Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 01, 2011, 09:58:25 AM

Quote from: jtimon on July 01, 2011, 09:34:08 AM

But not dynamic equilibrium, because there's many ways to achieve it and you claim science can make you decide one.

It can.

If the dynamic equilibrium (which you stated was to goal to achieve by using the scientific method) can be obtained in various ways, you need another value do chose the best alternative.
And again SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVIDES VALUES, nor a direction to go, nor a meaning of life.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

You say good is subjective but bad is objective.
I don't like starvation, but I don't think it is objectively bad. Bad (as good) is always subjective .

Good or bad are loaded terms. Let's say: "diminishes or maximises well being". That is objective. Starvation diminishes well being, that's a fact.

Well, then you have to define formally "well being".

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

Finally understood. Sustainability is a priority over people getting free access to their necessities.
When a conflict appears, sutainability gets first and the free access may be stopped when necessary.

Free access is according to the availability. They go hand in hand.

That's why I think sustainability is not compatible with people having free access to what they want.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Look, it's real simple. The planet has a carrying capacity of X, you have to manage it accordingly. You can't pretend you have 10 planets.

Sadly, free market capitalists believe we have 10 planets to spare.

Sorry to break the news for you: we don't.

I know.
I don't think free market capitalists believe we have 10 planets.
Also I don't like capitalism, just free market. Gesell can explain you in depth how to end with capitalism without eliminating free market.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

As far as I can tell, nobody defends social darwinism nor eugenics here.
I don't think free trade results in "poor getting poorer and rich getting richer", but if it did, then can't imply "almost complete social immobility" at the same time.

It's not my opinion, the data shows that. The more capitalist a country is, the more inequality and social darwinism. Th more inequality, the more problems.

There's many factors that lead to inequality, you can't blame the free market and pretend that is obvious.
Big companies are often "powered" by states, they also use coercion (coercion is not free trade).
What do you mean by "more capitalist country"?
Is the US more capitalist than China?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.

You still think of the producer as an individual or a central authority. In an RBE there is no such a thing, ergo what you state is a non sequitur.

The producer could be just you or me. I'm talking about people when I say producer.
There's no authorities or there's no producers in a RBE?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

4.2 profit-based competition breeds natural monopolies, corruption and environmental degradation

No. This your an opinion. It must be proved to become science.

If you can't see how the market continuously creates oligopolies, cartels and monopolies without any regard for the environment or the people at large, you have missed the last 50 years of our history.

Shall I go and list all human activities, and how 90% of the market is controlled by no more than 5 companies, that continuously destroy the environment?

Please wake up and open your eyes.

We are not talking about abstract philosophy or theoretical models. We are talking about real life.

Monopolies, cartels and such need some form of coercion to keep being monopolies.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it.
If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide.

OK, so finally I get it.

You have no plan to avoid self-destruction, you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that.

Any explanation on how that may happen?

My plan for sustainability is probably close to yours: increase localization of food and energy production, permaculture, renewable energies...
I just think we don't have to sacrifice freedom for that. As you said, people must educate themselves and the scarcity of resources will help on that.
Have you heard about peak oil?
We just won't have a monetary system that is based on exponential growth like the one we have today. Just because is unsustainable.
To replace it you don't want money at all.
Most people on this forum prefer gold-like money (bitcoin).
I prefer ripple and/or freicoin because gold leads to interest and I think that's a flaw.