>microplastics
>phthalates
>PFOAs
>BPAs
>pesticides
>climate change
When will we acknowledge that these are not separate problems, they are all just one problem: petrochemicals. Will the world ever acknowledge that petrochemicals have opened up a pandora's box of problems for humanity? The truth is that a good proportion of the modern economy is built on a lie.
petrochemicals are the fuel for our post modernist hyper consumerist society. The issue is entirely ideological.
We're in hell, you're not in hell because you're trying to have a nice time with autonomy, we're prisoners on this rock. Hostage to an evil society.
ok but that just reinforces the immutability of the global capitalist edifice, you realize you can still be in hell and work to make it a little less shit
Define capitalism.
it's just the word to describe the international system of trade (post bretton woods) or whatever
So you don't know what capitalism is. Thanks, I just wanted to make sure.
what do you want? the webster dictionary, look it up homosexual
I'd like the quality of discourse on this hellsite to rise beyond your level of retardation.
and you're helping?
Humiliating you has a non-zero chance of making you leave the site in shame, thus improving the board quality.
You're only humiliating yourself chud, where's your argument?
OP conceded to not knowing what capitalism is. The argument is already over.
What part in
>ok but that just reinforces the immutability of the global capitalist edifice, you realize you can still be in hell and work to make it a little less shit
Triggered you? Show me where it hurt.
Triggered me what? Are you ESL?
Sure asking a lot of questions for someone who claims to be the arbiter of quality on this board
Thanks. Asking questions is an essential part of the job.
cool, keep learning kid and maybe one day you won't need to resort to ad hominems, since you'll be able to formulate an argument
You sound emotional. Science requires rationality, so I suggest you take a break and cool down before coming back.
>ad hominem
there it is
You may call it a fallacy, but you cannot call it a falsity.
keep projecting kid
>When
Likely never, since that would upend the status quo and ~~*special interests groups*~~ would lose a lot of money.
Just get in bed already
LOL you are such a child, what makes you think it's night time here? Clearly just talking to yourself over the internet
based retard
No you can't, that's why it's hell.
You're talking about sisyphean cope: it's hell but i find myself content due to my existence being teleologically meaningless.
at a certain level, you are simply speaking for yourself, you know, at a societal level, making things less shit is a good thing (do you want to be living in filth for instance?)
>Will the world ever acknowledge that petrochemicals have opened up a pandora's box of problems for humanity?
...and are also what allows for better than three quarters of it to exist at all?
Only the dead have no problems.
>...and are also what allows for better than three quarters of it to exist at all?
Ah yes, but that's based the premise that three quarters of the human built world should even exist at all. Can you seriously find any plastic piece of shit consumer product and say it deserves to exist? Something like a PFOA umbrella might be useful, but if your umbrella broke you would just throw it away and buy another one. If you owned something like a waxed animal hide umbrella you'd probably be able to pass it down to your kids it would last so long.
Also if you're referring to 2/3rds of the people on the planet:
>fertility drops to near 0 due to exposure to endocrine disruptors/carcinogens
>massive numbers of humans die off when oil gets phased out
Pick one. Either way the human population is dropping, though I suppose something like turning half the population infertile/impotent appeals more to modern sensibilities.
>Here are two imaginary consequences to problems I made up
You need to have sex before your sperm count matters kiddo
>Look at these fake problems
Petroleum is the proof god loves us and set earth to tutorial difficulty.
Never, at least until the juice runs out
I'll happily admit that the minute you admit that
1) those things are only harmful in large quantities, large quantities which would not have happened if it weren't for psychotic globalist billionaires fixation with "economic growth" (population growth)
2) Economic growth is exponential growth which is not possible on a finite planet, essentially making it the ponzi scheme, the ponzi scheme that psychotic globalist billionaires rely for their profits and to maintain their control of people
3) psychotic globalist billionaires get their government proxies to foist vindictive non solutions like carbon taxes and carbon sequestration on their people because real solutions would hinder their prfoits
2) psychotic billionaire
> psychotic billionaire
are shit edit that
Petrochemicals can be good, but money hungry industries can't do stuff safe.
It's like sex, it's dangerous if you are retard, and big money are usually retards.
>Petrochemicals can be good
Ok, name one application of petrochemicals which doesn't either contribute to climate change or spew carcinogens into the environment.
Gasoline.
>Imagine being this retarded
I know, it must be hard to live your life. Chin up though anon you'll manage.
Contrary to popular belief in green circles, I like stuff. Literally, stuff. Like that I can eat, walk, have a computer. Most of it is out of petrochemicals, or at least transported. Do you know how dangerous electric transport is to the enviroment? Look up the fucks up of lithium mines.
If you think that's bad, look up the damaged caused by fracking, extracting, and mining fossil fuels.
If people ware not retarded, I would make petrol by carbon capture, but nobody wants to put my hands on this obscure machines, which are not closed loop systems and gain energy from complicated equation, that actually is maybe having more letters than fucking GTP equation.
Take a thermodynamics class. You cannot make fuel using less energy than the fuel stores and you cannot extract all of the stored energy. The process would need to be powered by something else, like nuclear or renewables, and you lose so much energy at every step that you would be better off using that energy to charge batteries and run electric engines.
>petrochemicals
They made a game out of this concept. Ark: Dinosaur Ascended. Check the lore if you don't believe me.
>they are all just one problem
>...
>...
>...
>...
Say it.
>...
>...
SAY IT
>...
>...
Please just say it already.
>...
Out with it let it go NOW!
>...
>petrochemicals.
Noooooooooo...is LULZ the holiday destination of reddit npc's?
The problem is capitalism.
There!
I said it!
IT'S CAPITALISM!!
It's not. Capitalism is a self defeating ideology which will die out once technological advancements stagnate and resources run out.
>Capitalism is a self defeating ideology which will die out once technological advancements stagnate and resources run out.
Capitalists WANT technological advancements to stagnate; so they stay on top, so they don't need to invest in new technology, and so they keep their customers.
Hell, they invest resources to make technology stagnate faster. Via cartels, lobbying to regulate new technology, creating artificial demand for old technology, buying up emerging technology, smear campaigns against emerging technology.
Anon...it's even worse: it is not just capitalism because they can print as much money as they want and there are infinite ways of making money other than creating hell on Earth. The only logical conclusion is that they're doing it on purpose just like brutalist architecture, light pollution and artificial scarcity. The LULZbots will rather cling to any other explanation they can think of because reality is too horrible.
Close, but not quite. The fundamental issue, in my opinion, is Keynesian economics and fiat (i.e. completely decoupled from scarcity) money.
Incorrect.
Then what is your proposed answer?
This isn't my argument.
trolling outside of /b/
>having an IQ higher than 40 is trolling
you could post something constructive, here you are denouncing other views without providing justification. In other words, go fuck yourself
I will provide justification for why an argument is incorrect as soon as the arguer stops committing logical fallacies. I do not engage intellectually with swine.
You're on LULZ bud, get off your high horse
I am acutely aware of the webpage my browser is currently displaying. This is because there is something called an address bar atop the window by which I can find the URL of the page I am connected to. I also care about the quality of this board. Do you shit on the floor and then say "oh well, there's shit on the floor, I'm just gonna keep shitting all over the floor now because there's shit on the floor. Let's just shit everywhere on the floor because there was some shit on the floor."
if this is your way to clean up the board, you're doing a fucking terrible job
Excuse me, but where is your effort? If you're not actively showing bad posters their flaws, then you are doing nothing to improve this board whatsoever. You should not use this board at all and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Excuse me, but where is your effort? If you're not actively showing bad posters their flaws, then you are doing nothing to improve this board whatsoever. You should not use this board at all and you should be ashamed of yourself.
>I also care about the quality of this board.
And you do that by making one-word posts and mass-replying?
Peculiar.
It is an efficient way to notify low-quality posters and bad thinkers that their posts are bad. Why give a long explanation when they are acutely aware of their low quality posting?
>they are acutely aware
And what is wrong with
again? Would you actually care to eborate, O! Your Majesty?
You definition of fiat currency has a mild error. Therefore, your statement, technically, is overall incorrect.
Looks reasonable to me (not that anon). Perhaps this is not your intention, but it looks like you are just here to troll and be pedantic, while offering nothing constructive (such as the error itself)
Fiat is not necessarily decoupled from scarcity. This is not what makes a currency fiat. Rather, fiat currency serves as a proxy for value in that it does not hold intrinsic value of its own. Fiat does not represent a precious metal, for example. Bitcoin also does not represent anything; a common misconception with crypto people is that their currency is not fiat when in fact, no crypto has inherent value. Value is asserted by supply and demand, of which supply can be easily restricted by whomever prints, for example, the US dollar.
Think about this: If I start up a meme coin and print 500 quintillion of them every day (such that their count is effectively infinite), is it not fiat? Likewise, was the US dollar not worth more in 1931 as a result of low supply proportional to trade?
>proxy for value
No, fiat is currency with no intrinsic value, it precisely isn't a proxy with intrinsic value (such as gold denominated dollars)
Anyways, try posting that instead of just cancelling others.
Are you a fucking idiot?
>Rather, fiat currency serves as a proxy for value in that it does not hold intrinsic value of its own.
>Rather, fiat currency serves as a proxy for value in that it does not hold intrinsic value of its own.
>Rather, fiat currency serves as a proxy for value in that it does not hold intrinsic value of its own.
>Rather, fiat currency serves as a proxy for value in that it does not hold intrinsic value of its own.
Fucking retard
Ad hominem.
Braindead woman fallacy.
Ad hominem.
God... it should be a bannable offense on LULZ to be this retarded. Atleast I wish I could report you for being illiterate on LULZ.
You wasted 8 posts just to say this, i.e. to point out a minor simplification, and yet this contributes nothing.
...
You shouldn't be a moderator, because even those we have right now are nowhere near as useless as you.
>NOOOO THEYRE ALL WRONG AND RETARDED
>why?
>BECAUSE THEY ARE OK!
>Can anyone address an argument logically without resorting to ad hominems and other kindergartener logical fallacies?
Yes, I can call you a homosexual
Ad hominem.
>BTFOs