August 2016 Open Thread


  1. #1 Stu 2
    September 28, 2016
  2. #2 kim
    September 28, 2016

    Goeff Hardley blather “I have answered it. Rein in the power of corporations by much more heavily regulating them. Make them accountable to democracy. Also democratize the media. Make global attempts to prevent outsourcing. Internalize the value of ecosystem services. Politically, prevent corporations contributing to elections (as in the US) and make corporate lobbying illegal. Severe fines for the breaking of environmental laws including lengthy prison sentences for corporate CEOs. A much more egalitarian tax system, and efforts to prevent the exploitation of tax loopholes by the rich. Stop NAFTA, TTIP, TPP and other investors rights agreements. This is just a start.

    Then a move towards a steady state economy”

    Geoffie: congratulations to your program of sustainable mass murder to the poor. I have never seen such an abominable over-fanatic idiot like you in my whole life. Stop your insanities.

  3. #3 kim
    September 28, 2016

    Hey guys, I do not believe in ecosystem services.

    Donald Trump for president!

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2016

    Kim opines, “Hey guys, I do not believe in ecosystem services”.

    Well there you have it, the bottom line. Our new resident retard makes his pitch. Kim of course won’t tell us what it is he does for a living but take it from me, it isn’t something that requires much brain power.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2016

    Then its get better: Crazy Kim, of course without providing any evidence whatsoever, claims that getting rid of NAFTA, TTIP and TPP will create what he claims is ‘ sustainable mass murder to the poor’. It can’t get much more banal and funny, folks. These ‘trade’ agreements are really not about trade at all but about investors rights and the means of allowing corporations to sue governments for lost profits. If one looks at the legacy of NAFTA, for instance, it has entrenched poverty across its wake and has resulted in a massive concentration of wealth.

    But crazy Kim then goes on to scream, “Donald Trump for President!”. Trump is against all three of these trade agreements. Ouch.

    Kim, you may be the most stupid person ever to write into Deltoid. Congratulations. Given some of the sordid idiots who have written in here over the past decade, your claim for the top prize in the idiot category makes you very special in the worst kind of way.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2016

    Stu, population growth is a serious problem. But uneven wealth distribution and consumption patterns are far larger. The biggest concern of western planners is that the peoples of nations in the poor south – especially Africa, a new frontier for resource looting – will aspire to embrace nationalistic democracies. This will in turn conflict in a large way with the interests of western businesses and investors, and thus either depopulation (Kissinger’s infamous document 200 outlined this), maintaining poverty (Kennan would have gone down this route) or military power (this is the neocons prime mover) are the three main strategies in ensuring that our corporate elites have direct access to and/or keep control of mineral and resource wealth in developing countries.

    Poverty elimination has NEVER been a priority of western planners, who instead aim to ‘maintain wealth disparities between the developed and developing worlds without threat to the national security of the United States and its proxies’ (again, the gist of Kennan’s words back in 1948 and relevant today).

    Democracy has always been seen as a threat to the rich because it puts power into the hands of the citizenry who would use it to create more egalitarian societies – societies in which the rich lose considerable power and control.

    So overpopulation is a red herring. Its a tool used endlessly by rich countries to deflect from the massive ecological deficits they maintain at home. Your attempt to drag the discussion into the sandbox won’t work. I’ve moved so far beyond this in my lectures and courses, and I have no intention of catering to your kindergarten level attempt at discussion.

  7. #7 Stu 2
    September 28, 2016

    Unsustainable population growth is a common focus of many of the links and publications that you put up.
    You commented upthread that countries like Australia have an acceptable eco footprint largely because of their population numbers.
    And now you’re arguing that it’s a red herring?
    That’s interesting.
    Methinks you are throwing in the red herring atm.

  8. #8 Lionel A
    September 28, 2016

    Lionel says that ‘reduce birth rates’ is one obvious answer.

    Once again that is a mischracterisation of anything I wrote.

    Stop this deceitful behaviour now, this is not how you earn the respect to be treated on the same level.

  9. #9 Stu 2
    September 28, 2016

    So Lionel?
    Your comment @# 98, previous page, was not an attempt to answer the question?
    And you also put up Pimentel and Jensen links, both of them with a focus on this issue (not exclusively I know) yet now you claim it’s not important or that I have somehow misrepresented you??????

  10. #10 Lionel A
    September 28, 2016

    So Lionel?
    Your comment @# 98, previous page, was not an attempt to answer the question?

    Oh! My giddy aunt!

    You fool, that post quoted the response of A. N. Other and was not my words.

    Now I know you are an idiot with poor comprehension skills but that is a new low.

    And you persist in mischaracterizing Jensen without having read him e.g. Endgame, now that is dishonest. Misrepresentation is your hallmark, it is as plain as a pike-staff you have no complaints for any ‘brick-bats’ put in your direction.

    As for Pimental, that cite was to an article which was only addressing the dishonesty of Lomborgs arguments WRT his claims in his notorious book TSE about how crop yields will improve to cater for increasing population. If you had bothered to take note of all citations from Jeff and myself you would realise it is as much about ecological footprints as population numbers per. se.

    You have skated over the points made in numerous posts and continued with your vacuous blather, and you wonder why we attach, apt, labels to you. D-K squared.

    As a marker for how rapacious this civilisation and the economics which drive it are then this book tackles one example area:

    To Cook a Continent: Destructive Extraction and Climate Crisis in Africa.

    But then the price paid by those who live atop extractive industry activities is a feature world wide. Those in the UK, or elsewhere, who are paid off to allow the extraction to take place will regret it, or their descendants will. As Jensen points out, this is a form of abuse but the abused don’t notice because they have been conditioned by their abusers. IOW it is pernicious abuse.

  11. #11 Stu 2
    September 28, 2016

    Read the Jensen points you linked.
    Which point has one of the longest explanations?
    You also agreed about Pimentel’s focus upthread.
    Why have you suddenly decided to duck away from this issue????

  12. #12 Lionel A
    September 28, 2016

    I have not, that is your miss-take mistake shit for brains as you spin around your own detritus!

    No more mister nice guy from me.

  13. #13 Lionel A
    September 28, 2016

    Watch this and ponder on where drinking water for many populations is going to come from.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2016

    Stu2, Last time I looked Australia was not the world. Indeed. it makes up only a tiny portion of it. So stop making yourself look like an ass by posting up witless replies. If everyone in the world lived like an Australian, then we’d need several more Earth like planets to sustain human consumption. However, the US, Europe and Japan have massive ecological deficits and uneven ecological footprints. So even though the US only makes up about 5% or so of the world”s population they consume about 20% of its capital.

    As Lionel says, you are forever beating around the bush in a feeble attempt to gain the intellectual high ground. Why do you even try – we are annihilating every pathetic point that you make.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    September 28, 2016

    And oh stupid, birth rate does not necessarily correlate with population growth. For some idea of why this is so just get a hold of the book I cited in #10 and try to understand what is written within. Now I know that could be a difficult task for you so here is some help.

  16. #16 Stu 2
    September 28, 2016

    I’m not interested in gaining the intellectual high ground.
    I’m interested in discussing the actual issues.
    You raised birth rates @#98.
    I agree that it’s not the only factor influencing population growth, but it is indeed a major factor.
    Why are you both avoiding discussing what is recognised by experts as a global issue?

  17. #17 Stu 2
    September 28, 2016

    You named 4 countries upthread and correlated it with population.
    There are other countries where population growth is stabilizing.
    I’m of course fully aware that Australia is not the world.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    September 28, 2016

    You raised birth rates @#98.

    No you numpty, I was quoting the words of A. N. Other simpleton such as yourself.

    That is twice I have had to tell you now.

    You really are a thick as two short planks.

  19. #19 kim
    September 28, 2016

    Just heard on CNN and CBS: a lot of blacks are now willing to to vote for Trump and against the Clinton clan.

  20. #20 Stu 2
    September 28, 2016

    A.N. (whoever that is) did not raise the subject on this blog.
    You did @#98.
    You also linked Pimentel & Jensen’s points who both raise population growth as a concerning issue.
    But it now appears you don’t agree with either of them on this issue?
    Why is that?
    It’s definitely a ‘conextualised’ issue with plenty of data.
    I linked one data set above, there are numerous others.
    One of the other issues you raised was access to education.
    Maybe you might feel more comfortable discussing that one?

  21. #21 Stu 2
    September 29, 2016
  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    September 29, 2016

    Henry Giroux, a sociologist at McMaster University, has written a book called ‘America at War with Itself’. In it he critiques the current neoliberal order. He defines neoliberalism thusly:

    “It believes that the market is basically the answer to solving all problems, that profit-making is basically the essence of democracy, that the only obligation of citizenship is consumerism. It celebrates the values of privatization, deregulation and consumption. It suggests that businesses should regulate themselves. It argues that self-interest is the highest ideal with respect in some way to addressing the common good. It has a deep disdain for public goods, for the common good. It operates off the assumption that competition in a kind of shock-like mode of interaction is the only way to really survive in society. It embraces a kind of warlike assumption regarding social relations, meaning that the best way to get ahead is to pit oneself with each other”.

    That about sums it up. Its what Jensen, Hedges and others argue that we must dismantle if we are to have any chance of a successful and prosperous future. This is where this ‘debate’ should be focused and not on the pedantics Stu clings to.

  23. #23 Jeff Harvey
    September 29, 2016

    As for Stu’s link, its the same bullshit smear that is repeated over, and over, and over again by those mostly on the political right. Its kindergarten level discourse, aimed to delegitimise in some way the very real consequences of a corporate dominated world in which we live. And its not amusing at all, but in keeping with the depth of Stu’s arguments, pathetically puerile.

    As I have said, in a academic setting me, Hedges, Jensen and many others are light years ahead of people of Stu’s calibre. He’s stuck in an intellectually basal quicksand pit, and tries to reduce every soundbite to the lowest common denominator.

    As I said, pathetic.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    September 29, 2016

    A.N. (whoever that is) did not raise the subject on this blog.
    You did @#98.

    This is rapidly becoming surreal. I was using the remark of A. N. Other (Do you understand the concept of using such a moniker?) to point out how simplistic considering birthrate in isolation was, my reply to A. N. Other included: ‘that is not the whole picture, not by a long chalk’. Get it now oh obtuse one?

    This meshes with your linked to info-graphic which not a data set BTW being something completely different. Once again you grade is in the z- range for ignorance.

    You also linked Pimentel & Jensen’s points who both raise population growth as a concerning issue.
    But it now appears you don’t agree with either of them on this issue?

    You bloody fool, how would you know, you have not studied their writings in any depth to be able to judge. Whatever, does it not occur to you that by citing, and quoting, them I am in tacit agreement with their lines of reasoning. This is supported by the information contained in the books presented in that bookmark at page 4 #97.

    I figure that you skipped over that in your race to fill posts with more babblefuck.

    We link to articles by those who have investigated, studied and thought deeply about these problems because we recognise the need for multilayer, multifaceted approaches to solving this ‘wicked problem’.

    The general population needs to be informed about all this and the media fails badly here. Who gives a rats arse about how celebrity X is feeling about the break up with celebrity Y because of the actions of celebrity Z? I cringe when I think of the resources wasted pumping out such as ‘Hello’ and ‘OK’ to name but two from a host of superficial attention getters.

    There is so little worthwhile and truly informative comment in the media with far too many rabid opinion columns full of lies and obfuscations. Forbes, WSJ, The Times, The Mail on Sunday, Telegraph and Australian being top of the list.

    The shenanigans in the field of sports is but just one symptom of a distorted society. I don’t really care much that Sam Allardyce (now I don’t follow football aka soccer) has been caught out other than it pulls back the curtain, a little, on the effects of too much money swilling around the organisers of the game.

    Other than presenting them as sources of valid information there is little point in discussing further with somebody stuck at the information stage of the continuum:

    data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom

    as you made abundantly clear by confusing an info-graphic with a data set.

    Every post you make you are hoisted higher on your own petard. But being awash in D-K you do not recognise even this simple fact.

  25. #25 Stu 2
    September 29, 2016

    Sigh 🙁
    Read point 9 of Jensen’s from your link upthread.
    I have read enough of Jensen’s work, including the DGR website to not be as impressed as you obviously are.
    Get a grip.
    It was a piece of satire.
    I found it amusing, along with John Cleese’s piece on extremism.
    What a pity you have no sense of humour.
    Whenever you blokes are ready to discuss the actual, real, bona fide issues, let me know OK?
    So far you are only advancing a recipe for failure.

  26. #26 kim
    September 29, 2016

    I would really recommend the warmists here to change their views on Donald Trump, as he provides considerable hope to overcome corrupt WDC political mechanisms which have deteriorated the country in the last years.

  27. #27 Lionel A
    September 29, 2016

    ‘Point 9’, there is no Point 9.

    Your inaccuracy in nomenclature demonstrates the casual approach you have to learning.

    You only think you have read enough of Jensen’s work but each of your replies demonstrates that you have not, or anything else relevant for that matter.

    Another vacuous post from you, ‘pile ’em high and hide beneath’ should be your epitaph.

  28. #28 kim
    September 29, 2016

    ********* BREAING NEWS *********** REAKING NEWS ***********

    Social media analyses show that Donad Trump had won the debate against the Clinton system

    ********* BREAING NEWS *********** REAKING NEWS ***********

  29. #29 Lionel A
    September 29, 2016

    Do I see bubkes at #26 and now #28.

    Who unlocked the door of that asylum?

    And it is clear from #25 above that, to use a phrase by Jim Eager on a Real Climate at #96 following an outbreak of ignorant insanity over there, some of the regulars here will remember the late Tim Curtin at that point:

    Oh well, you can try to lead the ignorant to knowledge, but you can’t make them think.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    September 29, 2016

    Kim you mentally challenged nitwit. Get lost. You make an amoeba sound positively articulate.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    September 29, 2016

    Stu, as I said before, Cheese’s piece on extremism is woefully past its sell-by date. You try and position Derrick Jensen as being extremist in his views yet nothing – NOTHING – he says in his two Endgame volumes is remotely extreme. However, neoliberalism is certainly extreme in terms of its impacts on nature and humanity. The reason it is not seen that way by many is that it has been normalized by our state-corporate media.

  32. #32 Stu 2
    September 29, 2016

    Your link @#73 on page 3.
    Point 9 of Jensen’s 20 premises.
    Check out DGR.
    That’s Jensen too.
    He has every right to his opinions, but I’m not a fan.

  33. #33 Stu 2
    September 29, 2016

    And Jeff.
    Cleese’s piece on extremism is just as funny and just as clever as it was when he produced it.
    You can modernise some of the labels if you like, but Cleese’s amusing observation remains valid IMHO.

New comments have been disabled.