>8679461
> There is only one /pol/tard who's bad at logic
Found a third one

>>8673506
the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility.

File: origen vs ken ham.jpg (401KB, 620x696px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 620x696px

>>8673198
I'm a trump supporter but they're right.

When you debate with a creationist, you can't beat them over the head with the "fossils put in the dirt by the devil" that you call "evidence." You have to show them how the Bible is incompatible with young-earth creationism and how Genesis is not a book meant to be taken literally unless you want to turn people away from believing in God.

You can't debate with pure facts, you have to debate with 'you're a fucking heretic and disparaging God.' When debating with ANYONE you have to debate using their own accepted canon(the bible/fox news/CNN/etc.) rather than sources you find reliable.

>>8673292
nice b8

>>8674275
plebbit pls go and stay go

>>8679447
>im making fun of centrists for changing their opinions based on what is currently happening and don't hold opinions close to their heart like lunatics or fanatics

it's funny that people actually think that just because you were left/right your entire life and you didn't STIR FROM YOUR BELIEFS you win anything or some shit,no,you're just extra % of retard

LEARN TO CHANGE YOUR OPINIONS
THINGS CHANGE
PEOPLE CHANGE

>>8676416
>believe it or not humans are not solely donkeys in need of carrots.
Honestly I don't think there is any evidence to disprove this statement. Certainty in my own experience, humans basically are donkeys in need of carrots. It's pretty philosophical, but people actively working against their own (or their community's) interest are pretty much nonexistent.

That being said, it doesn't necessarily prove capitalism is superior; the state (or even society in general, as traditionalists would argue) could provide the "carrot." But you do need some kind of incentive structure for progress to occur.

>>8679457
>Extremist ideologues are extremely irrational.
Your definition of what is "extreme" is entirely arbitrary. 100 years ago our modern political discourse would have been unthinkably "extreme." In the USSR Bernie Sanders would have been executed as a counterrevolutionary capitalist; in Vichy France Marine le Pen would have been labeled a subversive leftist. Politics isn't like math where there are absolute values or truths generally accepted by all. "Extremism" is just a matter of perspective.

seeking truth. knowing truth. understanding truth. is very personal. the flaw is believing facts (or what you believe to be facts) are infallible. majority of 'facts' cited to validate current arguments are incredibly vulnerable to the persistent and well informed contrarian. this is what dilutes our ability to defend current positions. our facts are shit.

>>8673244
>Meh, next generation will fix it, I'll just keep fucking shit up
Said your parents, you, your kids, etc... Real convincing.

>>8673481
>capitalist
>not wanting my tax dollars wasted on EPA boondoggles
>capitalist

has nothing to do with capitalism faggot. before you go spouting your bullshit at me, i've worked for many different sectors of the federal government so everything im telling you is shit i have seen first hand.

climate change is easy shit. you can cop big money if you are researching anything to do with climate change, and more importantly you don't actually have to produce anything of tangible use. you can literally just repackage old data and do a few """"experiments"""" and call it something new.

i think climate change should be researched. however, right now its literally white mans welfare and it is keeping much more pressing ecological issues in this country from being resolved.

>>8673218
how so?

>>8673198
It's america, every lie is possible. She fought against bullshit, now she writes bullshit, everything is in balance.