ralfy

Again, you're not challenging my arguments in any way but trying to change the topic by talking about me. Given that, I see no relevance whatsoever in your posts and will be putting you in my ignore list.

From what I gathered, what most people want is the status quo. That is, the use of the petro-dollar for much of world trade, the same petro-dollar backed by a very expensive U.S. military to make sure that various resources, especially oil, are made available for increasing economic growth, oil used to ensure increased production and consumption of goods to maintain the value of that petro-dollar and money in general, and the same money used to fund medical research and to ensure that more people can pay for advanced health care.

Your post does not make any sense at all. I am not a "definition," I am not "the atheist in question," and what do I have have to do with this issue? Look, it's not so hard to understand: read the entries which I shared earlier which define "atheism," "religious," and "religion," and you will see what I mean.

In reality, the ave. ecological footprint has been beyond biocapacity for some time. See the links about ecological footprint shared in the other thread for details. Also, in a "capitalist ethos," technologies do not only make previous ones obsolete they lead to a ramp up of resource use. This was also explained in previous messages and in the other thread. No, we're not in agreement. Rather, you're not in agreement with your own views. You argue that what I say is naive and yet you support it. That's it.

I cannot imagine military organizations and even defense industries agreeing to cuts. If any, they always want more, especially given military forces used to keep the petro-dollar propped up or to access natural resources in other countries by force.

Expanding a definition of religion as to "render it useless"? That point makes no sense at all. What I did is show, correctly, the various definitions of religion, and you did not counter that in any way. If any, what makes this thread "absurd" isn't the fact that religion has several definitions. It's that you can't accept that.

As explained to you in the other thread, the type of lifestyle that you envision, i.e., that of Costa Rica, requires an ecological footprint above bio-capacity. And that's assuming that the global population will not increase further and that no more environmental damage will take place. The type of lifestyle that will fit the current global biocapacity is that of Cuba, but that again assumes that the current global population will not increase further and that no environmental damage or resource shortage will take place. So, you see, I did not give a "definition of high standard of living." Rather, I used what you proposed. Finally, what is most ironic about your example is that given its own biocapacity, Costa Rica is already at overshoot. That is, it will require resource inputs from other countries to maintain its current lifestyle. You missed his point. What Charles Hall said is that we need a certain level of EROEI to maintain a particular lifestyle. You will find more details in the SciAm article linked in the other thread. The catch is that oil used to have a far better energy return than renewable energy, but now it is almost as low as that of the latter. Do you understand the argument? We need high energy returns to maintain the current middle class lifestyle and, ironically, the same "capitalist ethos" discussed in this thread. The six decades of economic progress, not to mention meeting the needs of a growing global middle class, required "cheap" oil or oil with high energy returns, something that met an energy increase demand of 2 pct per annum the last three decades, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. If you want more details, then read the IEA Outlook 2010 report which was linked to earlier in the other thread. Remember, a "capitalist ethos" requires ever-increasing energy and resource use to maintain continuous economic growth. That can't happen if the energy returns for oil are now almost as low as that of renewable energy. What makes matters worse is that even the infrastructure and resources needed to make renewable energy possible still require fossil fuels, especially as petrochemicals. And although theoretically it is possible to transition completely from fossil fuels, it will take decades plus meeting an energy trap to do so. Again, these points were explained carefully to you in the other thread. Given these, the global middle class will have to lower standards significantly to that of Costa Rica, which you suggested. But as explained to you in the other thread and in my previous message, even the living standards of Costa Rica are above both global biocapacity and even the biocapacity of Costa Rica itself. The implication is that given that plus increasing population plus the effects of environmental damage and global warming, then the ave. ecological footprint will have to drop even further, even lower than that of Cuba. Finally, will the capitalist elite, which controls much of the global economy and much of whose wealth consists of numbers in bank hard drives, allow for that? How about military forces that require increasing use of resources to maintain operations? Most of the human population that can barely meet even the living standards of Costa Rica?

I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that if all countries spend the same percentage of medical research, then all of their military forces will be of the same strength? I don't think countries will lower military spending, as that allows for control of various resources, etc.

It's the other way round: the "existence of different definitions" alters "the broken logic structure you put forth." I'll demonstrate below. No, my argument addresses the question raised in the title thread. It even addresses your last point: based on the various definitions of "religion," Buddhism is and isn't a religion. Apply the same point to the question in the title thread, and read my previous messages for details. No, I didn't, as religion <> religious.

A "high standard of living" requires high energy returns. Also, a global capitalist system "energy saving measures" do not lead to more energy or resources used as they are used elsewhere for more profits. These points were explained in the thread about peak oil. No, that's not what happened. Rather, you acknowledged the presence of violence and then tried to explain it away as part of "human nature." After that, you argued that it had nothing to do with problems today, which negates your claim about violence being "natural." Finally, you started looking at my motives, which not only has nothing to do with the topic but negates your first two points. In fact, the same errors can even be seen in your paragraph above. See for yourself: in your first sentence, you imply that force used in the past is not "a problem today." And yet you argue the opposite in your next sentence: "it is just as prevalent today." In fact, you even validate your second point by stating that "it's there." You need to make up your mind on this before we continue the discussion. And I suggest that you don't bring in anything about motives or whether or not anyone who raises these points should "surrender" what they own, etc. My view is naive and yet you acknowledge it! No, I didn't say that. Why are you trying to change the subject? No, there is no such thing. And "oppressive heavy state control" will not help as that's based on state capitalism.

Nations in a global capitalist system want longer life spans but also more powerful military forces. To achieve that, they don't cut the military budget but expand extraction of resources to maintain continuous economic growth. In various cases, the same military forces are employed to ensure the latter.

For me, it's localization leading to resilience.

Logic fail. Your analogy is completely wrong because there are different definitions of religion and of atheism. See for yourself. Exactly my point. That's right. That's what "not necessarily" means.

The amount of energy needed today, especially by a growing global middle class, exceeds those of "several civilizations" in the past multiple-fold. For example, the U.S. alone, which has less than 5 pct of the world's population, requires up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain economic growth. For the rest of the world to follow (and it has to given a global capitalist system) we will need several more earths. Again, these and other points, including bio-capacity, issues concerning phosphorus, petrochemicals, and more were explained to you thoroughly in another thread. But you even acknowledged the opposite in your subsequent posts! See what I mean? You're not just contradicting yourself in your posts, you even do it between paragraphs! Your second paragraph, for example, shows the opposite of the first. As I said, you can't even make up your mind about your own arguments. Also, your second paragraph SUPPORTS arguments, not refutes them. I never argued that "we don't need such." What I said is that the origins of capitalism is violence, and you just confirmed that. The next thing is for your to figure out whether or not the same police and armed forces will not turn on the same civilians they are supposed to protect. Good luck with that naive fantasy. Take it from us? You gotta be kidding me! It's the OTHER WAY round. In fact, it's been the other way round the past six decades! What are you going to do next? Acknowledge that and argue that it's "natural" or that those who took must now return what they took, else the argument is wrong? This is what you've been doing in all of your posts: first argue that capitalism is not based on violence, and then argue that it is so because violence is part of human nature, and then imply that capitalism isn't based on violence because those who benefit from capitalism aren't returning what they took. Please make up your mind on this issue so that we can continue the discussion logically. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time by committing the same mistakes in each post. No, you are completely wrong about this. Land enclosed was not secured but taken by force. And the fact that a "legal document" was created after the land was enclosed shows the origins of those legalities. And the employment of a legal document has absolutely nothing to do human nature. If you study your history carefully, you will see that enclosures and private property based on the law came much later. That derails your argument about it being part of human nature, as your point would imply that private property should have existed from the beginning. The rest of your post is irrelevant as it merely repeats my argument: the agrarian origins of capitalism (explained in my second post) leading to the current phenomena described in my first post. Your refuted neither.

But because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why atheists can also be considered religious.

Read the article carefully. It is about enclosures that were started during the late Middle Ages in England. It is not about hyperboles but explains the agrarian origins of modern capitalism. Land was not "secured" but taken by force, and that did not legitimize ownership. Enclosures did centuries later. Read the article for more details. It was not "their abode" that armed men enclosed. Rather, it was land commonly used by peasants that they controlled. Do you understand? They didn't secure land that they owned. Rather, they took away land commonly used by others by force. That makes the claim of "forced security" based on "human nature" ridiculous, together with the analog of a locked door. Ridiculous. Let's see you come up with proof showing that the global capitalist economy does not involve private ownership of the means of production! Now, you're acknowledging the argument! You can't even make up your mind on this topic. They don't due to lower energy returns. This was explained to you in another thread about peak oil.

As stated in the article, there are also different forms of atheism.

Again, you did not read the article. Enclosures took place during the late Middle Ages not to "secure and control" land to grow crops but to take control of land that was used by peasants to grow crops. The armed men who formed enclosures did not grow crops. Rather, they declared that they now owned the land and that peasants who used to grow in commonly owned land now had to work for them. That is the origin of "normal, necessary, civilized state of affairs." It's not "Orwellian oppression" but the use of violence to attain ownership followed by legitimizing that ownership. The "set of rules" were "imposed" not "to make things fair" but to force peasants to work for armed men. That is the origin of private property as part of capitalism. I never referred to a fair wage, rules, or even state control. What I said is that capitalism, whether state or free market, eventually leads to over-production, over-consumption, greater increase in credit, pollution, and population. And with a twenty-fold increase in armaments production, the development of nuclear weapons, and all sorts of false flags employed to attack other countries over oil and other resources, do not expect the absence of oppression. That freedom takes the form of a middle class lifestyle, in turn made possible through the very conditions that will not allow it to continue. Read my first message in this thread for details. I think the second clause, which refers to the wealthy, is critical. The catch is that the wealthy attain their status ironically by more profits or greater returns on investment, and that ultimately involves producing more goods and services and selling them to the non-wealthy. Also, robots, like human beings and various machines, are affected by physical laws that limit availability of resources and energy. More details can be found in my first message in this thread. Unfortunately, this requires extensive availability of resources and energy, and something that cannot be achieved given a "capitalist ethos."

This might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Secularism_and_irreligion

It is good to see you addressing my points. This is much better than referring to a "grudge" or some other off-topic argument. The purpose of enclosure was not to protect land but to take control of land owned by no one. I think the problem is that you focused on the idea of "armed people" and not the act of enclosures. Also, the use of force in this case was employed not to "defend whatever you value" but to take control of what others value. I think you should read the article carefully before commenting further. There was no "current pitch." Land was not owned by anyone. Again, read the article carefully and my previous posts. This is painfully obvious, unless you intend to prove that various means of productions are not private property, or that "democracy" can counter "high density conglomerations." I think one has to be incredibly naive to do both. No questions about that. In fact, the whole system is a gigantic set of machines requiring incredible amounts of energy and resources to keep going. And the amount of credit involved is hundreds of times larger. This explains the current predicaments of a permanent economic crisis, peak oil, and environmental damage coupled with global warming. We will not be able to stop it. The three predicaments mentioned will. In fact, we are now seeing the signs of that. I was not offering an alternative, and I don't think there ever will be one. By the way, state control or state capitalism has the same problems as free market capitalism. The latter, though, leads to more chaos due to deregulation. Hence, we have a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars. Try to figure out how much resources will be needed to back that credit. Actually, one feeds on the other. Put simply, "useful things" are thrown away so that consumers will buy new "useful things," and that means more profits for businesses. Welcome to capitalism. I wasn't referring to imperfections, unfairness, or even alternatives, but to internal flaws in capitalism. As I have shown in my posts, capitalism originated from violence and employs it through the law, leads to over-production, over-consumption, and environmental damage, and creates benefits that lead to more problems (e.g., increased food production through the Green Revolution and manufacture of medicine, etc., leading to significant improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality drops, but also a population boom and a bio-capacity that can now barely sustain not just a growing human population but a growing global middle class, with resource and energy requirements that are much higher). I think you mistakenly thought that I was an anti-capitalist and that I want the system removed. Actually, I am not anti-capitalist, and I did not propose such. My argument is that because of internal flaws in capitalism and its effects, the global capitalist economy will not last. I gave an explanation in my first post in this thread, which you will find here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/#entry773781 All I did after that was give the origins of such a system, which you will find here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775466

Actually, it takes on one form or another, based on various circumstances.

My points have nothing to do with a grudge but with simple facts about the matter. You will find them in my first post: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775466 and my counter to your arguments: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775607

Yes, as religion can generally refer to a cultural system.

I think you need to look at the amps indicated in the blender specs.

No, that's not the same, unless "every animal" you are referring to has a deed or similar document and courts to back legal claims. No, that's not "basic human nature," as enclosures, the use of scrip, etc., appeared later. Also, "every other creature" does not employ processes such as wages and exchange markets. And the purpose is not to secure "protection, availability of food and shelter." Read my previous message carefully. No, it's not the same as pitching a tent for painfully obvious reasons, unless you are referring to tents that have areas that take up several hectares. No, it's not a matter of workers receiving less or more, or even incompetence. Read my previous post carefully. No, it's the opposite. Fixed costs are spread across more goods produced, leading to lower cost per unit. That's not the point. Read my previous message carefully. Actually, they are, and have been for decades. Terms such as "fads," "planned obsolescence," and "advertising" come into play. And it works both ways: given competition companies have to sell more each time. Hence, lots of calls from people offering more credit cards, investments in real estate, etc. Your point isn't helpful, because you will end up buying something else, taking on another job and receiving wages, looking for another employer, or replacing one government with another. You are still in the same capitalism system. Are you talking about another system? Actually, no, because the system is still the same, whether it's state or free market capitalism. Also, not just state control but control by capitalists runs "contrary to democracy," unless you actually believe the majority of people can force a financial elite to work in its favor. Finally, government likely works for Big Business and not the other way round, especially given control of the global economy by a financial elite: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html