-This is a conversation that I've been having with ProU member, chillbill. It's an extension of the debate that surrounded the recent poll. I thought it was only right to translate these writings into a blog, because although it was interesting, it was uber-long. My response concludes chillbill's reaction to "There Is No Debate. (A new angle)"
chillbill:
"socialism and utter collectivism is the sole route for clean, sensible energy generation"
Can you list two 'problems' socialism has actually solved while not creating a worse mess than existed before the 'solution'?
---
"we need clean, renewable technologies to flood the marketplace"
...and those are...?
---
Consider the socialist eccological record:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&safe=off&q=socialist+ecologi...
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=1909
The problem is too much government power, which is the result of socialism because it gives that power to the government, not the people. Individual freedom is inherent in capitalism, which is economic freedom by definition.
You are mistaking our current corporatism for capitalism. We need to strip the government and corporations of ANY power that exceeds the power or rights of the individual.
Individuals are capable of responsibility, groups are not.
Green Underbelly: You may have had the idea that I was advocating socialist environmentalism. If that's true, you read my post incorrectly.
And after reading yer energy diatribe at the poll, and the following:
we need clean, renewable technologies to flood the marketplace"
...and those are...?
I came to only one conclusion: we can't develop any form of energy, and it's senseless to weigh the costs and benefits of each form. I'm part of the small is beautiful crowd, but saying we're all unrealistic with a statement like, "The NO-impact alternative just is not within our grasp....YET!" strikes me as insane.
Now is that the logical reaction you wanted from readers? That we shouldn't weigh the costs of say, wind and solar against coal and natural gas? AND I REALIZE WHAT YOU'RE STRESSING--THAT PEOPLE HEAR 'CLEAN', THEY HEAR 'GREEN', AND THEY'RE FOOLED INTO ADULATION OF THOSE ENERGY SOURCES.
Why can't people extend that idea by holding those energy forms under the light and finding out which energy form(s) is the most sustainable, or the closest to being technologically sustainable. We both know that humans will have an impact. It's not constructive to say we do not.
----
Individuals are capable of responsibility, groups are not.
See Native American Indians.
----
"But if the profit motive is the primary cause of pollution, one would not expect to find much pollution in socialist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, China, and in the former Communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe. That is, in theory. In reality exactly the opposite is true: The socialist world suffers from the worst pollution on earth. Could it be that free enterprise is not so incompatible with environmental protection after all?"
No one is arguing that socialism=groovy responsive environmentalism. No one is arguing that we should replicate other countries who have a poor track record when it comes to pollution. Have you heard of a system called 'a caring economics'? (http://www.quantumshift.tv/v/1188603177/)
You know, the system that counts externalities as part of GDP; it seems to me a system most likely to motivate positive production and discard 'negative' profit. This new system represents a very beautiful dream.
----
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
