Canadian Politics Today

Bitcoin is the most famous.  All transactions are tracked.  Unlike coins, a transaction has to be updated through a registry.  This is how money began in Sumeria btw.

--  -- 

Blockchain and social media might be able to give us experiments on what new 'social money' looks like and see if it addresses some of the problems with the current system.

I had heard of Bitcoin but not Blockchain.  Other than the physical presence, what is the difference?  If  want your widget I still have to give you some of my bitcoin, correct?

Climate change is just one of many things we need saving from.  Overcrowding, pollution, destruction of the wilderness, extinction of species, collapse of ecosystems, CO2 emissions... they're all just symptoms of the real problem, which is us.  Humans, as a species, are the problem. Everything else is just symptoms.

Stop human population growth, and you'd stop all these other problems. Technical progress could reduce CO2 emissions *if* the globe's population was stable. Technical advancements could produce far more food than we'd ever need *if* the population was stable. Our energy needs could be met with clean sources *if* the population was stable. 

Why do we think we have to keep growing the population?


We need to create these megaprojects to create jobs. We need to create economic incentives for employers to create jobs. We need to create more and more jobs because we have more and more people. Why do we have more and more people? We need to get more and more people because we need more people to buy more products to keep the other people employed. We need more people to pay taxes to pay for government services that are being stretched by having too many people.  It seems like a giant Ponzi scheme, a hovercraft being held aloft by nothing more than its own hot air.   That's the real cause of all these problems. If we don't keep adding more and more people, the hovercraft will crash.

We don't actually need more people. We need more consumer spending, and we need more government revenue.  These could both be achieved without population growth, but they won't be. Adding more people to keep the Ponzi scheme going makes the people at the top happy because it doesn't cost them anything. But for the rest, adding more people is just going to put us on a path that leads us to "crab-bucket syndrome" or the "ghost ship of cannibal rats" scenario.

More consumer spending could be achieved without growing the population.  People wouldn't have to spend so much of their money on rent or homes if they didn't have to compete with so many other people for a place to live.  And adding more and more workers to the mix puts a downward pressure on wages.

As for more government revenue, we wouldn't need to keep growing government revenue if we didn't have to keep growing government programs and services to accommodate more and more people.

I think the key to stopping all of this is stopping population growth, not stopping capitalism.   Now... does capitalism inherently require ongoing growth?

 -k

1. Accepting that wholesale change is needed, can it be done within a democratic framework ?  Can it be done in a global context ?  Can it be done ?
2. Accepting that wholesale change is needed, what does the new system look like ?

My problem is I can't agree with the premise. It is like saying "accepting that the have to move all humans to Mars - what are we going to do?" If climate change is a problem the capitalism and the profit motive will be the best way to address whether it is with tech that reduces CO2 while delivering lower costs or by generating the resources needed to pay for adaptation. Any other system would leave society with fewer resources and therefore more vulnerable to climate change.

How many of those "free loaders" do you suppose are in the fossil fuel business?

The vast majority of tax evaders are people who pay cash for services in return for a lower price (a.k.a. no tax).

TimG's criticisms seem valid.  I'll revisit my posts later.

1. These are statements of personal values - not facts. i.e. classifying some exchanges as "petty" because they do not achieve objectives which the author approves of is not that relevant to the discussion.
2. Taxes have no meaning without money in today's society. Evading taxes is a variation of the freeloader problem and exists no matter what the economic structure.

1. Ok.  But there isn't incentive to take big risks and provide big improvements to the economy, eg. invest in new energy sources.  Instead you can just park your money or invest it in something.  Now, this idea I have comes from articles I have read here and there.
2. Nonetheless, it's a problem and it's easier for wealthier entities to hide their money as they have more resources at their disposal.
 
 

3. My problem is I can't agree with the premise. It is like saying "accepting that the have to move all humans to Mars - what are we going to do?" If climate change is a problem the capitalism and the profit motive will be the best way to address whether it is with tech that reduces CO2 while delivering lower costs or by generating the resources needed to pay for adaptation. Any other system would leave society with fewer resources and therefore more vulnerable to climate change.

3. I accept your point of view. 

What?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate#Country_ranking_by_verified_TFR_and_estimate

Bangladesh has had a huge fertility rate drop, and are close to countries like France.