Conservatism and the Environment

[Marduk]

The real solution is to change our dominant culture from one of infinite growth and consumption into one that doesnt.

Entering space with the ideology of a cancer cell just leads to us being cancer in space!

You mean like... competition?
Because that's at the core of it. If you won't expand into free real estate, someone else will, develop it, and use it as an advantage in any future conflicts, political, economic or military, against you. That way not only you get to enjoy the downsides of "infinite growth", but someone else will be enjoying the benefits!

Human nature being, of course, the universalized culture touchstones of liberal capitalism invented within the last millennium, in certain parts of the world, which required blood and fire to spread.

And that's somehow supposed to be exceptionally bad?
Do i need to list all the cultures in history that have spread by proverbial blood and fire?
How many prominent, existing and historically significant cultures would not be present on that list?

 

[Realm]

Because that's at the core of it. If you won't expand into free real estate, someone else will, develop it, and use it as an advantage in any future conflicts, political, economic or military, against you. That way not only you get to enjoy the downsides of "infinite growth", but someone else will be enjoying the benefits!

Or maybe we like, don't?

Endless expansion and vapid consumerism is currently peaking with all the tech giants nowadays turning your entire existence into information to sell to the highest bidder, but if there's anything I've learnt from the intellectual peaks of conservativism, it's that the tech giants are a okay!

I'm pretty sure that was the one.

And that's somehow supposed to be exceptionally bad?
Do i need to list all the cultures in history that have spread by proverbial blood and fire?
How many prominent, existing and historically significant cultures would not be present on that list?

Generally speaking, if you need to kill someone to force them to follow your ideology, or at the very least break their resistance to it, it's probably not objective, universal human nature.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

I really, deeply, need you to understand that the practical ability of us to maintain the ideology of a cancer cell does not justify being a cultural cancer.

Don't make me, a commie, be a better conservative than you are. I'll do it, man, I'll fucking do it.

Ooh, I'm frightened. But go back to your Star Trek fantasies.

 

[Marduk]

Or maybe we like, don't?

Who's the "we" in that situation?
Because i don't remember seeing "united humanity" outside of some overly optimistic in that
regard fictional settings.
In more realistic kind of the future, "if we don't, then someone else surely will, and then use it to smack us in the head with it".

Endless expansion and vapid consumerism is currently peaking with all the tech giants nowadays turning your entire existence into information to sell to the highest bidder, but if there's anything I've learnt from the intellectual peaks of conservativism, it's that the tech giants are a okay!

I'm pretty sure that was the one.

They are making what sells. If they get it wrong or someone else gets it better, they lose in the competition and get replaced.

Generally speaking, if you need to kill someone to force them to follow your ideology, or at the very least break their resistance to it, it's probably not objective, universal human nature.

I think a lot of the historical "blood and fire" was not to force conversion, but to simply get other people out of the real estate said power or ideology wanted for their own - the largest scale ones involving use of superior technology and grabbing mostly undeveloped, sparsely populated land, as those obviously are extremely easy and convenient targets for such actions.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Human nature being, of course, the universalized culture touchstones of liberal capitalism invented within the last millennium, in certain parts of the world, which required blood and fire to spread.

Sure bud.

Given that even communist countries had/have persistent issues with greed, consumption, waste, etc, despite being the exact opposite of liberal capitalism, and that major world religions, most of which are well over a thousand years old contain passages condemning those same behaviors, behaviors that have also been observed in the animal kingdom including in apes, our closest relatives, no, that's not what I meant, and had you put more thought into this than "just repear whatever chapotraphouse has to say", you might have realized that.

 

[Realm]

Ooh, I'm frightened. But go back to your Star Trek fantasies.

I thought conservatives would be more worried about the commodification of culture and modern capitalism and its constant self revolutions overthrowing old social forms, but I guess the social stuff goes out the window when capitalism is questioned, huh.

Given that even communist countries had/have persistent issues with greed, consumption, waste, etc, despite being the exact opposite of liberal capitalism, and that major world religions, most of which are well over a thousand years old contain passages condemning those same behaviors, behaviors that have also been observed in the animal kingdom including in apes, our closest relatives, no, that's not what I meant, and had you put more thought into this than "just repear whatever chapotraphouse has to say", you might have realized that.

Wait so greed means that we collectively organize ourselves in such a way as to inherently and always create and consume as much as possible, with disregard for limits bordering on sociopathy? Wasn't aware of that part, seems like a bit of a stretch born out of the necessity of your ideology being universalized in order to avoid any self reflection of the unsustainability of your deeply held beliefs.

But chapotraphouse lol.

They are making what sells. If they get it wrong or someone else gets it better, they lose in the competition and get replaced.

They're selling you. You're cool with that, even as it instramentalizes culture and humanity itself?

God, communists really are the best conservatives aren't they.

I think a lot of the historical "blood and fire" was not to force conversion, but to simply get other people out of the real estate said power or ideology wanted for their own - the largest scale ones involving use of superior technology and grabbing mostly undeveloped, sparsely populated land, as those obviously are extremely easy and convenient targets for such actions.

Siri, what are residential schools?

The native genocide was in large parts a cultural one. You don't need to convert the natives to christianity to get them off your land. You need to convert them so they understand property rights aka ur ideology my mans

 

[Marduk]

They're selling you. You're cool with that, even as it instramentalizes culture and humanity itself?

You can cut the hyperbole. They are trading in information they are allowed to have (and if people are so nice that they go onto this data gathering website and diligently type in that information themselves, that's just human stupidity, volenti non fit iniuria) no more, no less.
Also what the hell is "instrumentalizing humanity itself"?

Siri, what are residential schools?

The native genocide was in large parts a cultural one. You don't need to convert the natives to christianity to get them off your land. You need to convert them so they understand property rights aka ur ideology my mans

And that's supposed to be better or worse than just plain genocide, mass enslavement or exile?
Historically commonly used means in such situations over the world.
In either of these case, whether they "understand property rights" becomes irrelevant, alongside any other kinds of cultural incompatibilities.
Consider what Aztecs did with peoples they have conquered for example.

 

[Realm]

You can cut the hyperbole. They are tradingin information they are allowed to have, no more, no less.
Also what the hell is "instrumentalizing humanity itself"?

Modifying human behavior in order to encourage constant mindless scrolling, in order to get more info, in order to sell them more meaningless crap is basically just turning people into the forefront of capitalist expansion.

And that's supposed to be better or worse from just plain genocide or exile?

You've completely missed my point, good job!

The genocide of the natives was an ideological tool, not just simply "we want some land lol"

Worse or better don't come into play

 

[Battlegrinder]

Wait so greed means that we collectively organize ourselves in such a way as to inherently and always create and consume as much as possible, with disregard for limits bordering on sociopathy?

What, you think the Soviets were like "hey, we could produce 10000 tons of steel per week, but let's instead just make 8000, just because. Go dump that extra ore over in the lake, we don't need it". The goal of every economic system is to maximize the use of limited resources and produce as much as possible within those limits. As in, that's literally the definition of economics.

Wasn't aware of that part, seems like a bit of a stretch born out of the necessity of your ideology being universalized in order to avoid any self reflection of the unsustainability of your deeply held beliefs.

No, it's because I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Every economic system is unsustainable and limited, because resources are scarce and available in finite qualities. This is literally econ 101 level stuff.

But chapotraphouse lol.

If the boot fits....

 

[Marduk]

Modifying human behavior in order to encourage constant mindless scrolling, in order to get more info, in order to sell them more meaningless crap is basically just turning people into the forefront of capitalist expansion.

Funny how many people are seemingly immune to this "modification". I for one have no FB account with more real information about me than my spam mail. Which coincidentally is what those are registered to. And it's named in honor of... gibberish you get by randomly pressing a bunch of keys on the keyboard.

The genocide of the natives was an ideological tool, not just simply "we want some land lol"

So if that was "an ideological tool", why were Aztecs genociding the natives? What happened to the Neanderthals? Peoples were genociding each other for ages, long before "capitalism" existed as a concept, most likely in prehistory even.

Worse or better don't come into play

Or does it?
Who gets to decide whether it does or not, and why should that be you? In fact in historical comparisons to modern age, context is important, lest we want to fall into the traps of hindsight and presentism.

 

[Realm]

What, you think the Soviets were like "hey, we could produce 10000 tons of steel per week, but let's instead just make 8000, just because". The goal of every economic system is to maximize the use of limited resources and produce as much as possible within those limits. As in, that's literally the definition of economics.

Yeah sure, took capitalism to hunt the buffalo to near extinction but I'm sure the natives just didnt realize that producing as much as possible was the point

No, it's because I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Every economic system is unsustainable and limited, because resources are scarce and available in finite qualities. This is literally econ 101 level stuff

God, I've missed your condescension. It feels like coming home ♥

Funny how many people are seemingly immune to this "modification". I for one have no FB account with more real information about me than my spam mail. Which coincidentally is what those are registered to. And it's named in honor of... gibberish you get by randomly pressing a bunch of keys on the keyboard.

So it's not effecting everyone equally? My word!

So if that was "an ideological tool", why were Aztecs genociding the natives? What happened to the Neanderthals? Peoples were genociding each other for ages, long before "capitalism" existed as a concept, most likely in prehistory even

Cool, how does this pertain to my initial point?

 

[Marduk]

Yeah sure, took capitalism to hunt the buffalo to near extinction but I'm sure the natives just didnt realize that producing as much as possible was the point

Yet somehow people equivalent to the natives in way of life probably did exactly the same to a whole bunch of species, megafauna in particular (with proper extinction, not near extinction). Were those some special capitalist natives, or am i missing something here?

So it's not effecting everyone equally? My word!

Yeah, exactly. The best thing is, only you decide how much will it affect you. Do you want to live in a society where someone else decides for you where should you be allowed to put your personal information and enforces it?

Cool, how does this pertain to my initial point?

That you are trying to blame such historical events on "capitalism", but don't want to talk about groups not tied to "capitalism" for some strange reason doing the same or even worse things?
Or that you have unilaterally decided that presentism is the way we should interpret any such situations anyway, and no one else gets a say in this?

 

[Realm]

That you are trying to blame such historical events on "capitalism", but don't want to talk about groups not tied to "capitalism" for some strange reason doing the same or even worse things?

My initial point was that if you need to use genocide to make people follow your ideology, it isnt human nature. Good try I guess?

Yet somehow people equivalent to the natives in way of life probably did exactly the same to a whole bunch of species, megafauna in particular (with proper extinction, not near extinction). Were those some special capitalist natives, or am i missing something here?

I only need one counter example to show that balance isnt inherently against human nature

 

[Marduk]

My initial point was that if you need to use genocide to make people follow your ideology, it isnt human nature. Good try I guess?

And my counterpoint is that it's really a somewhat merciful developement...
The older, outright prehistoric alternative was the more "classic" meaning of genocide when it becomes meaningless whether the conquered tribe follow any ideology.
Dead people don't contest anyone's property or anything else.

I only need one counter example to show that balance isnt inherently against human nature

What balance? Is it fictional ideal societies we are talking about? Of course in imagination everything may work.

 

[Realm]

What balance? Is it fictional ideal societies we are talking about? Of course in imagination everything may work.

The one that like, didnt hunt the buffalo to extinction despite econ 101 saying CONSUME ALL

And my counterpoint is that it's really a somewhat merciful developement...
The older, outright prehistoric alternative was the more "classic" meaning of genocide when it becomes meaningless whether the conquered tribe follow any ideology.
Dead people don't contest anyone's property or anything else.

Cool, still missing the point but okay

 

[Marduk]

The one that like, didnt hunt the buffalo to extinction despite econ 101 saying CONSUME ALL

Yet...
Who knows what would have happened if the natives were given a couple extra millenia alone with the buffalo? Possibly same as with megafauna.

And what did that get this "balance" civilization in the end?
They fell victim to the part where is said , "if we don't, then someone else surely will, and then use it to smack us in the head with it" .
Nevermind that they lacked the tools to both do it without great effort, or draw much benefit from it even if they wanted to.

Intentional protectionism over rare animals and plants is a luxury of a society so wealthy that in some cases those are in the grand scheme of things far from a meaningfully sized resource economically and it can afford to ignore such tiny grains of useable resources for various reasons, and just stick to the cheap pork, chicken and beef in the supermarket for food.

 

[prinCZess]

The one that like, didnt hunt the buffalo to extinction despite econ 101 saying CONSUME ALL

Apologies to butt in here, and it's somewhat of a tangent, but to bounce off this for a moment:
We don't know the exact status of buffalo pre-Columbus, but we do know* that the massive herds and the Plains tribes attachment to them was a very 'new', and even post-Columbus, phenomenon--theorized to be because of smallpox and other diseases killing massive numbers of their previous Indian hunters, and leading to the massive boom in population that entire Indian tribes built themselves around out of practicality and that White settlers and explorers then noticed as they journeyed westward.

Whether that buffalo-centric model was sustainable itself for Plains tribes is highly questionable--Even without firearms, common Indian practice could kill hundreds to thousands of buffalo at a time, even entire herds, and the introduction of the horse (it's own major ecological upset) only made that easier (even still discounting firearms). It's quite plausible that even without killings by settlers or campaigns of destruction by the cavalry, the ecological balance of the New World as witnessed by Lewis & Clark and others was unsustainable and being driven towards disaster and the extinction or mass-elimination of the buffalo by Natives--things had already been thrown into such flux by other ecologically-impacting factors, 'surviving off the buffalo-hunt' wasn't a model of long-lasting societies that was overturned by white settlers, it was an aberration from the norm that probably just had its demise hurried along by private and governmental actions against the phenomenon.

*Edit: Poor word-choice here. Perhaps 'highly-suspect', or 'can be reasonably sure that the specific form of Indian organization encountered by white explorers was new' would be better. I made this sound a bit too certain.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Yeah sure, took capitalism to hunt the buffalo to near extinction but I'm sure the natives just didnt realize that producing as much as possible was the point

China and the Soviet union has thier own histories of tradgies of the commons, the concept isn't inherent to a capitalist framework, and the native american's hippy dippy "live in harmony with nature and use as little as possible" thing is largely a product of Hollywood. Thet were less destructive because they lacked the means to cause more harm, not because they were ideologically committed to limiting thier impact.

God, I've missed your condescension.

I'm less enamored with your ignorance.

 

[Realm]

Who knows what would have happened if the natives were given a couple extra millenia alone with the buffalo? Possibly same as with megafauna.

They might have developed an ideology akin to cancer? Dear god, I think you're right!

And what did that get this "balance" civilization in the end?
They fell victim to the part where is said , "if we don't, then someone else surely will, and then use it to smack us in the head with it" .
Nevermind that they lacked the tools to both do it without great effort, or draw much benefit from it even if they wanted to.

Out competing your competitors does not mean you are the best option. It just means you're the best at killing.

We don't know the exact status of buffalo pre-Columbus, but we do know that the massive herds and the Plains tribes attachment to them was a very 'new', and even post-Columbus, phenomenon--

Would you be able to post cites? I've heard that as a hypotheses but I havent seen anything concrete.

The Soviet union has it's own history of tradgies of the commons, the concept isn't inherent to a capitalist framework.

I do quite enjoy the fallacy of implying theres only 2 economic systems, capitalism and soviet style communism. It's quite powerful, as long as your audience has no real grasp of economic theories and their history.

I'm less enamored with your ignorance.

♥ ♥ ♥

You're just so... pedantic. It brings a smile to my face everytime we interact, even when we're not arguing.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I do quite enjoy the fallacy of implying theres only 2 economic systems, capitalism and soviet style communism. It's quite powerful, as long as your audience has no real grasp of economic theories and their history.

Well, there's also chinese style communism, and we all know that what kind of environmental record that particular country has.