Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 22 results by ender
Re: Because BitCoin Software is P2P, is that not a security risk in itself?
If you want complete security unplug your pc from the internet and keep it in a safe, any other measure is risky 
Or use a proxy, a vpn or something if you are so concerned. But P2P is not a security risk in itself, p2p is a tool. Its like saying that handling a knife is a security risk by itself. It is if you are careless. There are a thousand measures you can take to be more secure, your IP is not everything. There are IP scanners that can show if you are vulnerable even though you have your torrent off.
First step, check that your ports are stealthed: https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
Or use a proxy, a vpn or something if you are so concerned. But P2P is not a security risk in itself, p2p is a tool. Its like saying that handling a knife is a security risk by itself. It is if you are careless. There are a thousand measures you can take to be more secure, your IP is not everything. There are IP scanners that can show if you are vulnerable even though you have your torrent off.
First step, check that your ports are stealthed: https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
- Use machine learning to optimize bot trading.
- Use machine learning for forecasting.
Machine learning! Yay!!
Many laws, little by little, since the 1980's.
You should see the part about conflict of interest in the film. Just because you link to me a web from a fancy institute that is surely payed by the same guys who got us into the crisis doesnt make it true. As for wikipedia... its cool yadda-yadda yet it doesn't say shit about the crisis. Would I trust an article that is missing important information? Knowing how easily it is to edit wikipedia? Knowing your government periodically edits it?
You are a master in the arts of getting the attention off the main fact, you have been trained well.
Back to topic?
Bitcoins will come first. Resource based economy afterwards. And all bankers and financial capos will leave the world in peace.
You should see the part about conflict of interest in the film. Just because you link to me a web from a fancy institute that is surely payed by the same guys who got us into the crisis doesnt make it true. As for wikipedia... its cool yadda-yadda yet it doesn't say shit about the crisis. Would I trust an article that is missing important information? Knowing how easily it is to edit wikipedia? Knowing your government periodically edits it?
You are a master in the arts of getting the attention off the main fact, you have been trained well.
Back to topic?
Bitcoins will come first. Resource based economy afterwards. And all bankers and financial capos will leave the world in peace.
There are no socialists in europe or america period. In the countries which have a socialist leader, like they had in Portugal or in Spain, government has just taken the same right wing approach as the rest of europe: fuck the working class to save the elites asses.
The thing about violence. There is no need for violence to redistribute wealth. I'm not saying we should do it, but government just has to pass a law and change bank account's owners, see, no violence.
What i think BCEmporium is trying to say that keeping people starving to death and poor is just as bad as "stealing the rich" if not more. Maybe its not violence but you can attack people indirectly if you don't let them develop.
The thing about violence. There is no need for violence to redistribute wealth. I'm not saying we should do it, but government just has to pass a law and change bank account's owners, see, no violence.
What i think BCEmporium is trying to say that keeping people starving to death and poor is just as bad as "stealing the rich" if not more. Maybe its not violence but you can attack people indirectly if you don't let them develop.
Sortedmush, thanks for the links dude!
To Sjalq: Now I pointed out to you a place where you can see the things you asked me you change the question. Now you want my interpretation of the situation.
1. Crack of 29 showed you just cannot mix finance with real economy. Laws were implemented for normal banks not to go the financial speculation route, in order to protect citizens from another crisis. Surely they were not perfect still, but better than nothing.
2. Then came the time 29 was forgotten and finance prophets managed to throw down all those laws. One at a time of course, so we wouldn't notice where we were headed. Since 80's to 10's. Banks started to invest in finance and invent "new and exciting ways" to make money out of doing nothing.
3. Not only that, but some smartass thought that if you gave loans to people who couldn't pay them, combine them with other loans, have rating agencies rate them AAA++itsawesome and put them in the market HE would make a fortune. So they did. That was the spark. Where that lead us is widely known.
In the docu they compare that with an oil ship. Those ships have to have compartments tightly sealed, or the oil would just bounce back and forth and sink the ship. That was the state before all the deregulation. Laws were the things enforcing "tightly sealed compartments". Now the laws are no more and the ship has sunk.
Now I challenge you as an individual to keep your face straight while you defend "deregulation" and Wall St. after all that has happened.
To Sjalq: Now I pointed out to you a place where you can see the things you asked me you change the question. Now you want my interpretation of the situation.
1. Crack of 29 showed you just cannot mix finance with real economy. Laws were implemented for normal banks not to go the financial speculation route, in order to protect citizens from another crisis. Surely they were not perfect still, but better than nothing.
2. Then came the time 29 was forgotten and finance prophets managed to throw down all those laws. One at a time of course, so we wouldn't notice where we were headed. Since 80's to 10's. Banks started to invest in finance and invent "new and exciting ways" to make money out of doing nothing.
3. Not only that, but some smartass thought that if you gave loans to people who couldn't pay them, combine them with other loans, have rating agencies rate them AAA++itsawesome and put them in the market HE would make a fortune. So they did. That was the spark. Where that lead us is widely known.
In the docu they compare that with an oil ship. Those ships have to have compartments tightly sealed, or the oil would just bounce back and forth and sink the ship. That was the state before all the deregulation. Laws were the things enforcing "tightly sealed compartments". Now the laws are no more and the ship has sunk.
Now I challenge you as an individual to keep your face straight while you defend "deregulation" and Wall St. after all that has happened.
You can't say something wouldn't work if it has not been tested before. Unless you have the tools to scientifically prove it, like I can inference from a formula that I wouldn't be able to lift the earth.
And no, comunism or fascism or whatever-ism has nothing to do with the venus project. We are talking about replacing politics with the scientific method, the same way politics replaced religion for social organisation. It has not been tested before.
"95% of the evils in that movie could be removed from Earth if we simply started shrinking the government substantially... and that was obvious before the movie."
Yeah like we are better now with an unregulated financial system that has led the world to bankrupcy. If anything, this crisis should teach us that neoliberalism benefits a handful of people while the rest of us pay its consequences.
About the bitcoin+venus. Venus project doesn't really need any "coin" to work so from that perspective it wouldn't fit.
What bitcoins could be useful for is for the transition. We would need money then, and a money that pays no interests to banks etc is perfect
And no, comunism or fascism or whatever-ism has nothing to do with the venus project. We are talking about replacing politics with the scientific method, the same way politics replaced religion for social organisation. It has not been tested before.
"95% of the evils in that movie could be removed from Earth if we simply started shrinking the government substantially... and that was obvious before the movie."
Yeah like we are better now with an unregulated financial system that has led the world to bankrupcy. If anything, this crisis should teach us that neoliberalism benefits a handful of people while the rest of us pay its consequences.
About the bitcoin+venus. Venus project doesn't really need any "coin" to work so from that perspective it wouldn't fit.
What bitcoins could be useful for is for the transition. We would need money then, and a money that pays no interests to banks etc is perfect
I'm sorry but your facts are skewed. Neoliberalism is every BUT unregulated financial markets. I'm going to challenge you and ask you to point to specific regulations that were lifted that led to the crises, linking cause and effect. Also name the size and the funding of the SEC and other financial regulatory bodies and how they grew in the decade preceding the crises. Please do not simply repeat the party line if you have not seen the facts for yourself.
The financial crises was cause by easy fed money, the rest are simply details, cracks the water followed to seep out of the ceiling. The answer is not to build a water proof ceiling but to fix the leaking pipe.
An excellent book to read on the subject is Thomas J Woods' "Rollback."
An excellent documentary to watch is "Inside Job", won the oscar this year. There you have specific laws that were created after the 29 crack that were lifted since the 80's.
USA passes the laws because your government is infiltrated with wall st. capos and all the world pays. It is fact, tv just won't show you. Think why.
You can't say something wouldn't work if it has not been tested before. Unless you have the tools to scientifically prove it, like I can inference from a formula that I wouldn't be able to lift the earth.
And no, comunism or fascism or whatever-ism has nothing to do with the venus project. We are talking about replacing politics with the scientific method, the same way politics replaced religion for social organisation. It has not been tested before.
"95% of the evils in that movie could be removed from Earth if we simply started shrinking the government substantially... and that was obvious before the movie."
Yeah like we are better now with an unregulated financial system that has led the world to bankrupcy. If anything, this crisis should teach us that neoliberalism benefits a handful of people while the rest of us pay its consequences.
About the bitcoin+venus. Venus project doesn't really need any "coin" to work so from that perspective it wouldn't fit.
What bitcoins could be useful for is for the transition. We would need money then, and a money that pays no interests to banks etc is perfect
And no, comunism or fascism or whatever-ism has nothing to do with the venus project. We are talking about replacing politics with the scientific method, the same way politics replaced religion for social organisation. It has not been tested before.
"95% of the evils in that movie could be removed from Earth if we simply started shrinking the government substantially... and that was obvious before the movie."
Yeah like we are better now with an unregulated financial system that has led the world to bankrupcy. If anything, this crisis should teach us that neoliberalism benefits a handful of people while the rest of us pay its consequences.
About the bitcoin+venus. Venus project doesn't really need any "coin" to work so from that perspective it wouldn't fit.
What bitcoins could be useful for is for the transition. We would need money then, and a money that pays no interests to banks etc is perfect
The economy can grow until we know everything about everything and all mass and energy in the universe is allocated to the being capable of reason that values it the highest and used for the highest possible value for said being.
What economics growth means is simply that we do more with less. Less resources and labour are needed to maintain the same standard of living when we have growth, this is quite beneficial to the environment and everyone in the economy. This ofcourse also frees resources and time that can be utilized elsewhere increasing the standard of living, but it is up to you if you wanna do that or not...
What economics growth means is simply that we do more with less. Less resources and labour are needed to maintain the same standard of living when we have growth, this is quite beneficial to the environment and everyone in the economy. This ofcourse also frees resources and time that can be utilized elsewhere increasing the standard of living, but it is up to you if you wanna do that or not...
I quite don't fit the phrase "we do more with less".
The part of reducing the labour force needed I can see, machines are more profitable than humans by a wide margin. We have been able to mechanize agriculture and industry so people in the first world now quasi-entirely work on the service sector (not sure if thats the correct english term).
That thought leads me to a paradox though, when we have robots taking over the one working sector that is left. So, in a future all-automated world the only work to do would be to design robots (if they don't just design themselves). So no people working = no salaries = no consumption. Am I missing something or from this perspective the paradigm is also doomed in the long run?
The part about reducing the resource consumption. How do you make a chair with less wood? You just can "spawn" matter. How do you produce more energy with fewer fuel, whatever the fuel used is?
"A UN environment panel said the world cannot sustain the tearaway rate of use of minerals, ores and fossil and plant fuels. It called on governments to "decouple" economic growth from natural resource consumption.
With the world population expected to hit 9.3 billion by 2050 and developing nations becoming more prosperous, the report warned "the prospect of much higher resource consumption levels is far beyond what is likely sustainable.""
"Total world resource use has risen from about six billion tons in 1900 to 49 billion tons in 2000 and has already gone up to an estimated 59 billion tons now."
source: http://wires.univision.com/english/article/2011-05-12/global-resource-consumption-to-triple
So the UN thinks economic growth and natural resource consumption are indeed coupled. Not only that, resource consumption has effectively rocketed since 1900.
http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=1204
If you use my link I'll tell you all the spoilers you want from Game of Thrones, free of charge!
If you use my link I'll tell you all the spoilers you want from Game of Thrones, free of charge!
U americans fear your government so its all about thinning it. In europe government fear the people, and every couple centuries we hang our leaders by the thumbs to make them remember who's the boss and rebuild. I think what we are seeing is the beginning of that. And i think you americans should wake up and show your government who they should serve. In a social pyramid, when the low layers move, the top crashes down.
The people who think all is lost. I like to picture them like the farmer in the feudal ages lowering their heads. But there was hope then and theres hope still.
The people who think all is lost. I like to picture them like the farmer in the feudal ages lowering their heads. But there was hope then and theres hope still.
You still haven't defined exactly what you mean when you loosely refer to "resources" everywhere in your arguments, so they are based on sand. Not science.
I have already shown, and you haven't refuted, that the actual resources humanity desires is a temporal phenomena that changes with technological advance. It can change quite abruptly, look around at what is happening right here. Domestic scale fusion reactors may come on stream next year.
Are you saying that humanity is going to cease to advance technologically?
Is this what you mean by running out of resources?
As long as we are still leaving the planet in better shape for the next generation than we found it, there is no reason to think the place has become unihabitable for future generations because of "resource depletion". You are conflating pollution and resource extraction if that is what you are erroneously thinking.
This is getting pointless and has implications far greater than the topic of the post suggest.
"actual resources humanity desires is a temporal phenomena that changes with technological advance" Actual "superfluous" resources you mean. Silk and gold, now its Nike and Apple. Thats what this growth is all about.
Another piece of the puzzle, our best friend energy! Since we began producing energy with oil and coal we haven't changed that much. And that was a long time ago. Exponential consumption of a limited resource = fail. And technology does have alternatives but they are not profitable so the problem is unresolved. The paradigm even goes against technological advance.
Unquestionable human needs: food, water, shelter, love... they have not changed and will never change. Without them we DIE. Yet we don't provide food nor water nor shelter for each and every member of our species. Yet we built a society where crime, depression, obsession, stress, suicides... are growing decade after decade. Where our idea of love is getting a 300$ present at christmas.
Thats one valid distinction between resources. Needed for survival and others. We are not even granting the survival of three fucking fourths our species. And you are wrong. Pollution = destroying the earth = not having even the basic resources.
Humanity won't stop advancing technologically, and i dont mean that by resources. Thats what i think being human is about. But we could stall, it has happened before, and i think thats where were headed because of our unsustainable economic paradigm.
Egypt was building pyramids 2000 a.c. and that level of technology was lost for millennia. Look at the middle-ages. Read about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism "Its time of construction is now estimated between 150 and 100 BC.[4] The degree of mechanical sophistication is comparable to a 19th century Swiss clock."
Open your scope. Open your mind. Really. Watch the film i posted before. If you can make your mind around the fact that our way of thinking depends on education and culture you can skip directly to Chapter II at 00:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w#t=42m10s
Chapter III is a proposed solution to our problems.
Well this is just a huge emotive rant that is not going solve anything, let alone define the problem more succinctly.
Have you defined what a resource is yet? I don't think I've seen the answer to this in your writings thus far, yet you use the term everywhere.
You seem to keep sliding around that point and back into the doom and gloom is nigh stuff.
If you dont know what a word means theres a thing called dictionaries. But i know you know what i mean and that you are deliberately playing dumb in desperate hope my reasoning can be rejected.
As long as we are still leaving the planet in better shape for the next generation than we found it
We are? 
Considering the millions of hectares of forest lost each year, extinguishing species, overfishing, etc, I wouldn't say so.
Destruction of forest, extinguishing species, overfishing is a result of the inability to own these resources, not resource scarcity.
In any case, if we ever figure out how to mine asteroid...a single asteroid will be more than all the building, electronics, roads, and all the other material things that's made out of lead, steel, silicon, gold, etc, combined. Gold will cease to be the storage of wealth.
Assuming our population don't grow like rabbits and our hunger for resources don't grow like rabbits, it might be the all things that we will ever need for building anything.
The next question is how do we get enough energy? Do we get it from nuclear power on earth or absorb energy from the sun?
Not inability to own resources. Its the system that demands profit while theres no profit in preserving the earth.
Our population grows like rabbits. Our hunger for resources grow like rabbits but not directly because of what would be expected: population, but because 1/4 of the world needs more and more and more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png
About the asteroid. We don't even go to the fucking moon anymore because now its not a penis race and its not profitable. And your alarm clock could now be reprogrammed to guide us there.
About the energy, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
There are three stages of civilization and we are not even in stage 1... the direction is clear.
You still haven't defined exactly what you mean when you loosely refer to "resources" everywhere in your arguments, so they are based on sand. Not science.
I have already shown, and you haven't refuted, that the actual resources humanity desires is a temporal phenomena that changes with technological advance. It can change quite abruptly, look around at what is happening right here. Domestic scale fusion reactors may come on stream next year.
Are you saying that humanity is going to cease to advance technologically?
Is this what you mean by running out of resources?
As long as we are still leaving the planet in better shape for the next generation than we found it, there is no reason to think the place has become unihabitable for future generations because of "resource depletion". You are conflating pollution and resource extraction if that is what you are erroneously thinking.
This is getting pointless and has implications far greater than the topic of the post suggest.
"actual resources humanity desires is a temporal phenomena that changes with technological advance" Actual "superfluous" resources you mean. Silk and gold, now its Nike and Apple. Thats what this growth is all about.
Another piece of the puzzle, our best friend energy! Since we began producing energy with oil and coal we haven't changed that much. And that was a long time ago. Exponential consumption of a limited resource = fail. And technology does have alternatives but they are not profitable so the problem is unresolved. The paradigm even goes against technological advance.
Unquestionable human needs: food, water, shelter, love... they have not changed and will never change. Without them we DIE. Yet we don't provide food nor water nor shelter for each and every member of our species. Yet we built a society where crime, depression, obsession, stress, suicides... are growing decade after decade. Where our idea of love is getting a 300$ present at christmas.
Thats one valid distinction between resources. Needed for survival and others. We are not even granting the survival of three fucking fourths our species. And you are wrong. Pollution = destroying the earth = not having even the basic resources.
Humanity won't stop advancing technologically, and i dont mean that by resources. Thats what i think being human is about. But we could stall, it has happened before, and i think thats where were headed because of our unsustainable economic paradigm.
Egypt was building pyramids 2000 a.c. and that level of technology was lost for millennia. Look at the middle-ages. Read about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism "Its time of construction is now estimated between 150 and 100 BC.[4] The degree of mechanical sophistication is comparable to a 19th century Swiss clock."
Open your scope. Open your mind. Really. Watch the film i posted before. If you can make your mind around the fact that our way of thinking depends on education and culture you can skip directly to Chapter II at 00:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w#t=42m10s
Chapter III is a proposed solution to our problems.
I think that there is a big difference between natural resources and total wealth. The main reason why the world's wealth is increasing in modern times is not because we're using up more and more resources but because of technology. Technology allows us to get more utility out of the same resources - a computer now is far more useful than a pot made five thousand years ago out of the same raw materials was then; a genetically engineered plant (including selective breeding) produces twenty times the usable food for twice the nutrients and the same amount of effort. While natural resource consumption will inevitably hit the latter half of its S-curve, technological progress will continue and accelerate without any currently visible limit.
This. The only resource we can truly run out of, and be stuffed as a species, is minds for critical thinking.
We create the resources. Until it is desirable and valuable to humans it is an inanimate, worthless, object. When it has utility it becomes a resource. 300 years ago large, untapped oil, gas and uranium deposits were unknown to man and worth nothing. The prized resources from that same era likely have been substituted by better, cheaper, technically superior alternatives and are now worthless again.
Resource scarcity is the same old Malthusian myth that won't die, no matter how many times it is proved wrong. Like Keynesian monetary theories.
So we all agree that humans have reached this point of civlization because of science and technology. From fire to microwave ovens what really solves our problems at the end of the day is technology, not tribalism, feudalism, comunism, capitalism or any other thing. Thats why a RBE is based around science and technology, not money, profit or politics.
I couldn't care less about keynesians or the church, to me its all based around beliefs and faith, not scientific facts. Science has no ego, contrary to beliefs that think they posses the ultimate truth. Science has no room for opinion. You either prove that something is right or wrong or you stfu and play other games.
I dont think you have disproven my "myth" at all. Again, give me facts that scientifically prove that earth's resources renew following an exponential function or will in the future. Prove to me that exponentially consuming oil, for example, will not end with oil depletion.
Your myth, on the contrary, falls under its own weight and it should be evident. What you have is faith. And I know its difficult arguing with people that are not able to question their beliefs. "Its the truth and theres no room for opinion". Who is your leader?
Nature IS a dictatorship. And its the only dictatorship we cannot end no matter how smart we think we are.
While clean water is indeed limited to some extent, it's merely a question of "at what price can I obtain clean water." If the government allowed markets to work instead of fixing prices, then as clean water was used the local price of that water would rise, and entrepreneurs would figure out ways to bring new clean water in to make a profit.
If governments allowed markets to work instead of fixing prices, we would have a great percentage of our GLOBAL population that cannot pay for clean water DIE because of it. Oh wait, this is already happening. Your solution to this particular problem seems to me will make it worse.
You really need to start thinking globally.
It doesn't matter that USA has more trees because government pay incentives or whatever to replant. Thats local impact, and we all know the real impact of our "standard of living" is being payed by third world countries. I really doubt all timber USA consumes is produced exclusively in the USA. I really doubt you make more profit for replanting trees in the Amazonian because if this were true then we would have more rainforest and not less.
Trees are a renewable source as you call it and I described. So please point out to me in what place capitalism is taking into account this period of "renewability".
About water and as I can read from your post you do comprehend that even a thing as plentiful as clean water is limited, so you are strengthening my point, no matter how bad you think my example was.
Maybe my examples were not the best of the world, but that doesn't invalidate my argument. In the best case renewable sources "renew" at a fixed linear rate, yet we consume them in an exponential way. The worst cases are things like oil or coal, that have practically 0 growth, yet we consume them exponentially. You don't need a degree in MATHEMATICS to comprehend that exponential growth in a finite world leads to a failure in the system sooner or later. And i really hope this failure happens before we destroy the earth, so we resource based economy believers can take over and make this world a better place for ALL humans to live in.
As an example of science... "The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
Please point out to me where in your "science" this carrying capacity is taken into account, if at all.
It doesn't matter that USA has more trees because government pay incentives or whatever to replant. Thats local impact, and we all know the real impact of our "standard of living" is being payed by third world countries. I really doubt all timber USA consumes is produced exclusively in the USA. I really doubt you make more profit for replanting trees in the Amazonian because if this were true then we would have more rainforest and not less.
Trees are a renewable source as you call it and I described. So please point out to me in what place capitalism is taking into account this period of "renewability".
About water and as I can read from your post you do comprehend that even a thing as plentiful as clean water is limited, so you are strengthening my point, no matter how bad you think my example was.
Maybe my examples were not the best of the world, but that doesn't invalidate my argument. In the best case renewable sources "renew" at a fixed linear rate, yet we consume them in an exponential way. The worst cases are things like oil or coal, that have practically 0 growth, yet we consume them exponentially. You don't need a degree in MATHEMATICS to comprehend that exponential growth in a finite world leads to a failure in the system sooner or later. And i really hope this failure happens before we destroy the earth, so we resource based economy believers can take over and make this world a better place for ALL humans to live in.
As an example of science... "The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
Please point out to me where in your "science" this carrying capacity is taken into account, if at all.
Re: You cannot talk about Money without watching this movies first
Yeah! The increasing creation of new money by new debt can stop when it reaches an inflection point, but millions of people keep in slavery paying interest on debt already issued! The point is that societies cannot payback debth without contracting the money supply and harming or destroying the economy. This is perverse! With so much leverage caused by the fractional reserve banking even proportionally few people in a society paying back debth and living debth free can literally destroy the whole economy.
I agree with what you are saying in general about the system creating excessive debt and it being a form of slavery. But the excessive debt is not created by fractional reserve banking alone. Only when you put a central bank behind the fractional reserve system it becomes inflationary, as the central bank is taking the risk away and allowing the banks to inflate. But fractional banking alone is not inflationary, since the risk of going bankrupt keeps the temptaion of credit expansion in check. There are several historic examples of how fractional banking alone is not inflationary.
The risk of going bankrupt? What risk? In what idealised world? C'mon we all payed for banks not to go bankrupt. We cannot expect banks to "hold back" for fear of bankrupcy when they have no reasons to fear it.
When normal people say "resources", they mean natural resources like timber, fresh water, oil and coal. They don't mean produced goods like hamburgers, clothing and houses.
You are right. But how many normal normal people do you know that are complaining that they just cannot buy timber, fresh water, oil and coal for love nor money?
The myth that normal people have been sold by the green-socialist lobby is that these "natural resources" are becoming more scarce while the actual goods they need to survive, hamburger, clothes, housing, supposedly produced by these "dwindling resources" are in reality becoming more plentiful and cheaper .... happily for the green-socialist lobby normal people are happy to live with this paradox. It is called cognitive dissonance I think.
Resource scarcity is a convenient myth. Convenient for green-socialist lobby to scare people over to their envy and control driven cause and convenient for the inflationistas who can say "see, prices are going up because resources are dwindling" whilst they rape the monetary system.
Unless you have better explanation of how it is that produced goods that are needed by humanity are becoming more plentiful while "natural resources" are dwindling?
Perhaps your definition of what is a resource needs some refining?
Define resources correctly and go from there. Until that point the argument is ill-defined.
So you are saying that the notion that water is limited, that oil will deplete and that trees need time to grow is a MYTH?
The thing is the economy is not based on these factors, thats the reason why theres no correlation between natural resources and human production.
Its as simple as saying that the equation is missing variables, so we are getting counter-intuitive and false reasonings. It doesnt matter if theres a million forests or one tree left, the system we built on top will be making paper cheaper and cheaper (maybe not the price of the tree itself, but every other cost tends to drop). Until suddenly theres no more trees left.