Total posts: 12,563
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's all privately financed
Private buisnesses cant afford to spend 100 trillion dollars in USA by 2050.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, so government which punishes people who buy things that end up killing other people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, I am perma-banned.
I figured if pie wont play, we can.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It can't be anarchy as you need a government to make sure consumers take personal responsibility for the stuff they buy.
So government with least interference in economy then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
/in
And I think Greyparrot would maybe play too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The best government will allow you to put whatever you want in your cart as long as you pay for it and take ownership and responsibility.
So capitalist anarchy?
Well, obviously, it would lower expenses, if nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Di people fall to sleep while listening to you rambling, Ray?
I think its meant to confuse people, like those philosophers do.
"Every rabbit is an animal. Lion is an animal. Lion is rabbit. Lion can beat lion. Rabbit can beat lion. But what can beat both is their own strength."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thats all governments too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a grand total of zero capitalists that want to make a car that nobody wants.
Lol true
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Today's socialist has drained cobalt all over the planet to make cars nobody wants.
Its a mix of socialism and capitalism in USA, a mix that doesnt work so well because government is trying to use greed to control capitalist greed. Giving tax break to electric car doesnt mean anything when those cars cost more in long run.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would say US government subsidies renewables the most.
From FY 2016 to FY 2022, nearly half (46 percent) of federal energy subsidies were associated with renewable energy
But renewable is only 20% of energy, but gets 46% of subsidies.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Then build the power plants in 5 to 10 years. We got enough time.
It takes 5 to 10 years to build a nuclear power plant, which means not only you must pay insane amounts of money to build it, but you still have to depend on other sources for the next 10 years.
The nuclear power plant such as the one in USA which produces 1400 megawatts would today cost at least 10 billion dollars.
There is about 50 of them or so.
So a 100 more of them, which would be needed to cover current electricity consumption, would cost 1000 billion dollars, which is 1 trillion.
However, if everyone switched to electric cars and if we had electric military, the electricity consumption would increase by over 100 times, which means it would cost 100 trillion dollars to switch to nuclear power, as you would need to build not 100 power plants, but 10,000 of them to cover the new consumption.
There are only 1% of electric cars in USA, so if all cars switched to electric, their electricity consumption would increase by 100 times.
US military uses 16,000,000,000 liters of fuel per year.
It would take lots of additional electricity production to replace all that fuel with electric power.
This is in addition to the fact that all the money will also have to be used to replace fuel cars, fuel air planes, fuel fighter planes, fuel tanks...ect.
Both military and civilian segment would have to be built from start, as none of the current tanks or air planes would be useful anymore.
Plus, additional costs would rise from the fact that electric cars and electric air planes and electric tanks would break down much more often. Some sources even say that electric cars break down 10 times more often than cars which run on fuel.
USA is struggling with inflation, and paying 100 trillion dollars by 2050 (4 trillion per year) would likely cause economic collapse.
Its a price not even USA can afford to pay by 2050, let alone the rest of the world who is much poorer than USA is.
So even if you manage to find additional uranium supplies, it is still too expensive even for USA, so you can imagine how much more difficult would it be for the rest of the world.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
fossil fuels are only a thing still because of government subsidies.
Wait, how does government subsidies fuel?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This won't always be the case though as the technology is improving.
But what if technology doesnt improve nearly enough in the next 30 years? Because you are arguing for the classical "lets spend as much as we can and hope that something comes up and saves us" mentality.
Nuclear is cheaper than solar
Nuclear power plant takes 5 to 10 years to be built.
Which is easy enough to do.
Is it? Because we arent finding new sources of uranium right now. What we have are just theories about how it could be found.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You just have to build new planes.
Electric fighter planes arent as nearly as good as those which run on fuel.
Keep in mind, if nuclear replaces everything except military use, then that's thousands of years of gasoline fuel for the military.
You would maybe have that in planned economy. In capitalism, nuclear energy is too expensive and takes long time to build. Also, many people even today arent big fans of electric cars.
Key word is current; implying you can replenish uranium supplies
You can only replenish them if you find new sources of uranium.
Created:
Posted in:
What if you were wrong?
Well, I wouldnt be surprised. It is only 1 out of 3000 chance to accuratelly guess the correct God.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Capitalism may suck for you, it worked out well for me.
No, it worked well for me too.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you need to strap hundreds of nuclear powered batteries to an engine, then so be it.
In terms of military power, its a great disadvantage.
It's better to not have war/militaries to begin with
I agree, but thats not really an option. Its not like all countries would ever agree to abolish their militaries.
Where is your source for this information?
"With the world’s current uranium resources expected to be depleted by the end of the century, the search for new sources of uranium has become more urgent."
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Future technology might disagree with this
It wont tho.
Tank uses 100 times more fuel than a car, and jet plane uses even more during flight.
The batteries needed to power them would take days to charge, and would have to be much larger than the ones currently used in cars. Their range would be much shorter than the ones which run on fuel. So a military electric plane would fly for few hours and then charge for 2 days, which is about as bad as it gets, even if it was possible to make with small enough battery.
I don't know what your alternative is to expanding nuclear energy.
This isnt really about nuclear energy, but about capitalism racing to deplete resources. Due to this race, fuel will run out by 2050 or 2060. Then the world will change completely, especially in military sense. All today's militaries rely on fuel to power aircraft, tank and transport. Basically, the country which saves up most fuel will have huge advantage over any other country in terms of military once fuel runs out. So essentially, governments which use planned economy will save fuel while those relying on capitalism will waste fuel until they run out of it. And fuel is the best possible energy for military planes and tanks and transports. The other sources are far worse.
Chat GPT is giving me tens of thousands of years.
Current supplies of useful uranium will run out in 200 years under current consumption, but if everyone switched to nuclear, they would run out in 20 to 40 years. Now, there are some theories about converting useless type of uranium to useful, but those are just theories. Most theories which sound too good to be true usually are false.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They can be electric, which would in turn be nuclear powered if every vehicle is electric
They cant be electric either. There is no way to make use of a tank which has to charge for 10 hours so that it can drive 2 hours, and even breaks down often. In a military sense, electric tank is nonsense, as well as electric fighter jet.
This is not Japan; this is America.
Nuclear disasters can happen anywhere. They just dont happen as often because nuclear energy isnt used as often. In fact, nuclear energy right now is in insignificant amount in electricity production.
The supply of nuclear energy materials is millions of years from what I read. It's as good as forever.
Some sources say 200 years under current consumption. However, if we switched to only nuclear energy, that would become much shorter due to huge increase in consumption.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't think that's true. Aircraft carriers use nuclear energy
But airplanes and tanks and missiles and transport vehicles dont, nor they can.
Nuclear accidents are pretty much ancient history; they are regulated enough to where that's not plausible
It happened in Japan few decades ago. Any time where there is an earthquake, a flood or hurricane, you risk disaster. But nuclear energy isnt infinite either, and isnt suitable for military.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I find it very odd that all ancient people were given signs, such as a talking cloud God, and Jesus raising from dead, but modern society gets no sign of any kind. Like, not even one miracle.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is nuclear energy which the free market is developing.
Its mass use would be dangerous, since any accident means the area cant be used for decades. Plus, military, modern military, runs on oil, not nuclear energy.
But we got 80 years of gas left (so 80 years to get electric cars and nuclear energy); we will be fine.
The oil will run out in 30 to 40 years, and the countries will have to fight over who gets last supplies.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
As much as I'm aware of Socialism stealing people's rights, acting inefficiently, stagnating societies, and sacrificing portions of the population
Same can be said about many countries which have free market or somewhat free market.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The capitalist tries to make more chocolate so people can have as much chocolate as they want (with the profit motive as incentive to work hard enough to produce chocolate).
The example of chocolate was representing resource, not product. You cannot "make" more fuel out of nothing, and when resources such as fuel are finite and you cannot make more of them, using more of them means you will run out of them faster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
Well, that wasn't as fun as I thought it might be.
Its hard to make them all good, and I am not exactly an expert at comedy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06 - This guy probably had best grades in class, especially at math and all the logic stuff. He is the king of semantics on this site and will punish every error in topic making and definitions with most severe logical destruction. He is not so much making arguments as much as he is using pure math in debate, and he treats all claims like math equations. His powers are indeed scary, and he probably influenced many debaters on the site to copy some of his style, as it is a unique style which happens to be also very good and puts all debaters on extra alert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Do yall even remember me
Of course we remember you! It would be kinda hard to forget after all the fun we had. I still remember when I first came to the site, and you thought I was alt of type1. Ah, good days.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I guess this site was never meant to be popular. Debating takes some IQ and knowledge and persistence. I think its especially the pressure which is difficult for people to handle. Compare it to popular sites like YouTube and you will see that there is a lot more pressure here. YouTube mostly promotes a bit more relaxed environment. Like, comments in YouTube arent always ripping each other apart like debaters here do. And the main problem is that those who are into debate can get easier opponents on YouTube, so even those who are after easily winning debates wont likely prefer this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Technicalities are why we can't have nice things and why I am not nice.
lol
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Well, are you aware of mass waste being produced from maximizing output, polluted air, food and rivers which we have right now?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I believe that it's possible that you believe that
Well, are you saying we dont have pollution in the air, bad food, polluted rivers and mass waste being produced from maximizing output?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
It is my view that you are presenting Capitalism as Unrestrained Capitalism.
I am presenting what we had so far and what we have now.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Which is kinda the problem.
Due to self interest, farmers are using herbicides and pesticides which are harmful, which end up in food we eat. Plastic waste is everywhere to the point that each of us has plastic particles in our body. The rivers are polluted due to waste. The air we breathe is less healthy than ever. Do you take issue with these, or do you just accept them as something which comes with capitalism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I agree that it should be legal, as I dont really care how many partners someone has.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
How do you define Socialism?
Government planned economy. I think its the simplest definition for Socialism, even tho there are different views about what Socialism is, but in this case, I use government planned economy as a definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RaymondSheen
RaymondSheen - Are you the spirit of my ancestor who came back to bother me about my goals in life? Are you here to suck on the optimism of the young person such as myself? I know what you will say, "everything is nothing, every goal is meaningless" to make my imperialist goals seem empty. Well played sir. But I know that even you live by "vivere militare est", and you do enjoy battles here on Dart. So dont pretend its all meaningless. You know you like it, and I think you want me to be an imperialist despite teasing me for it.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Free trade economy, market economy.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Well, so far all we had was mass use of resources, pollution of food, air and water. Maybe some people in capitalism save resources and care for clean food, air and water, but capitalism as a whole doesnt.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
They 'can, doesn't mean they 'have to.
They dont have to, but so far thats what they did.
Created:
-->
@Savant
It's only limited if you don't have enough innovation to make renewable methods more affordable.
The renewable arent as reliable, as explained before. Solar and wind power cost a lot to be done on large scale. Besides, it takes resource saving to make the best use out of renewable ones as well, something you already admitted capitalism doesnt do.
Even then, it's easier to get more utility total by making the system more efficient. Fuel rationing doesn't get you more utility overall, it just stretches it thinner and lowers living standards now.
Fuel rationing means fuel is distributed properly over time, for example on important tasks only, such as for military or food production. It is better to use 99% less fuel than simply improve efficiency by 35%. You would need to improve efficiency by making cars use 99.99% less fuel to just become equal to planned economy in resource saving.
Meaning it doesn't get much utility from fuel, nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future. Even if North Korea's current standard of living is sustainable, it's a very low one.
The argument is not about current standard of living, but about saving resources. Its an equal of saying that you are richer because you will use more wealth sooner and run out of it faster. Thus, the argument is about which system makes better use of resources, and as we can clearly see, capitalism depletes finite resources much much faster. Even if Capitalism increases standard of living, it does so at great expense of finite resources and does not distribute them according to priority, but according to customer's demands and it serves richer customers first. So not only does capitalism depletes finite resources faster, but it does not distribute them in a correct priority. Even if we take survival of society or military competition, it makes no sense to race to deplete fuel as fast as possible. For both military and survival of society, it is better if fuel is distributed so it lasts much longer.
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels and getting even safer with increased innovation.
Nuclear energy is not unlimited, and accidents which happen from it put the country at risk. This is especially so in war zones or in case of attacks on a country. Nuclear accident makes areas unusable for decades.
That's a military advancement which doesn't do much to increase the standard of living. (The US outperforms them on military anyway.)
Your original argument was that Socialism has no advancements, but as we can see, ICBM was an important advancement made by Soviet Union. Besides, before Socialism, Russia was backwards irrelevant country. Its the Socialism which turned it into a superpower.
That relies on a free market that can respond to tax incentives in an efficient way.
It relies on government intervention first. If it was up to free market alone, fuel would be used much more and solar panels would be much more expensive.
Cherry picking would be taking one data point, but I'm taking a wide range of data points (50 years) and picking the most recent 50 years to get a gist of what the trend is like under the current rate of advancement.
Cherry picking means taking one and ignoring the rest. You are taking 50 years but ignoring 70 years. Its a fact that USA uses more resources now per capita than it did in 1960.
I was responding to your claim that capitalist countries "consume more now so you have less later" by showing that the US is able to reduce the amount consumed per person.
USA didnt reduce the amount consumed per person when you account for last 70 years, but even if it did, it would be a strawman of my argument. It doesnt matter if you even reduce consumption by 10% over 50 years, because you are still consuming far more per capita than a planned economy, thus you will have less later while planned economy distributes resources more evenly over time. It is like in the given example at start. Even if you reduce eating chocolate from 4 per day to 3 per day, that is still much more than 1 per day, and thus such resource will last shorter than it would on 1 chocolate per day system.
There's not much value to saving finite resources if you can't use them to improve the country's quality of life. And capitalism has increased the amount of viable resources, since solar and nuclear power were less viable hundreds of years ago.
Actually, there is. First, the military can only run on fuel. Nuclear tanks and planes, or tanks and planes which run on electricity are nonsense which cannot be made use of in war. Since known oil sources will run out in 30 or 40 years
(Mostly thanks to capitalist's race to deplete them, and this is even when hoping that fuel consumption in the world wont increase anymore like it did so far. Under North Korean system, the same fuel resources would last for over 1000 more years), it makes sense to save fuel for the military. It doesnt make sense to waste fuel on a mass scale, because it means your military will run out of fuel, and it makes transitioning to other forms of energy more difficult, because even in USA you would have to replace over a hundred million fuel cars with electric cars, which places even greater drain on resources. So not only does Socialism make fuel reserves last much longer and its military being in better position as a result, but even renewable energies are better used in socialism where they are distributed for farming and military production first and not controlled by the wealthy. Simply said, in Capitalism, the wealthy decide how to distribute resources, and saving resources is not something they did so far.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
A capitalist can kill the goose that lays golden eggs, (Short term gain)They can also let it live and continue to profit from it. (Long term gain)
Capitalists choose short term gain.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Total number of miles you can drive/utility from the fuel is not limited and can increase.
The fuel is limited, which means even if you double the efficiency, the fuel is still limited and thus the total number of miles you can drive using that fuel is limited. Utility is also limited, since it cannot increase by much.
Those alternatives have only been developed under capitalism. North Korea is not leading the world in clean energy. The graph you linked to shows a huge growth in the use of nuclear energy. We have an alternative, and it's much easier to switch to now than it was before.
Yet North Korea uses much much less fuel than United States.
USA uses 20% of world's fuel, despite being 5% of population. So if USA represents anything, it is over-consumption of finite resources, not any resource saving of any kind. Nuclear energy is not unlimited either, and its much more difficult to manage, since accidents equal disaster and more it is used, the more disasters there will be.
Renewables are extremely expensive and have only become less expensive recently thanks to innovation. The cost of solar has reduced 400 times since 1970. Socialist countries cannot afford those advancements because they are basically broke.
Socialist countries with proper planning dont even need those advancements, since North Korea uses fuel in a way that it can last far longer than USA on finite resources, so it would have far greater time to come up with alternative. Also, many scientific advancements happened in Socialist countries. The Soviet Union was the first one to make ICBM. But what you are doing is making another mistake in assuming that capitalism is responsible for some great advancements in renewables. No, its the governments in Europe and USA which invested a lot in renewables to make them a bit more cheaper by taxing non-renewables more. You would never see that if it was up to capitalism.
You can see that energy use is plateauing from the graph shown. In 2020, U.S. per capita energy consumption dropped to the lowest level since 1965, so picking 1970 as a year is not cherry picking.
It is cherry picking, and for more than one reason. One, you are comparing capitalist USA in 2020 to capitalist USA in 1970, but ignoring Capitalist USA in 1960.
Its obvious that energy consumption was lower in 1960, so I can say that energy consumption increased since 1960 in the USA.
You are picking a specific time period to make argument, which is cherry picking because you are ignoring other periods.
But to make matters worse, you are comparing capitalism to capitalism and concluding that capitalism is better than capitalism. Its a nonsense argument irrelevant to the topic. If you compared capitalist USA to North Korea, you would see that USA even today has far greater fuel consumption per capita than North Korea does, which means that capitalism spends much more finite resources over time than Socialism does.
Created:
-->
@Savant
If you look at this simple data, you will see that the amount of resources used has increased significatly over time, even surpassing the growth of population. To put it simply, resources are being used on a greater level than ever, and the more people you lift from poverty, the more resources they are going to use.
No, but it shows that the statement "Almost all resources in this world are limited" is false.
I dont see how.
Even if you make cars use 35% less fuel, it doesnt change the fact that fuel is limited.
And even if consumption isn't going down, that means it will be easier to reduce energy consumption if it is necessary.
It means quite the opposite.
If consumption goes up, it means the finite resources are being depleted faster, thus you will run out of them faster, thus have less time to figure out an alternative, and a faster depleting of the alternative as well.
If we are forced to switch to renewables, for example, that will be easier now than it would have been 100 years ago.
It would be easier to save resources, so you dont have to switch to renewables, not that you can switch to renewables any time soon, since not even countries sponsoring renewables have lots of renewable energy. Thus planned economy is superior, since it makes finite resources last longer.
Energy consumption per person has decreased in the US since the 1970s.
I dont know why are you resorting to cherry picking time fallacy. Your own source says that energy consumption in USA today has increased more than double than it was in 1960, despite population not increasing by double since 1960. So if energy consumption per person is higher now than it was in 1960, despite all the switching to renewables and all the improvement in efficiency, it shows that we dont see any resource saving in capitalism, but only in Socialism.
Total resources are going up. The supply of internet, radio programs, etc. has increased over time. Plenty of resources are reusable. It would have been hard to classify something a a resource 100 years ago if we couldn't even access it.
Plenty of resources are not reusable. Going from commercial fertilizers to fuel and coal. Even plastic, which can be recycled, just becomes more expensive since its much harder to recycle plastic than to produce it.
Even renewable energies suffer, like solar energy may be renewable, but the materials used to produce solar panels are limited and not easily recycleable.
To put it simply, if you had a finite resource, would you rather use it up as fast as possible, or distribute it correctly over time? Because Capitalism doesnt do the latter.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Quality of life has consistently gone up since the Industrial Revolution. The average lifespan has almost doubled in the United States since 1860. Internet adoption has consistently increased globally.
Yes, that means more resources are used.
Products have also become significantly cheaper to produce and require less resources. Cars have become 35.4% more fuel-efficient in the past 20 years. LEDs last 10 times longer than incandescent lights whilst being far more efficient.
One product requiring less resources to be produced does not mean that less resources are used in total.
Thus, we dont see fuel consumption decreasing by 35.4% over the past 20 years. No, the fuel consumption doubled since then, not decreased.
Likewise, we dont see a decrease in the use of light with the use of LEDs, but an overwhelming increase in total amount of light being used, which essentially means that when one product requires less resources, it becomes even more produced, thus increasing total resources being used.
We dont really see resources being saved, but we see that resources are being depleted on a large scale and the amount of almost all resources used increases.
Thus, with the amount of finite resources being used increasing all the time, only one outcome is possible, which is those resources being eventually depleted.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Why capitalism helps those who frown or have a sour sore attitude about capitalism?
I dont know, you are the capitalist, so you tell me.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Apparently, greed and proper distribution of resources are mutually exclusive.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Yes, consume more now so you have less later.
Created:
-->
@Mall
From each according to their labor, to each according to their greed.
Created: