<p>"The problem is that we live in a world where material goals are the only socially accepted measure of success."</p>
<p>Actually, not true. Even elementary economics talks of, shows, that folks will trade less money for more leisure, longer commutes for more green space, etc. There exist all sorts of tradeoffs where income is traded for intangibles. </p>
<p>" We live in a world where we are governed by mobs as cleverly manipulated by profiteers."</p>
<p>Yes, an interesting issue is when advertising crosses the line from information to propaganda, or worse. Certainly, our government has learned lessons from Madison Avenue.</p>
<p>" We live in a world where individualism is the supreme way and and most people cannot see further than beyond what their own eyes and their televisions tell them."</p>
<p>Interestingly, many current government policies are anti individualism. Your TV comment is especially appropriate in light of Fox News. (why do they even call it News? an oxymoron?)</p>
<p>Very good debate guys but I am siding with the dad here. Ryan, you are way too pessimistic about the world and there is no doubt in my mind that you are an underestimater. You underestimate the ability of man. You are the kind of person that would support communism or a system where evil, if you want to call it that, is done out of noble intentions. You, or any one person, could not decide for another person what is best for them. What you decide is ultimately limited in your own paradigm and out of your own interest. </p>
<p>Why do I say that? First, you dont believe in capitalism. Capitalism is a system where people have the freedom to trade. If I trade with you without coercion or force, I am only doing so out of self interest. I would never trade you something I value more from something I will value less. This is a simple idea and this is what capitalism build is upon. If we all act out of self interest, Paris, Tokyo, New York, and Beijing could be fed because nobody is going to build a farm, cook the food, ship it to the cities, and give the food to the hungry out of kindness. If people have the freedom to maximize their happiness, then we are creating an advanced society while maximizing well being.</p>
<p>You must be falling for the Green Peace propaganda. Peoples demand in advance nations are increasing but they are increasing in renewable resources and while decreasing in bulk. The renewable resource I am talking about is service. We dont need to make big TVs if we can make Plasma. To make Plasma TVs more affordable, we need more brain power. We need nano power. Didnt I already tell you that waste is actually on the decline in super advanced nations? Didnt you read anything I wrote?
You said many scientists predicted that oil will last for 50 years.
1) They are only the currently known oil fields and reserves.
2) Of the currently known oil fields, only the ones that could be retrieved with current technology are counted.
And why do you care if all resources are used up if you dont support using them in the first place? If we dont use oil, why would we need to have oil? Basically what you are saying is that we should only use our resources to advance technology
but who really wants that and therefore finance that (voting with their wallet)? And if you dont support a system where people vote with their wallet, how long do you suppose it would take the world to reach the current level of technology using command economy? One of the few negative externalities of capitalism is by giving people enough free time to complain about capitalism. And if you dont think Indians today are living better than Indians 200 years ago, you need to take some history classes. </p>
<p>Perhaps you want to look into politics.</p>
<p>"Actually, not true. Even elementary economics talks of, shows, that folks will trade less money for more leisure, longer commutes for more green space, etc. There exist all sorts of tradeoffs where income is traded for intangibles."</p>
<p>I said "material" goals, not money. Leisure and green space, are essentially materiial goals, related purely to the physical dimension. Any goals ranscendent, eternal, and purely intangible, like heroic achievement for its own sake (unless it somehow involves philanthropy), or knowlege, are generally looked down upon. People only care about what will make them more comfortable or their lives more pleasurable.</p>
<p>"Interestingly, many current government policies are anti individualism."</p>
<p>Indivualism and collectivism are not diametrically opposed; rather the former inevitably progresses to the ladder when applied in a utilitarian/egalitarian context. When all people assert their inviduality, they are usually too weak to do it on their own, and there is little real difference among themselves anyway, so they assert their indivuality as a group, i.e. through collectivism. Thus communism can be seen as merely a forced acceleration of a gradual collectivization that happens inevitably in a liberal, capitalist society.</p>
<p>"Your TV comment is especially appropriate in light of Fox News."</p>
<p>Fox News is definately one of the most obviously bad, but all other television and printed media are just as bad. Look at the companies and it's easy to see its pretty much all owned by you-know-who.</p>
<p>j10cpc5000 you seem to misunderstand where I'm coming from. I am not a communist, I do not believe in a command economy, nor do I believe that "we should only use our resources to advance technology."</p>
<p>However I lack the patience at the current time to explain myself further, but if you really care that much, you could check out some of the litterature i mentioned earlier. </p>
<p>BTW, if you are optimistic about the environment at this point, then I think that you are the one who is the victim of propaganda. What interest would Green Peace have in spreading pro-environmental propeganda, and what interest would capitalists have in spreading propeganda that says everything is fine?</p>
<p>capitalist aren't spreading any propaganda because a capitalist is not only a person who support the idea of capitalism, but they are participate in the capitalistic process. Why are you a capitalist? </p>
<p>Franky, I don't give a sh** about the environment if my fellow human beings are living like animals.</p>
<p>I believe, without a doubt, the standard of living in 2005 is many times better than the standard of living in 1023. I suggest you watch the movie The Village.</p>
<p>"Any goals ranscendent, eternal, and purely intangible, like heroic achievement for its own sake (unless it somehow involves philanthropy), or knowlege, are generally looked down upon. People only care about what will make them more comfortable or their lives more pleasurable."</p>
<p>Maybe where you hang out, but not in my world. You have apparenty grown up in a highly materialistic locale, an upscale suburb probably, where the locals think everything can be bought. Not all places are like that. And I hope you take the time to explore, observe and listen to other cultures and environments. </p>
<p>Back to econ: It does not just deal with money. Econ looks at all kinds of tradeoffs, including some pretty intangible ones like you mention.</p>