12
Feb
16

Unless it changes, capitalism will starve humanity by 2050


I’m posting the reference to this article because it touches on issues I’ve addressed recently in other posts.
_________________________________________________________________________

Unless it changes, capitalism will starve humanity by 2050
[Forbes]
By Drew Hansen
____________
climate changeProfessors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways.
“Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote. (my emphasis – Tim)

More from the article:

Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale.
Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years.
Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia.
Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20%.
The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050.
How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain?

Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change.

see complete article here: http://news.yahoo.com/unless-it-changes–capitalism-will-starve-humanity-by-2050-014619431.html

Advertisements

20 Responses to “Unless it changes, capitalism will starve humanity by 2050”


  1. 1 Marleen
    February 12, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2014/12/crude-harvest-selling-mexico-oil-20141224124638386236.html

    You reminded me, I saw part of one of these episodes very recently.

    I recommend seeing it and hope I will find all the episodes.

    The book you’ve shared here looks like it will be good to read.

  2. 3 Marleen
    February 13, 2016 at 5:14 am

    If you read the book, please give us your evaluation too.

  3. February 15, 2016 at 7:08 am

    I’m not likely to read the book. It seems to be very expensive. The thing that stood out in the article was the quote about “obscuring the link” – once again it points towards a specific agenda intended to protect destructive economic policies and practices at the expense of truth about the way they are degrading of God’s creation.

  4. February 15, 2016 at 7:16 am

    Sorry Roy, I don’t see that as a “Christian counter”, that is a Tea Party counter. [Articles by Gary North, the Tea Party Economist].

    A big difference.

    (Matt 6:24, Luke 16:13, James 2: 6-7)

  5. 6 Marleen
    February 15, 2016 at 9:48 am

    I was trying to talk about these things with someone yesterday, and he had the hardest time hearing anything. At one point he finally said, “so my grandpa was a bad person.” Really, conversations with this person are impossible (no exaggeration). I hadn’t said anything about his grandfather (hadn’t even thought of him), and I had pointed out that farmers in Mexico are forced to choose between buying into oil or losing out altogether. His grandfather worked in the oil world (but wasn’t rich in our current terms, while much better off than most people where he was from). I actually never have thought his grandpa was a bad person. But if you have to tell yourself that you can’t think about things because it makes you feel like your grandpa might go to hell (totally made up on his part as far as what was going on in the conversation… although when he brought it up I said, in exasperation, “I didn’t follow your grandpa around [not that he did either, just, I am not a witness]; I don’t know anything about that, this isn’t about your grandpa”), it’s all the more likely fertile land and clean water will mostly or all be a mess in the not too distant future. He goes on to insist oil (and gas) extraction and transport doesn’t have to be messy, when I’d actually already acknowledged the possibility. But this is what people who know first-hand how things go argue — in the defense of the ostensible safety of these procedures in other people’s neighborhoods. Those very same people as vociferously argue not to do it near their homes or towns. To me, even if there isn’t a bigger picture (which there is as foreigners are also taking over land in the U.S.), it’s sad that people aren’t respected for their productive ways of life and their rights. By the way, am I silly to remember the Bible referencing the inability to buy simple nourishing food for a price anywhere in the realm of affordable?

  6. February 16, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Gary North is a Christian

    He may be, but his association with the Tea Party is not.

  7. February 16, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    You do understand that the TEA party is actually just citizens against higher taxes (TEA stands for “taxed enough already”) and for less government. The US debt is soaring meanwhile the Feds continue to want to raise taxes and increase the size of the government. I’m for the fair tax (see http://www.fairtax.org).

    TEA includes all political parties so it’s not a single party group. Many conservatives run as TEA party affiliation meaning they support less taxes and a smaller government.

    A few states have very high taxes (California and New York for example) while a few have lower taxes (Texas and Florida for example). Yet the Federal government especially under Obama has increased spending, expanding the debt, and raised taxes. TEA was formed in response to that.

    But I’m curious why you would oppose TEA?

  8. February 17, 2016 at 7:45 am

    I would oppose the TEA because it favours the rich above the poor.

    What do you think the outcome of lower taxes and less government means?

    It means great benefit to the rich (making them richer) and less benefit to the poor who have essential services cut to compensate for those cutting of taxes.

    I’ve already posted on those effects, where in the Reagan era taxes on the highest incomes were significantly slashed, and the revenue shortfall was addressed through massive cuts to social welfare. During the few years that taxes on the wealthiest was reduced from 70% to 28% by Reagan, the number of homeless increased significantly (only one outcome of the shifting of money to the rich from the poor).

    Regarding the idea of “less government” – I recommend you read the article and comments here: http://cross-purposes.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/brother-onesimus-recently-posted.html

    The TEA Party is also an organisation that has relied heavily on lies and innuendo, from the campaign about Obama’s birth place through to the present where I see that they seem to be trying to link the death of Scalia to Obama. (see their website today)

    http://www.teaparty.org/bombshell-ranch-where-scalia-died-is-owned-by-democrat-party-donor-obama-award-winner-144230/

    http://www.teaparty.org/flashback-scalia-dared-can-obama-144285/

    The site reads like a conspiracy theorist’s best friend.

    It REALLY doesn’t take a lot of scrutiny to see the very blatant problems with that organisation, something that should have Christians avoiding them.

  9. February 17, 2016 at 8:13 am

    If you were American how would you vote? I am curious because you claim Christianity but seem to favor left politics. You seem to embrace the Democrat ticket while rejecting anything conservative.

    Again, as a Christian, I vote biblically. I am not loyal to a party. I am loyal to my Savior. That said, I favor less government because government is not God. I favor the Protestant work ethic where work is glorious and good and where if you work, you eat. I favor not stealing from the rich to feed the lazy. Its one thing to care for the poor (Galatians 2:10) or widows (1 Timothy 5:3-16) but I do not favor taking from those who work hard to earn their living just to give to those who are poor simply to make it equal.

  10. February 17, 2016 at 8:48 am

    If I were American how would I vote?

    Maybe I’d take the option of not voting – an option not legally available to me in Australia.
    With compulsory voting I look to the policies that are most equitable and don’t favour those who don’t really need to be favoured.

    Choosing according to anti-abortion views isn’t an option here, unless I vote for a “Christian” party set up by a false prophet, but he doesn’t run a candidate in my local area anyway.

    What do you mean I “Claim Christianity but seem to favour left politics”.
    I favour the politics that takes care of the poor and vulnerable and NOT the politics favouring the rich at the expense of the poor.

    It’s a very sad fact that Americans don’t see to realise that their suspicion of “left politics” is the result of a decades of propaganda instilled into your population since the beginning of the cold war. You don’t realise that what Americans often depict as being “left politics” is still far to the right of the politics in other western democracies.

    And “Left” politics does not equate to antichristian any more than “Right” politics. Both can have elements that are contrary to the gospel and that is why I don’t identify with either left or right – but I am willing to identify with views from either side that ARE consistent with Christian concerns.

    You say that “I favor not stealing from the rich to feed the lazy” and “I do not favor taking from those who work hard to earn their living just to give to those who are poor simply to make it equal.”

    Don’t you realise that many of those “lazy” are actually working two or three jobs and still can’t earn a living wage? Others can’t find work because the jobs they could have done (or used to do) have been outsourced to other countries. Yes there may be some who exploit welfare but the gains from their dishonesty is not as significant as the gains of the ultra-rich who are no less guilty of exploitation but for far massively larger amounts of money that alleged “welfare cheats”.

    Those who already have the most (and are getting more) often do far less work – many of them having inherited wealth, and others are paid more per hour than most of us would be paid in a year.

    You say you “favor less government because government is not God” – and yet Government is FROM God. (Romans 13,Which also has some interesting things to say about paying taxes.)

  11. February 17, 2016 at 8:53 am

    Believe me, I pay a lot in taxes. I pay too much. Just last week the Feds dipped into my pay check and took out $1000. Off the top. I could use that money you know. But I am okay with paying my taxes because it is biblical to do so. Thankfully, I also live in a nation where I can protest higher taxes.

    I allow you to have the last word since its your blog. I don’t agree with you but I have enjoyed our dialogue. I hope you know that I don’t mean ill will toward you.

  12. February 17, 2016 at 9:09 am

    I have no problem with paying taxes and would be willing to pay more in tax if it was needed to pay for essential services such as health and education. I’m not highly paid (probably at the lower end in my company), but my current salary is better than that of similar positions locally.

    Unfortunately our government has a “lower taxes” mind set and has cut billions from health and education budgets to offset the need to raise more revenue through taxes. And proposals to cut taxes are usually targeted at the most wealthy and not those on lower incomes who would benefit most from reduced tax.

  13. 15 Marleen
    February 18, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    My Feb 15, 9:48 AM post, I mentioned someone’s grandpa. I remembered just a few hours ago that the person who was wiggy because his grandfather worked in the oil world (as have a few other people in his family) apparently himself forgot that his grandparents, both that grandpa and grandma, his own mother too, were Democrats and voted for Bill Clinton happily. This wiggy person says the Clintons are evil (although, inexplicably, he spent a brief time span acting like Bill is defensible and acceptable as a person in general, but he has gotten over that). So… is his grandpa going to hell for voting in Bill? And what about his mother and dear grandmother? This is a rhetorical question; this person’s interactive habits are hypocritical, dull, and abusive.

  14. 16 Marleen
    February 22, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    By the way, even though I didn’t think his grandparents were bad people, I didn’t understand why they liked Bill Clinton… not even the first time. I’m not sure whether they voted for him the second time.

  15. February 23, 2016 at 5:25 am

    I’d missed this thread previously. Probably a good place to address one of Roy’s assertions.

    That “Gary North is a Christian”…maybe, maybe not. I don’t know the man, or anything about him.

    But Jesus’ wisdom applies. Some who take His name in their mouth are none of His. Their fruits show who they really are.

    If Mr. North is a Tea Party apologist, he presumably agrees in most of their positions. It seems evident that in the Tea Party’s manipulation of those positions: small government, low taxes, gun-rights, etc.: their “principles” are a thin and transparent veneer for their driving-spirit of rebellion, anger, national pride, and violence.

    I testify emphatically that that spirit is not of Jesus. No one grounded in Jesus’ teaching should allow themself to be deceived otherwise.

    If Mr. North is a Tea Party apologist, in agreement with, and promoting, the spirit of that faction, I question strongly if he is a Christian according to the only criteria that matters.

    blessings, Steve

  16. February 23, 2016 at 7:31 am

    Steve, I think it’s easy to make the mistake of accepting an idea because it has been presented to us by someone we consider to be a Christian. However that acceptance is based on the reverse of what we are told by Jesus. (You will know them by their fruit)

    Instead of judging SOMEONE by their fruit (as per scripture), the above approach is effectively judging the fruit according to our preconceptions about that someone. (basically: He’s a good Christian, so what he says must be good).

  17. February 23, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    Tim, that’s very much and very often what seems to happen. It seems to me the major failure of today’s Christians: a lack of intellectual honesty, and a lack of the intellectual DISCIPLINE that should be the mark of every DISCIPLE. Except we “take every IDEA captive to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:5), we make ourselves prey to the manipulations of men, and (through them) the deceits of the enemy. That seems to be where many who call themselves Christians currently are.

    Jesus, wake Your foolish people ! Amen !

  18. 20 Steve
    February 24, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Just musing how often the neighbors of a serial killer, interviewed after the fact, say “He was the nicest guy in the world.” How often the propagators of evil ideas (politicians and others) have a coterie of home-town admirers who smilingly testify to their precocious intelligence, or determination, or integrity.

    Man’s testimony is moonshine. Jesus’ wisdom, that men’s fruits reveal their nature, is reality.


Comments are currently closed.

Blog Stats

  • 78,517 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 241 other followers


%d bloggers like this: