Home > Archive > Cobol > April 2006 > Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pet
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pet
|
|
| Richard 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
| > If food isn't more valuable to you than seeds,
To turn seeds into food requires land, which may mean, say, cutting
down rain forest and this may (and does) lead to desertification. Or it
may require fertilizer and sprays and so on which uses resources such
as oil.
So adding value to seed may result in less value elsewhere, or at
another time.
For example when all the Brazilian rain forest is turned to desert then
the whole country will be valueless.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-26, 6:55 pm |
| On 25 Apr 2006 14:33:09 -0700, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>That is probably because, like capitalists of old, you consider that
>all resources are infinite (for example the mine will never run out)
Sure sunlight will run out - but in my subset of the universe, I can
assume that we will keep getting more sun energy, adding value to the
seeds I planted.
The sun is getting diminished - whether or not I use that solar energy
to my gain.
>and that waste products are some one else's problem (who cares that
>slagheaps go to school in Wales), and that other countries and the poor
>are merely there for the exploitation by capitalists and imperialists.
Is recycling a net zero process?
If so, then there obviously is not reason to recycle.
>In other words: as long as _you_ get 'more stuff' you neither see nor
>care about those that wind up with 'less stuff'.
What I'm saying is that there is more net stuff everywhere. More
people avoid starvation.
If it was a net zero, then every time I have seconds, someone else in
this world skips a meal. That doesn't happen.
>A capitalist argument is: if everyone mows their neibours lawn instead
>of their own and charges and pays $30 for this service then the economy
>will be $3 billion better. They will then try to charge a small fee for
>coordinating this to make themselves a few $million better.
The capitalist argument says that when a buddy and I get together to
fix yards, the guy with the mower mows, and the guy with the trimmer
trims, and we get the work done more efficiently, get done, and
produce other stuff such as Usenet messages or symphonies.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-27, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:bvuu42dvhjj9na6kkbtu0l5bq486jtp5lc@
4ax.com...
> On 25 Apr 2006 14:33:09 -0700, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sure sunlight will run out - but in my subset of the universe, I can
> assume that we will keep getting more sun energy, adding value to the
> seeds I planted.
>
> The sun is getting diminished - whether or not I use that solar energy
> to my gain.
>
Strictly speaking the sun is getting redispersed. The solar energy is
neither created nor destroyed. It has existed since the big bang. It is
transformed into heat and light (via hydrogen and helium if you like).
Before it coalesced into the sun, it was totally dispersed, but there is
just as much of it now as there was then.
>
> Is recycling a net zero process?
Yes. Transformation is what happens to the energy (and therefore the matter)
in this universe. It is transformed into matter and back into energy again.
Nothing is lost; nothing is gained. Some of it pops out of existence across
the Planck level; an equal amount pops back into existence the same way.
Matter and antimatter. Reality and Virtuality. But the same number of chips
at the end of the game as was on the table at the start. It came from
nothing and it equates to nothing. The significance of it is assigned by us.
>
> If so, then there obviously is not reason to recycle.
Recycling brings order to the environment and allows resources to last
longer in a form that we can use. (the cost is heat and energy, but that
dissipates to the point where we are not affected by it.)
>
>
>
> What I'm saying is that there is more net stuff everywhere. More
> people avoid starvation.
>
> If it was a net zero, then every time I have seconds, someone else in
> this world skips a meal. That doesn't happen.
That is SO not true, Howard. It is certainly true that when you have
seconds, someone else doesn't get to eat your second...
>
>
> The capitalist argument says that when a buddy and I get together to
> fix yards, the guy with the mower mows, and the guy with the trimmer
> trims, and we get the work done more efficiently, get done, and
> produce other stuff such as Usenet messages or symphonies.
You work on the symphonies...me, I just had an idea for a million dollar
lawn mowing business... :-)
Pete.
|
|
|
|
|