"The End of Doom": Ron Bailey on Why The Future Looks Pretty Damn Great

Advances in technology will address climate change before calamity strikes.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

"The End of Doom": Ron Bailey on Why The Future Looks Pretty Damn Great

HD Video Download

"You will always have people selling doom," says Reason's Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey. "It's lucrative and it makes you sound serious. But they will be proved wrong." 

In his new book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century, Bailey acknowledges the reality of climate change, but insists that humans will utilize technological advancements in solar, nuclear, and other forms of energy to manage any hazards long before oft-predicted calamity strikes. Bailey argues that world population will peak later this century and prices for all sorts of commodities—from oil to food to metals—will continue to fall as well. 

Bailey paints a highly optimistic vision not just for the environment but for human flourishing in general, a point of view he concedes is generally not as good for book sales as visions of the apocalypse are. But he, notes, the optimistic vision does have the advantage of being true.

About six and a half minutes. 

Produced By Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Meredith Bragg, Paul Detrick and Zach Weissmueller.  

Music: "3 Days Until Ressurection feat SkyRider" by S.J. Mellia (http://soundcloud.com/sj-mell) 

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to get automatic updates when new videos go live.

Comments

[Aloysious]

Nick, why are you interviewing Rick Steves? Is this book about travel?

[DenverJ]

Rick Steve's Libertopia.

[C. Anacreon]

Here's a more pertinent question -- Nick, who'd you make responsible for posting stories this weekend? They've been forgetting to clear the old comments, and people are stuck arguing with the past again.....

[Agammamon]

Its amusing if, on occasion, a commenter forgets one of his old handles and starts arguing with his past self.

[JWatts]

"In his new book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century, Bailey "

The Kindle version is more expensive than the hardback! Oh, screw that. Get a new publisher, Ron.

[DenverJ]

You know who else had a publisher?

[JimBob7]

Karl Marx?

[Knarf Yenrab!]

Which raises the question, which is it better to have: a published religious manuscript, or multiple pairs of pants?

[AlmightyJB]

If your manuscript scores you enough groupies you won't need any damn pants.

[mtrueman]

"But he, notes, the optimistic vision does have the advantage of being true."

There are reasons why libertarians should be a little more skeptical about Bailey's claim that technology will solve our problems. It ignores the fact that technical solutions have their own problems, especially for libertarian minded folk. They generally entail finer divisions of labour making us reliant on expert technocrats, and less self-reliant. Technology also entails bureaucracy, and more hierarchy. And more expenditure of energy as well. With technological innovation we all pay a price in personal autonomy and freedom.

[Arthur45]

That's a pretty sloppy bit of reasoning when all that's being considered is power plant technology (which won't change labor) and electric cars, which obviously are little different that ICE autos to build and practically the same operationally. There is a Gen 4 moolten salt nucelar power plant design from Transatomic Power that can replace everything we have now.It's cheaper than any other power generation technology, completely safe, and can rid the world of most of it's nuclear wastes, since it can burn those wastes. Two technologies is all that's required, even if you do falsely believe the global warming will be of any concern.

[mtrueman]

" Two technologies is all that's required,"

If only it were true. As I mentioned, and this goes for nuclear power generation as well, with those plants comes government regulation, and the more plants the more regulation. Now as a statist, you're probably quite comfortable with nuclear power and its command economy. But libertarians, who stress freedom and autonomy, should be more skeptical than you or Bailey.

[ReadyKilowatt]

Unfortunately the nuclear age happened to come about at the same time as the Progressive era in government. The two are not related in anyway, aside from the state being too afraid of anyone other than the state having control over that much concentrated energy.

There's really no need for the existing level of regulation over the nuclear industry.

[mtrueman]

"There's really no need for the existing level of regulation over the nuclear industry."

A lot of libertarians here will disagree with you. Have you followed the debate here over Iran's nuclear programme? You should definitely have a look.

[Sevo]

"A lot of libertarians here will disagree with you. Have you followed the debate here over Iran's nuclear programme? You should definitely have a look."

When trueman isn't lying, he'll be happy to reach for some irrelevant comment or move the goal posts. All so he can fool himself his mom and all three of his blog readers that he's worth reading.

[IceTrey]

The way to defeat Iran is easy, sign a free trade agreement with them.

"If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries, goods must do so. Unless the shackles can be dropped from trade, bombs will be dropped from the sky."
Otto Mallery

[IceTrey]

Make it a molten salt thorium reactor and we'll have clean energy for thousands of years. We won't meed electric cars because the energy will be cheap enough to be used to manufacture liquid fuels from atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen from cracked seawater.

energyfromthorium.com

[mtrueman]

Sounds like a sales pitch.

[IceTrey]

Yeah? Should we have stayed with the horse when Ford started pitching the Model T?

[mtrueman]

" Should we have stayed with the horse when Ford started pitching the Model T?"

Depends on how much we value our freedom and autonomy. If you are willing to trade that in for the convenience that your Model T brings you, by all means go for it.

[Knarf Yenrab!]

"They generally entail finer divisions of labour making us reliant on expert technocrats"

Division of labor does not entail state action of any sort.

"Technology also entails bureaucracy, and more hierarchy."

The first is incorrect (as pointed out to you before), the second irrelevant. Right liberals are not concerned with hierarchy because we have no interest in equality of outcome, which necessarily entails inequality under an arbitrary statist order.

"And more expenditure of energy as well."

Which is a good thing. It's better for machines to burn calories performing menial, but productive tasks than it is for human beings to do so.

Unless you're claiming that having a lower standard of living is desirable, which I'm sure you would not do given how long you've frequented this forum.

[mtrueman]

"Division of labor does not entail state action of any sort."

It's not the state, but technology that leads to finer and finer division of labour making us dependent on technocrats. This lessens our capacity for self reliance and autonomy. Sorry if I was unclear.

"The first is incorrect (as pointed out to you before), the second irrelevant."

I believe both are largely correct and relevant. You want to build a nuclear reactor? You simply won't get one without a growing bureaucracy to regulate it and us. That's the nature of technology.

"Right liberals are not concerned with hierarchy"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I've seen many complain here about leaders and people high up in the hierarchy being remote and unresponsive to themselves and others who have a lower rank on the totem pole. Technology serves to complicate the hierarchy and put more distance between those at the top from the bottom.

" It's better for machines to burn calories performing menial"

Why is it better? Seems like this is your personal opinion. Need more than that to persuade me.

[Knarf Yenrab!]

I'll dispense with the quotes to keep the post more readable.

1) A technocrat is necessarily a member of a state. Otherwise there's no -crat in the technocrat.

2) You're presuming something that does not in any sense appear to be true. There's no reason to believe that the invention of the wheel necessarily led to the spontaneous generation of bureaucrats. There's no reason to believe the same of nuclear reactors, either. Viewing the state as the consequence of some law of nature is a dangerous presumption.

3) Social hierarchy is unrelated to complaints about state violence. My complaint about Bloomberg is not that he's of a higher social "rung" than I am because he's a brilliant investor; more power to him, as his wealth does nothing to diminish my well being, but in fact adds to it via his participation in capital investment. Violent authority is a distinct matter from theories of class struggle.

4) Externalizing the high cost of productive labor to machines is superior to bearing the same cost yourself. I'd go so far as to call this an axiom.

[mtrueman]

1) Sorry if I got mixed up there. I used the term technocrat as someone who is adept at technology and somehow is in a position to control the rest of us through that knowledge. I didn't specifically have a state functionary in mind, though they are most fitting to my definition. The point is the more complex the technology, the more likely we are not to understand it. This leads to reliance on others and diminished capacity for self reliance. I understand self reliance is not a libertarian ideal now, thinking a little harder on the matter.

2) The bureaucrats come, nevertheless. Not with the first wheelmaker, I grant you, but certainly with the first wheel making factory. Once the workers are divided up, they need supervisors. This is where your bureaucracy enters the picture. If you look into a large and successful wheelmaking factory today, the bureaucrats and middle men will almost certainly outnumber those who are actually making wheels. Look in today's schools. Administrators are growing faster then either students of teachers. Much the same can be said of the military.

3) I find hierarchy rigid and stultifying. I suppose there are plenty of libertarians who feel the opposite. It's probably my misreading of what libertarians stand for.

[ReadyKilowatt]

You must not work in a large company. The levels of management between the front line worker and the executives is flatter than ever, and becoming more-so every year. The white collar worker is becoming an endangered species.

[mtrueman]

"The levels of management between the front line worker and the executives is flatter than ever, and becoming more-so every year."

It must depend on the company. In schools, as I mentioned, the growth in the number of administrators outstrips the growth of either students or teachers.

[Cytotoxic]

In schools, as I mentioned, the growth in the number of administrators outstrips the growth of either students or teachers.

There's a reason for that. You get no points for guessing it.

[rudehost]

And yet there are still more teachers than administrators.I am not aware of any organization anywhere where administrators outnumber workers.

[mtrueman]

Try the Pentagon.

[rudehost]

"Try the Pentagon"

I somehow doubt that. Do you have a citation?

[mtrueman]

"I somehow doubt that. Do you have a citation?"

Try Joseph Tainter. You can download his book for free if you want. He does a chart using figures from the Royal Navy over the years showing the amount of money budgeted for the navy, (increasing), the ratio of staff officers to battle officers (also increasing), and the number of ships available (decreasing). I imagine the Pentagon is much the same. I don't think Tainter is saying what I'm saying exactly, he's more interested in showing how diminishing marginal returns means that technical solutions have their limits as solutions to the problems we face. I'm talking about freedom and autonomy.

[rudehost]

So in other words no citation or evidence. Officers are not necessarily administrators btw. So not only does your comment not apply to the pentagon but what you cite isn't even generically relevant. That isn't to say many organizations are not too admin heavy. Schools certainly are a great example but to suggest any organization consists primarily of administrators is retarded hyperbole.

[mtrueman]

"So in other words no citation or evidence. "

I wonder why you bother to ask.

"Schools certainly are a great example but to suggest any organization consists primarily of administrators is retarded hyperbole."

Seems I haven't made myself understood. I already gave the example of how factories necessitate extra layers of administrators, supervisors and inspectors etc. If you feel you don't understand it, ask me. I might be able to help you.

[mtrueman]

4) There are plenty of cases where people prefer to put in extra labour and cost. Some prefer to go fishing rather than buying cheaper and more convenient fish from the market. I guess it comes down to personal taste, and not that one choice is better than the other. I would have assumed that libertarians went for the choice of self-reliance, but I can see this is not the case. Libertarians like yourself seem to care more for their standard of living.

[ChrisS]

This is pretty retarded.

Do the people who like to go fishing also produce their own rods, bait, fishing tackle, weights, car to get to the fishing spot, fuel to drive the car, the silly fishing clothes they wear to look cool to other fishermen?

No, most of the things which allow them to be 'self reliant' are produced by industry. In fact the only reason they have the free time to do this in the first place is because of division of labour and technology. Unless of course they are a subsistence farmer.

[mtrueman]

"This is pretty retarded."

Maybe so, but I thought libertarians prided themselves for being individualists. Doesn't that mean seeing self reliance as a virtue? I understand collectivists enmeshing themselves in great bureaucracies without a second thought, but why would an individualist follow suit?

"Do the people who like to go fishing also produce their own rods,"

Some of them do.

"No, most of the things which allow them to be 'self reliant' are produced by industry"

Then this self reliance you speak of is illusory. Are you celebrating this or mourning its loss? I can't figure out.

[Sevo]

ChrisS|7.22.15 @ 4:55AM|#
"This is pretty retarded."

trueman is an admitted liar. trueman sim,ply makes up whatever he pleases to match the line of bullshit he's peddling.
You might just as well engage a 4YO as trueman; at least the 4YO knows when he's lying and is embarrassed about it.
trueman isn't. He's a lying piece of shit who is not to be credited at all.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

This dude sucks state cock, you are are far too kind Knarf. Though admire your reasoned arguement.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

That is particularly stupid ' dumbass, society will work towards solutions to any question, it's what we do.

You are a fucking moron with nothing to add here fucknuts.

[mtrueman]

" it's what we do"

No argument there. It's how we do it I am discussing. If that's OK with you. Sorry if I've offended you. I just can't get how libertarians speak of themselves as individualists all the time when they embrace solutions that erode their autonomy and self reliance.

[B. Woodrow Chippenhaus]

Do you think the only real proponents of free markets are people who don't need markets to survive because they provide for all their needs themselves?

[mtrueman]

No, what I'm saying is that technology has a cost in freedom and autonomy.

[ReadyKilowatt]

We build the lowest cost systems, which tend to be centralized, not because they are friendly to the bureaucrat, but because they are the lowest cost to the consumer. It is only government entanglement in the market that leads to less inefficient technology gaining ground.

In a free labor market, specialization is an inevitable outcome. Not because of some central planner, but because the human is much more productive over a relatively narrow band of skills. I might be able to build a house myself (after studying information provided by others who are experts), but it would by no means be completed in a reasonable time, nor will it be as good as it could be, only because I'm not a carpenter, nor am I a bricklayer, electrician, plumber or a roofer. I'm capable of performing any of those tasks, but there are many out there who are far better. They also have technology that can't possibly make economic sense for me to utilize on my one-off house. Each of these skilled tradesmen don't build houses though. Only the "centralization" of the GC has the holistic view to get the house built, and then only if he has plans and drawings, which can be used over and over again thanks to the ability of the architect to duplicate and distribute the plans.

If we did have to fend for ourselves for everything we'd all be much poorer. And given the limited time we have in our lives and unlimited earning potential, I'll trade cash and specialization for extra time any day.

[mtrueman]

"If we did have to fend for ourselves for everything we'd all be much poorer. "

You are repeating the points raised by others here. Points I agree with. My point is that the prosperity that you are extolling comes at a cost of individual freedom (being enmeshed in large collectivities will do that) and autonomy. These qualities are highly spoken of typically by Libertarians so I'm surprised that they are traded for prosperity so readily and unthinkingly.

[Sevo]

mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
"[?] What you haven't fathomed is that I'm so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn't bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern."

tureman is a lying piece of shit with zero credibility.

[Limpee Wiltstock]

Three things: matches, toilet paper, and building insulation. Access to none of these diminishes my self-reliance, autonomy, or general felicity. In contrast, all three are amplified thereby. And I have a choice. I may chuse to employ any or all of these to whatever extent I can successfully subscribe, including none at all.

[mtrueman]

"Three things: matches, toilet paper, and building insulation"

To get your hands on any of these items you've got to play by the rules that others have written. You have to conform and comply. You're hardly painting me a picture of yourself as an individualist.

[Heedless]

If you are going to insist that "individualist" must Debbie some sort of Daniel Boon-like solitary self reliance, then no. But nobody actually uses that definition.

An individualist is someone who values his autonomy, who does not seem to subsume himself into a tribe or class or nation in order to define his identity. That does not preclude making accommodations with societies expectations any more than being a monarchist precludes acceptance of some minimalist state.

[mtrueman]

"An individualist is someone who values his autonomy, who does not seem to subsume himself into a tribe or class or nation in order to define his identity."

Sounds like a reasonable definition to me. I just don't understand why the self-styled libertarians here are determined to ignore or deny the unfortunate fact that technological advancement while making us more prosperous, also has the side-effect of diminishing our freedom and capacity for self reliance. Why pretend otherwise? Is my questioning of technological progress really so offensive?

[Heedless]

Your first paragraph and your second paragraph apparently originate in separate universes.

Either that or you are completely unable to grasp a definition of "individualist" or"self-reliance" beyond your cartoonish frontiersman.

[mtrueman]

"Either that or you are completely unable to grasp a definition of "individualist" or"self-reliance" beyond your cartoonish frontiersman."

But it's you who speak of Daniel Boone. My point is that technological advancement diminishes our freedom, autonomy and capacity for self reliance. Whether you agree with this or not, I honestly can't say. You seem only to dance around the issue.

[Agammamon]

They generally entail finer divisions of labour making us reliant on expert technocrats, and less self-reliant.

Oh my Lord.

1. No they don't. Worst thing technological advances do is give more ammunition to those who *demand* technocratic intervention. Otherwise, name a major technology that *required* technocratic intervention - where that intervention was not justified by a prior technocrat intervention that had negative 'unforseen' consequences.

2. You know what *more* 'self-reliant' means in this scenario? Poorer, with less access to health care tech, food, entertainment, and on and on.

[mtrueman]

1. Assembly line manufacturing. It centralizes the work and workers and requires a heretofore absent layer of bureaucrats, inspectors and supervisors in addition to those who are doing the work.

2. Poorer yes, but also more free and more self reliant. A philosophy that emphasizes individualism should be wary of innovations that lessen freedom and self reliance.

[Agammamon]

1. *Assembly line working*? That's your example. Where its explicitly designed to seperate the roles that a single worker filled in the past and, in the process, increased production efficiency by several orders of magnitude?

a) The bureaucrats are not *required*. And the supervisors were already there before the assembly line.

2. The self-reliance you claim to value is the self-reliance to not need to trade with your neighbors. It also means that you live in a mud hut with two pieces of crappy furniture because you don't have time to hunt down the resources need to (or the time to spend on) *build* the thing because you have to grow your own food.

[mtrueman]

You seem to have an idea of what I've been trying to explain. However I should point out, that I have nothing against trading with one's neighbours. I've not mentioned that. My point is that technological advancement typically brings along with it features that diminish our capacity for self reliance and freedom. It's not trade I've been talking about, but technology, which is what the article is about.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

The big change at the moment seems to be the fall of the gate keepers. It used to be that to get published you had to please a publishing hiuse. Not anymore. It used to be that to get a device marketed, you had to convince a money man that the market existed. Kickstarter may not completely end that, but it goes a long way. It used to be you needed a studio to make a film. Maybe you still do, but the price tag is dropping by the year. It used to be that the people who owned the media comtroled the argument. It isn't anymore,,and noesn't THAT piss off the Progressives, who went to sooooo much trouble to get a near lock on the news.

My big hope for the 21st century is to see the long delayed Industrial Revolution finally hit Africa amd all the other places where the dengue fever-like effects of Socialist twaddle have kept it in check. In Europe and North America it created vast wealth, and allowed us to care about Environmental concerns. There is more forest in the U.S. today than there was in 1900. Apply that to the "endangered" areas of the world that, now, are just sources of raw material. Hes to be an improvement.

[Cytotoxic]

Every sentence you say is a lie.

[Zaytsev]

It ignores the fact that technical solutions have their own problems, especially for libertarian minded folk. They generally entail finer divisions of labour making us reliant on expert technocrats, and less self-reliant.

This is 180? wrong. Technology does not require ever finer divisions of labor. Technology is an extension of tool use, which is a force multiplier - the opposite of division of labor.

Consider the technology advancements of the last forty years. They have smashed hierarchical organization paradigms by enabling a single person to perform the jobs of many people, usually at a higher level of efficiency.

[mtrueman]

" Technology does not require ever finer divisions of labor. "

It's called specialization. The more we rely on technology, the more we rely on other specialists. An individualist should think twice about making these decisions.

" usually at a higher level of efficiency."

I'm not sure about that. Efficiency generally comes through centralization, expansion and specialization.

[Zaytsev]

It's called specialization. The more we rely on technology, the more we rely on other specialists.

Not true, we actually are less dependent on specialists than we were decades ago.

A small businessman today vs 30 years ago is able to directly do his own accounting, marketing, purchasing and process management thanx to the computer and internet revolutions. Disintermediation has likewise given consumers greater power in every facet of their lives than they had thirty years ago.

It will take several generations for the effects of disintermediation to fully play out, partially because the legal environment is hostile to that trend and legal changes lag social and technological changes.

[Zaytsev]

Efficiency generally comes through centralization, expansion and specialization.

This statement is both internally contradictory and the central fallacy of socialism.

It's internally contradictory because centralization always involves standardization, which counters specialization and innovation.

The central fallacy of socialism is that a master planned economy will outperform an unplanned one. Which stems from a flawed understanding of the industrialization of the 19th century. The socialists believed that large businesses were more productive because of central planning which imposed rationality on irrational fragmented markets. And then imagined that the increased productivity could be expanded further by centrally managing the economy as a whole. In short. they believed that the factory system of the 19th century represented a phase shift in social organization instead of seeing it as just the latest iteration of creative destruction that would itself be destroyed in short order.

[mtrueman]

"centralization always involves standardization"

I agree that standardization is part of the picture which I didn't mention. It means compliance with standards that others have formulated. Another blow to individualism. It comes down to economies of scale, doesn't it? Technology typically demands such trends.

I'm not sure where you are going with this socialism stuff. The largest capitalist enterprises today still spend resources on planning.

[mtrueman]

"A small businessman today vs 30 years ago is able to directly do his own accounting, marketing, purchasing and process management thanx to the computer and internet revolutions."

In order to use a computer to do those things, your small business person has to buy a computer, obtain the software and an internet connection. All of these entail enmeshing oneself in a vast collectivity. I think it's also fair to say that your small business person has no idea of how to construct a computer or the software that he relies on. This means being beholden to layer upon layer of specialists.

[Heedless]

Well, yes, but there is no central authority directing all those specialists. They simply engage in voluntary transactions with each other, resulting in the computer reaching the customer for a very reasonable price.

It's called the invisible hand, and it's not exactly a new innovation in economic theory.

[mtrueman]

"but there is no central authority directing all those specialists"

You're missing my point. I will try to restate it. Implement some technological advancement. That will entail specialization, intensification, bureaucratization etc not because anyone chose it voluntarily or not, it comes with the territory when you implement the advanced technology. It is why technology is not neutral. All this is pretty obvious. What's interesting to me is that the attendant loss of freedom and autonomy is not important or even recognized by the self-styled libertarians here.

" the invisible hand"

If you think this invisible hand protects your freedom and autonomy, I have news for you. It doesn't.

[Agammamon]

Not missing your point.

Your point has been that increasing specialization *requires* a coercive technocrat class to run things since no single person can do everything anymore.

Its shite.

[mtrueman]

"Your point has been that increasing specialization *requires* a coercive technocrat class to run things since no single person can do everything anymore."

You mean the factory workers organize and supervise themselves? Not at any factory I'm familiar with.

Who said anything about coercion? Most factory workers willing subject themselves to the regime of the bosses. They do it for the prosperity held out in return for their time and effort.

[biddynoll]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

http://www.Careersonline10.tk

[Eric Bana]

I like Ron Bailey.

[Knarf Yenrab!]

I do too. He reads the comments even when he doesn't reply, so there's loads of juvenile incentive to needle him, plus he reminds me of my crusty, brilliant high-school math teacher, who was cruel, but fair in the application of his cruelty.

Unarbitrary cruelty is, of course, the very best sort of cruelty.

Oh, and screw McMillan for having a Kindle price that's higher than the hardback-shipped-to-my-front-door-in-BFE price.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

No apocalypse Bailey, you bastard.

[Jackand Ace]

Technology will save us? Wishful thinking at best, at least as things currently stand. Here is an article today how investment in that savior of technology is not only will short of any goal (according to IEA), it's actually DECREASING.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015.....referrer;=

Hoping for a technological fix (and it is only hope at this point) is a poor excuse to avoid doing what we can do right now, which is curb emissions.

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, best to keep in mind that the decreasing investment in technology is all occuring when every measurement of worsening climate change is showing more danger, not less.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

And 2015 is almost certainly going to shatter the previous record high temperature.

Let me know which of those Republican candidates you assuredly will endorse are going to support increased investment in climate technology, or a climate tax. Better yet, let me know which one will even admit we are facing a problem.

[Jackand Ace]

*carbon tax, not climate tax

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Freudian slip?

[Sevo]

Normal stupidity.

[Zaytsev]

Kinsley gaffe.

[Raymond Luxury Yach-t]

I ain't equipment, I ain't automatic
You won't find me just staying static
Don't you give me any orders
For people like me
There is no order

Bet you thought you had it all worked out
Bet you thought you knew what I was about
Bet you thought you'd solved all your problems
But you are the problem

Sex Pistols

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

And 2015 is almost certainly going to shatter the previous record high temperature.

Warmer by how much? 0.1??

Do you know that the ground temperature data used for these predictions have an error of some 1-5?, determined by researchers associated with the data? A tenth of a degree of warming is mere low-level noise in this data set. IOW, the predictions you cherish have no statistical or scientific integrity (or meaning).

[Zaytsev]

buuuuttt SCIENCE!

You teabagging denier.

[Sevo]

Jackand Ace|7.22.15 @ 8:52AM|#

"And 2015 is almost certainly going to shatter the previous record high temperature."

Please tell us, jackoff, what should the temperature be?

[Sevo]

Jackand Ace|7.22.15 @ 8:52AM|#

And Jack, what ever happened to that study that proved fracking causes earthquakes and that we have to stop fracking as a result?
C'mon, Jack, when is the rapture gonna happen? When is the end of the world? Have you given away all your possessions?
Or are you just one more lefty hypocrite?

[B. Woodrow Chippenhaus]

And 2015 is almost certainly going to shatter the previous record high temperature.

Even if we have to adjust previous temperature records downward!

[JW]

decreasing investment in technology

I bet you think this actually means something.

Do tell, joe, what does this mean? We're spending less in gross dollars on R&D? ALL technology? Everywhere?

[Sevo]

Jackoff claims to come here to learn. What we get is the random bullshit bomb of some claim or other.
Now, I'm sure I've pissed off jackoff enough to be "ignored", but one of you who isn't might try to get him to answer some pretty basic questions:
"Jack, when is the rapture gonna happen? When is the end of the world? Have you given away all your possessions?
Or are you just one more lefty hypocrite?"
If someone were to post this under their handle, jackoff wouldn't be able to "ignore" it.

[JW]

Don't you know that if you are skeptical of the latest set of breathless predictions of DOOM, like the thousands of unfulfilled predictions predictions before these, you're a denier.

[Cytotoxic]

And 2015 is almost certainly going to shatter the previous record high temperature.

I've never seen better evidence that 2015 will not shatter any records.

[Cytotoxic]

every measurement of worsening climate change is showing more danger, not less.

Stop lying.

[Limpee Wiltstock]

No. I'm putting my faith in ignorance and stagnation. They'll get us much further than technological advancement.

[sepuvidu]

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

[vamitale]

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

[Raymond Luxury Yach-t]

Going forward, government is the biggest threat to humanity. If society was left alone by government, it would innovate ways out of problems it faces. Governments pass laws attempting to fix problems, and usually create bigger problems in the process. Governments also stifle the freedom and ingenuity needed by society to find solutions. Governments also fight wars. I kind of think we're fucked.

[Hyperion]

Going forward, government is the biggest threat to humanity

Damn. I've been posting here for 8 years now and this is one of the greatest truths I have heard in a single comment.

[mfckr]

I've long been surprised that, for all the doomsday prognosticating people seem addicted to (climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, blah blah), there isn't more noise being generated about the existential threat of government to human survival/prosperity.

[Hyperion]

Well, there is, it's just that it's mostly heard from us radical extremists in places like this, you know.

But it's too true. The government really is the biggest threat to humanity. The biggest promise? Technology.

[Sevo]

Hyperion|7.25.15 @ 7:30PM|#
"Well, there is, it's just that it's mostly heard from us radical extremists in places like this, you know."

I hadn't seen it stated as clearly, either, but examine history:
Governments, meaning those with the monopoly (or nearly so) on coercion, are responsible for far more human suffering and death than any natural disaster or other human agency. I would include "religions" both as they often have been and are are the coercive monopolists and also as faith in government has pretty much replaced mosiac religions in the west.
No other form of human organization comes within miles of the harm done by governments and there is no reason to presume they have improved.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Govenment is like fire. If you are young, vigorous, and skilled you could live without it, but it would not be pleasant. OTOH, while it can provide great comfort, like fire you have to watch it, constantly.

Similarly, it is like STDs; at a certain point of human interaction it is probably inevitable.

Anarchy is not a stable state. If you do not choose your government, one WILL be imposed on you. One you probably won't like.

[mfckr]

Govenment is like fire. If you are young, vigorous, and skilled you could live without it, but it would not be pleasant. OTOH, while it can provide great comfort, like fire you have to watch it, constantly.

Societies can remain intact without government. There are no public services today that couldn't be effectively privatized, including defense.

[Cytotoxic]

Societies can remain intact without government.

Only on a very short term basis. Government is vital. It is a necessary good needed to create the conditions that free markets can exist in.

[mfckr]

Only on a very short term basis. Government is vital. It is a necessary good needed to create the conditions that free markets can exist in.

Nonsense. Said conditions can be facilitated by the market itself. Government by its very nature impedes free markets.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

There are no public services today that couldn't be effectively privatized, including defense.

As the mafia demonstrates, privatizing violence (which is required for defense) is no problem. The problem is how organizations that specialize in violence and the threat thereof would function within the confines of a free market. How could we guarantee that they wouldn't use violence against their competitors and use the threat of violence to gain and keep customers? i.e. how could we possibly expect them not to behave like private coercers do in our current situation?

I've seen several an-cap attempts to answer this basic concern but they've all boiled down to question begging.

[mfckr]

Mafioso aren't really a fair example of free-market protection services?they are a good example of govt protection services though; one is essentially forced into a monopolistic arrangement of paying the 'protectors' to protect you from? themselves.

There's already many examples of private security firms (Reason just posted an article about one in San Francisco the other day) which carry out their jobs without resorting to violence against their own customers. And little reason to expect that such operations would behave much differently in absence of govt, as there'd simply be too many complexly interrelated entities in a stateless anarcho-market society deterring said firms from behaving badly?i.e., myriad contractual checks&balances; between insurers, private courts, other local businesses, paying customers from whom the firm's continued income depends on, the existence of competing private security firms? etc. Good luck waging an aggressive street war that nobody wants to pay for nor invest in under those circumstances.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

Mafioso aren't really a fair example of free-market protection services

I agree that the mafia isn't part of a free market. But they're an example of what a "private" organization specializing in coercion looks like in the real world.

private security firms (Reason just posted an article about one in San Francisco the other day) which carry out their jobs without resorting to violence against their own customers.

Of course they don't attempt to coerce their customers. Because they'd be shut down by the government if they did. And they don't replace all the functions of police and courts, either; according to that Stringham article their functions are limited to escorting unruly or vagrant persons off of private property. A glorified security guard company.

They can't go drag the person who committed a crime against you out of their home and lock them in a cage, and carry out trial and punishment. If you shitcan government you're going to have to find some way to replace those functions.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

there'd simply be too many complexly interrelated entities in a stateless anarcho-market society deterring said firms from behaving badly

And there's the question begging.

myriad contractual checks&balances;

Enforced by whom?

insurers, private courts, other local businesses, paying customers from whom the firm's continued income depends on, the existence of competing private security firms

All of which can be beaten into submission by a sufficiently strong "private security firm" or alliance of them. This isn't speculation, it's how governments formed in the first place.

Coercion and the free market simply don't mix. You have to have necessary coercion handled by an entity that's separated from the market.

[mfckr]

Enforced by whom?

By common law style courts and so on. Dunno why this is apparently such a mystery to you when these sorts of institutions have already worked well throughout history. See Polycentric Law.

Coercion and the free market simply don't mix. You have to have necessary coercion handled by an entity that's separated from the market.

Coercion can be commoditized through like market like anything else?which is fine. I don't pretend that forms of coercion wouldn't exist in a stateless free-market society ? la NAP. The difference is that a monopoly on the use of coercion wouldn't exist as it does now, ergo the scale & frequency of abuse would likely be diminished and people would generally be better off for it.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

Here's how the San Francisco Patrol Special Police Association summarizes their services:

Basic Patrol Service: During hours of patrol, officers will make passing calls to check the interior and exterior of your property as well as the surrounding city streets and determine if all is well.
Closing Service: Officers conduct a complete and thorough search of the premises for fire, open windows, and unlocked doors. The officer will stand by and assist in making sure all customers and/or employees have left the property and the premises are secure.
Alarm Response: As an additional service to your alarm system, Patrol Special Police Officers will respond to alarm calls usually within a few minutes and provide an on-scene and timely police presence.
Police Calls: During the hours of patrol, Patrol Special Police Officers will respond to your property in the event a police call occurs to assist in the protection of your property and, if necessary, will remain at that location until secured.
Escorts: Patrol Special Police Officers provide escort services for the transport of valuables, deposit of funds, or other protective needs.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

LOL. All of those functions are routinely available from private security companies across the country (though they may be a bit pricier in some areas). The "Escorts" function sounds more like an armored car company, but still, this is nothing unusual enough to legitimize calling it a "private police force" that has powers beyond those of an ordinary citizen (ie, the power to arrest, prosecute, and punish).

[C. S. P. Schofield]

"Societies can remain intact without government."

None ever has. Oh, one can certainly imagine such a society. One can imagine a benevolent Monarchy too. Literature is full of 'em. History; not so much.

And once you have privatized defense, what, exactly, prevents the contracted defense force from deciding that IT is the government?

[Sevo]

"Anarchy is not a stable state. If you do not choose your government, one WILL be imposed on you. One you probably won't like."

I'll take your point, but rejoin in what is NOT pedantry that government is also not a stable condition; it becomes more oppressive over time.
I am not in favor of anarchy, but your argument presumes that the government imposed on me is worse than the alternative.
I'm not convinced.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

I am not in favor of anarchy, but your argument presumes that the government imposed on me is worse than the alternative. I'm not convinced.

It would almost certainly be a dictatorship. Liberal democratic government has arisen out of anarchy precisely once in human history (medieval England) and even then it took centuries worth of smoothing off rough edges to make it as "nice" as the government we have now. I wouldn't play those odds.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

It doesn't HAVE to be worse. If I wanted to pick nits, I could point out that I didn't say it WOULD be worse, just that you probably wound't like it.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Well said.

[mfckr]

Yes. Democide (death by government) is by far the biggest killer of humans.

[GamerFromJump]

This is where I part with democratic transhumanists. They think the best protection against technology gone wrong is state direction. I'm of the firm opinion that they best way to prevent Terminators is to fill the world with Iron Men.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Government is almost always the biggest threat to life and limb. Any age, and any place.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

You only say that because you haven't experienced the ages and places where there was little or no government. They tend to have their own threats.

[GamerFromJump]

Said times and places usually followed or were concurrent with public disarmament. A fact upon which wannabe rulers and marauding thugs depended.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

At least 95% of current gun owners wouldn't last a day against marauding gangs if it came to that. And I say that as an advocate of gun rights and gun ownership in general.

Guys think that because they have an AR and kill deer once in a while that they'd be able to fend off a gang that makes its living via violence, and is at least as well-armed as they are. It's a fantasy.

[Hyperion]

Well, it does look pretty great if we can ward off the luddites once again and stop the socialist morons.

Since the combination of the 2 aforementioned groups now represents a majority, it's not going to be that easy.

[C. Anacreon]

"Mrs. Clinton, would you say you owe your election to the luddite-socialist moron coalition?"

[Hyperion]

Yeah, we loved their support, but at this point, what difference does it make!?

[jester]

I just want to know how she keeps evading the vast right-wing conspiracy like its sniper fire?

[mfckr]

I'm fairly concerned about governments getting in the way of genomic engineering techniques that could save + enhance countless lives.

Especially in the West where there's such a backwards religionist mentality about bioethics where it concerns humans. As if 'nature' is something sacred that shouldn't be tampered with, and that phenomena like aging should be accepted as a 'natural' part of life. Stupid.

[Hyperion]

As if 'nature' is something sacred that shouldn't be tampered with

You mean like the current crusade against GMOs by the evangelical greenies?

[mfckr]

Yes, it's like that. Except when you start talking genetically modified humans, that seems to rouse far more opposition from people than genetically modified crops do.

[Hyperion]

I'm not sure if they realize how GM corn is. I don't think that they do. I mean, since this GM was mostly done by primitive farmers in a field, as opposed to guys in a lab wearing white coats, does that make a difference in the holiness of the organism?

[C. S. P. Schofield]

I read somewhere that when corn was first cultivated it averaged three kernels per ear. Shows how "natural" non GMO farming is, eh?

I get tired of the Cult of Natural. Arsenic is natural. Botulism is natural. Bubonic Plague is natural. Humans are social apes. Judging by the other apes, "natural" for us would be sitting in trees, picking parasites off of our relatives, while plotting the murder of the Alpha male, and the rape of his harem.

You can keep "natural".

[Sapient Mulch]

"What??!! You want 4 legged children?? You want to DOOM GAIA!!??!!!!111

/Anti GMO idiot

I agree with you. I was appalled when limits were placed on stem cell research in this country because of the sky fairy. At least the South Koreans are more open minded and have opened new avenues of research..

[Hyperion]

Do you want your water to burn? Well, do you!? Corporashunz! Only government can save you, bagger!

[Hyperion]

I work closely with 2 South Koreans. They don't understand these idiot socialists. They seem to be very well aware of the ginormous failure of this bullshit, possibly because of the utopia directly north of their country.

[Pathogen]

Or, because their grandparents would smack the piss out of them for uttering even one Leninist inspired phrase.. Some alive in S.K. still remember..

[Winston]

You Know Who Else argued that once we stopped believing we will start Getting Things Done?

[Wasteland Wanderer]

Your mother?

[Cytotoxic]

Tulpa? You?

[Winston]

You do know that I'm not even an American?

[Winston]

that phenomena like aging should be accepted as a 'natural' part of life.

Did Queen teach you nothing?

[Peaceboner]

Yup, that explains why there's hardly and doctors, or medicines in the west. They all just sit around praying to Jebus and shaking chicken bones to cure disease. I like the east where they have mastered the cutting edge technology of sticking needles in people. Yip, the explosion in life expectancy across the globe was in no part due to western medicine who have staunchly struck down any attempt at curtailing the natural aging process.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

I've filt for some time that the continued popularity of "Traditional Chinese Medicine", with its powdered rhino-horn amd so on, is a telling criticism of the Health Care available in China......

[Sevo]

"I've filt for some time that the continued popularity of "Traditional Chinese Medicine", with its powdered rhino-horn amd so on, is a telling criticism of the Health Care available in China......"

I should be embarrassed, but I live in SF and if I were, I'd never be otherwise.
On a hill in a residential area south of Market is the gov't-supported "American College of Traditional Chinese Medicine".
Your tax dollars at work providing quackery leading to the early deaths of fools!

[Sevo]

In reply to mfckr? Ya gotta give us a hint!
But if so, I'd agree; mfckr is looking at a local condition and presuming 'the grass is greener' when it is nothing of the sort.
The Euros are trying (and failing) to outlaw GMO foods; they can't since they are becoming part of about anything you eat. And medical care in East Asia is still loaded with fantasy.
Related: I'm partial to the comics after the rest of the newspaper. There's a hipster who draws himself, a right wing cat, a doofus dog; as a vegan, he's now shocked to find his food contains animal derivatives! As if he could live without them.

[mfckr]

I wasn't condemning Western medicine.

What I'm saying is that, despite our obvious prowess in science & medicine, there remain popular superstitions against emerging technologies like human genomic engineering, longevity enhancement, etc. Entire generations of highly educated & intelligent people who unquestionably believe such approaches to be unethical.

[Sevo]

"What I'm saying is that, despite our obvious prowess in science & medicine, there remain popular superstitions against emerging technologies like human genomic engineering, longevity enhancement, etc. Entire generations of highly educated & intelligent people who unquestionably believe such approaches to be unethical."

I agree, with the caveat regarding "intelligent". And I'd also advise avoiding the generalization of "in the West"; for all the failings, the "west" (N. America) is about as good as you can find.
Even that GMO thief Schmeiser got busted by the Canadian courts.

[mfckr]

And I'd also advise avoiding the generalization of "in the West"; for all the failings, the "west" (N. America) is about as good as you can find.

Fair enough. I only mention it because I find it pathetically ironic that Westerners of all people would be as skittish as they often are about this kind of life-saving science. They're even more particularly opposed when it could be used to improve beyond what a person was endowed with by heredity (see Michael Sandel's The Case Against Perfection).

I'd be curious to discern how this sort of outlook entered mainstream contemporary thought, even among the devoutly secular-minded. It's bafflingly odd.

[mfckr]

Also not elevating Chinese snakeoil 'medicine' or whatever. Unsure how that got interpreted.

[Winston]

I didn't know Roger Ebert was still alive and writes for Reason.

[Pathogen]

Yeah, he usually posts content under the handle "Kurt Loder", and trolls the comments section as "Tulpa".. and various other socks..

[Winston]

Oh yes, does his vision of the future include going really fast and de-evolving into giant horny salamanders?

[Mr Lizard]

You could only wish for such a fate

[thrakkorzog]

I think we'd all like to forget that vision of the future.

[C. Anacreon]

Oh yes, does his vision of the future include going really fast and de-evolving into giant horny salamanders?

I recall a force for this concept of de-evolution some years back. Their motto was:

"Are we not men? We are devo!"

Devo is short for de-evolution!

Its advocates fared well for awhile, even better when they started to crack the whip and give the past the slip, but soon faded from popular consciousness.

[Bob Meyer]

Devo probably took their line from "The Island of Dr. Moreau" 1931

"Dr. Moreau: What is the law?

Sayer of the Law: Not to spill blood, that is the law. Are we not men?

Beasts (in unison): Are we not men? "

Quite a bit like a political speech.

[Agammamon]

"You will always have people selling doom," says Reason's Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey. "It's lucrative and it makes you sound serious. But they will be proved wrong."

So, is this like an 'everything's DOOOMED!' book for the 'everything's DOOOMED!' set?

Sell copies to Paul Erhlich by claiming that his business model is about to go bust.

[Winston]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY278K4ljWs

[JW]

'everything's DOOOMED!

What if I get a nasty paper cut?

[Irish ?s ESB]

I vaguely remember Reason running a story criticizing a New York Times article on nail salons from earlier this year. I'm not positive it's the same article, but the New York Review of Books just ran an article annihilating the New York Times over an article about nail salon regulation.

"Consider one of the article's primary pieces of evidence of "rampant exploitation": in a linchpin paragraph near the beginning of the article, the Times asserts that "Asian-language newspapers are rife with classified ads listing manicurist jobs paying so little the daily wage can at first glance appear to be a typo." The single example mentioned is an ad by a salon on Manhattan's Upper West Side, which, according to the Times, was published in Sing Tao Daily and World Journal, the two big Chinese-language papers in New York, and listed salaries of $10 a day. "The rate was confirmed by several workers," the story says. Judging from readers' comments on the Internet, this assertion was a kind of clincher, a crystallization of the story's alarming message.
And yet, it seems strange, or it should have seemed strange to the paper's editors, that the sole example the reporter provides of the sort of ad that the Asian-language papers are "rife with" is one that is not even quoted from and for which no date is provided."

[Irish ?s ESB]

"To test the Times's assertion, my wife and I read every ad placed by nail salons in the papers cited in the article, Sing Tao Daily and World Journal. Among the roughly 220 ads posted in each paper in the days after the Times story appeared, none mentioned salaries even remotely close to the ad the Times described."

"But could it be that the ads indicating salary were not representative? Since most ads do not specify compensation, my wife called a few of the advertising salons at random, speaking Chinese, posing as a salon worker, and asking what the pay would be. The lowest salary she was cited was $70 a day, but the woman she spoke to, who allowed that that salary was "low," quickly added that tips and commissions were "very good" at her salon, which she said was in Upper Manhattan. This conformed to the practice at our own two salons, where we offer starting salaries of $70 a day, plus tips and commissions. My wife has learned that if she is unable to assure her employees that they will earn a total of at least $100 a day, nobody will work for her. On busy days the take home pay can be $150 or more. Of course, even $150 a day does not constitute great wealth. Nonetheless, the classified ads, clearly and unambiguously, reveal the opposite of what the Times claims they do."

[Peaceboner]

Sounds like the NY times ran a slanted article.

[Peaceboner]

Another chink in the armor of the NY times integrity.

[Sevo]

And HOW!
/E. Warren

[mfckr]

chink

Racism.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

What integrity?

Water is wet. Fire burns. And the New York Times prints unmitigated bushwa.

[Wasteland Wanderer]

Lacist plick!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I remember linking to this myself. Like today.

[Wolfman]

WE ARE DOOMED!!!

[Wolfman]

oh, Hello!!

[Mr Lizard]

Pretty much

[SIV]

Every woman who took a Quaalude in the 1970s was raped. Every last one.

5 One witness told Jackie that she looked "not in distress" during the rape. That was probably due to the Quaaludes. Dr. Yngvild Olsen, an addiction specialist in Baltimore, says that someone under the influence of the drug might appear as if she is having a good time, but "in reality, that's not necessarily the whole picture."

I just got around to reading the Huffpo piece in which Jackie Fuchs of the Runaways waited almost 40 years for Kim Fowley to die so she could then accuse him of rape because Bill Cosby ! and "I realized, 'Oh my God, this is what's happening on college campuses,'" .

[mfckr]

The 1st woman to be raped by quaaludes in space has already been born.

[Jackand Ace]

Your disdain, for those who always "spell doom" is touching. Have you read this website recently? Two articles on Peter Schiff, who is always peddling what? Doom the next financial crisis is always nigh. FIVE years ago he said:

"We're in the early stages of a depression now. It's going to be a horrific experience for average Americans who are going to watch their standard of living plunge. The cost of living is going to escalate dramatically. We are going to see soaring prices for the basic necessities of life, like energy, clothing, and other things...Millions of more Americans are going to lose their jobs, and all of us are going to lose our freedoms and our rights"

That was 5 years ago. And Reason loves to put him on. And why? He sells doom.

[mfckr]

Not to defend Peter Schiff, but his predictions were at least closer to the truth than the Paul Erchlichs and climate-alarmists of the world have been.

[mfckr]

*Ehrlichs

[Sevo]

mfckr, Jackoff has obviously "ignored" me as I've asked too many questions that Jackoff doesn't want to answer.
How about asking him/her when the rapture is to occur? How long do we all have before our worldly possessions are no longer of value?
A bleever like Jackoff should have an easy answer to those questions.

[mfckr]

A bleever like Jackoff should have an easy answer to those questions.

They probably should, but as you say, evasion seems their preference. Which is? typically par for people who write screeds like that.

[Jackand Ace]

Nah. I stop answering those whose only response is vitriol. It's like dealing with a soph in high school. No interest, sorry.

[Jackand Ace]

Maybe, but he still peddles doom, which Ronald says he disdains. Schiff has been living off his accurate prediction of the Bush led sub-prime debacle ever since, and has inaccurately predicted the same just about ever year. Here is Forbes on 2012 telling you of his belief of a market crushing Treasury collapse in one year. We were...supposedly...doomed!

[Jackand Ace]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/af.....ound-2013/

[Bob Meyer]

Knowing that something is going to happen and knowing when are two different things. When PE ratios are insanely high everyone knows that stock are going to come down, but when and which stocks are never known in advance by anyone.

This is like a single atom of an unstable isotope. It's going to break down eventually but no one can predict when. Maybe in the next second or maybe after the sun goes dark.

That's also why a monkey throwing darts at a copy of the Wall Street Journal is about as effective as most stock "experts" in picking good investments.

[Sevo]

Jackand Ace|7.26.15 @ 12:36AM|#
'Your disdain, for those who always "spell doom" is touching. Have you read this website recently? Two articles on Peter Schiff, who is always peddling what? Doom the next financial crisis is always nigh. FIVE years ago he said:'

Jackoff, your ignorance is not really surprising, nor is your flagrant cherry-picking.
In case you didn't notice (and since it's jackoff, we'll presume you "ignored" it (as you do with any calls on your bullshit), Schiff got a pile of 'stuff it' comments.
So, as Jackoff, you "ignored" those and are now trying to find some slimy tu quoque in the hopes that your stupidity can be excused.
Fuck you, sleaze bag
(if someone copies this in their replay, Jackoff can't "ignore" it, and that someone might also ask Jackoff when the rapture is going to occur)

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

You have a link for that quote you're attributing to Schiff? If it's not a quote you shouldn't put quote marks around it.

And prices for food are skyrocketing and millions of people have lost their jobs. That's with the economic sledgehammer of Obamacare temporarily delayed, which Schiff couldn't have foreseen.

[Jackand Ace]

Sure. It was on an interview with Jen Schonberger, and quoted in numerous places. Here is one

http://m.fool.com/investing/ge.....-a-depress

By the way, when he was warning about millions of more Americans who would lose jobs, the reality is we have been adding them, not losing them.

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, do note that 5 years ago he said we already were in a depression- the beginning. 5 years ago. Not much of a depression.

[*GILMORE*]

Have you not seen the White People documentary? well you should, because you're a ignorant cunt who obviously hates anyone with a suntan

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

You know how people always go a step too far? This is it right here. MTV is pretty much done.

[mfckr]

Nah. They'll be lauded as brave and courageous for vomiting "racial reality" in whitey's face, or something.

[Winston]

Back in My Day MTV actually showed Music!/ Old Fogey.

[DEG]

I made it to the two minute mark. I'm not sure how.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

Bailey argues that world population will peak later this century and prices for all sorts of commodities?from oil to food to metals?will continue to fall as well.

"continue"???!!! They're not even falling now.

The natural environment's apocalypses may be overblown. I'll grant that (though ocean acidification is alarming).

However, the societal apocalypses are still looming. The Enlightenment is eroding... the only reason we have any liberty left is because of inertia. Human nature always tends toward statism and we have become unvigilant in countering that tendency here at home. Too, the virus of [classical] liberalism, which felled so many dictatorships in the last century, will not do so anymore. Today's dictators have learnt the lessons of the fall of their predecessors and vaccinated their populations against the temptations of liberty.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

Add to that the ridiculous debt load of the developed world still looms, getting larger every day, with no solution in sight. This is not comparable to Malthus' claims of mass starvation; it was always apparent that that claim would be averted by significant increases in crop yields, and thankfully that came about. But the debt crisis is without solution simply due to the math. Of course, it is a paper crisis, insofar as the resources that exist on the planet are not affected by debts recorded on paper. However, untangling that paper crisis is going to lead to massive reallocation of those resources which will not happen quietly.

And while technology makes things more efficient, it also makes us more dependent and our sustenance ever more fragile. A month long power outage in the US -- basically, losing something that nobody in the US had access to 120 years ago -- would probably see tens of millions of deaths.

[IceTrey]

The electric telegraph in the US is 171 years old.

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

Did I say something about the telegraph? Must be in a white-colored font, cause I don't see it. Sarcasm aside, those early telegraphs were powered by the equivalent of batteries.

As one can tell from the phrase "power outage", I was referring to AC power generation and long range electrical distribution, which did not exist until the 1890s and would not become widespread until the 20th century.

[mfckr]

The Behavioral Sink

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Bailey argues that world population will peak later this century and prices for all sorts of commodities?from oil to food to metals?will continue to fall as well.

"continue"???!!! They're not even falling now.

Do you deny that the price of oil--for example--has dropped by more than half? Do you deny that commodities have been dropping precipitously over the past two years?

[Tulpa (LAOL-OH)]

Compared to the cherry-picked, short-lived historical maximum of oil prices in 2006-08, yes they've dropped, but that's a pretty lousy way to measure it. Not sure which commodities you're talking about -- they all have different price behavior. Egg prices are skyrocketing right now, for example.

[Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper]

You're saying the future's so bright

[dons Fist's sunglasses]

I gotta wear shades.

[jester]

Bang or whimper?