The Revolution in Motion

[Michael Hardner]

The discussion seems to be about people defending the unassailable truths of their position, while casting strawmen of the others' position... really business as usual.

But if there's ever a need for us to modify how we discuss things, this is the topic that needs it. A new way of discussing is required to talk about new perspectives on new things.

The future is neither bad, nor good, it's new. It CAN be bad or good for people, some people, most people... but we need to discuss things openly, not in the rear view mirror of the past.

I would say that the environmental concerns are real, and the economic concerns are real but that we have achieved great leaps forward on both fronts. There's no reason to be unabashedly optimistic or pessimistic, but lots of reasons to ask questions and come up with new frameworks to look at problems.

[TimG]

I would say that the environmental concerns are real, and the economic concerns are real but that we have achieved great leaps forward on both fronts. There's no reason to be unabashedly optimistic or pessimistic, but lots of reasons to ask questions and come up with new frameworks to look at problems.

Environmental concerns can be real but knee jerk response of many environmentalists is to ban anything that may have some negative side effect instead of acknowledging the benefits and looking for ways to mitigate the harmful side effects without foregoing the benefits.

[PrimeNumber]

Environmental concerns can be real but knee jerk response of many environmentalists is to ban anything that may have some negative side effect instead of acknowledging the benefits and looking for ways to mitigate the harmful side effects without foregoing the benefits.

Typically if the mitigation costs more, the companies have no interest in it. Why make something less harmful, but more expensive? When I can make it more harmful and cheaper? Corporations often care less about long term harmful effects and more about short term profits. Asking corporations to mitigate harmful effects is not in their best interests and a corporation will always put it's best interests over those effected by it's products. So instead of asking them, we must tell them what to do. It may be a knee jerk reaction but it's better than no reaction at all.

[TimG]

So instead of asking them, we must tell them what to do. It may be a knee jerk reaction but it's better than no reaction at all.

Except that is not what is happening. Fracking may have problems: environmentalist solution: ban it. Pipelines can have problems: environmentalist solution: ban them. GMOs could have problems: environmentalist solution: ban it. Nuclear can have problems: environmentalist solution: ban it. I could go on. Environmentalists have no interest in constructive engagement with industry that would allow useful technologies to be deployed. Edited July 24, 2015 by TimG

[PrimeNumber]

Except that is not what is happening. Fracking may have problems: environmentalist solution: ban it. Pipelines can have problems: environmentalist solution: ban them. GMOs could have problems: environmentalist solution: ban it. Nuclear can have problems: environmentalist solution: ban it. I could go on. Environmentalists have no interest in constructive engagement with industry that would allow useful technologies to be deployed.

This is because the corporations have no interest in it either. They continue to say we have the problem under control, yet the problems continue to happen. I for one don't think we should ban anything, but studying the effects extensively and looking for solutions to problems is what should be done. Put protections and laws in place to make sure things don't happen as well. Corporations want free reign and actively lobby and donate to achieve that. They would much rather put profit over everything and we need laws and agencies in place to protect us from that.

[Michael Hardner]

Environmental concerns can be real but knee jerk response of many environmentalists is to ban anything ...

Response, or reaction, or "reactionary"...

Knee-jerk happens on both sides of the spectrum - my response is to try to think about things a little more, which is why I feel like I get more centrist every day.

[Bonam]

Back in WWII, when many of these compounds were created, nobody thought of doing any sort of risk assessment for unintended impacts....and that's the primary failing of nearly all new tech that gets added every year.

Umm, it was WWII, people had more pressing concerns on their minds in case you didn't know.

[Bonam]

Consumer activism has vanished from MSM today, and there is less concern on biohazards and growing toxic wastes now that we're inundated with it.

Regulatory agencies are more on top of biohazards and toxic compounds now than ever. But yes, it's disappeared from the typical person's radar. Mainly because the environmentalist movement focuses on GHG emissions almost entirely. When I was a kid watching discovery channel, the environmentalist shows mostly talked about things like deforestation, species loss, habitat destruction, the ozone hole, particulate emissions and health problems, etc. Now, you almost never hear about any of these things, only about GHGs.

[bush_cheney2004]

It started a while ago....eco-terrorists like Green Peace, PETA crazies, tree spikers, "Whale Wars" on Animal Planet, etc.. Once these extremists were fully exposed, they lost any presumed high ground and just became another special interest group.

[TimG]

This is because the corporations have no interest in it either.

Stop making excuses. Corporations are very interested in working with governments on regulations because it makes business sense to have the political actors onside. The problems are Luddites environmentalists who think technology bans are the only way to deal with uncertainty and risk.

[ReeferMadness]

Everything we have today exists because a capitalist society was free to experiment and deploy technology in new and interesting ways.

What a religious, fundamentalist point of view. And like most religious points of view, it's complete and utter horsesh*t. Most of the basic research that has been done over the ages has been funded by organizations or people who never expected to turn a profit, universities, governments, philanthropists. And if you think of the great minds to whom we owe the new ideas that grew into technology, most of them were not billionaire industrialists in their times. In fact, I know Einstein was a dedicated socialist and world federalist.

Utter hogwash. Do you even think about the nonsense your write?

There are always Luddites that fear change and would rather see new technologies banned or at least have their use restricted in ways that protects the economic interests of the Luddites while harming everyone else. Unfortunately, these Luddites have gained a significant hold on our society and are limiting progress by opposing things like vaccines, GMOs or the development of energy systems that actually work. Societies that have the political will to ignore these Luddites will be the ones that are best able to provide for their people in the future. The ones that give into the Luddites will stagnant.

A stilted and obviously biased viewpoint. Every technology has good and bad applications. There's a word for people who want more caution exercised to ensure the good outweighs the bad: it's called wisdom. Try it.

[eyeball]

Stop making excuses. Corporations are very interested in working with governments on regulations because it makes business sense to have the political actors onside. The problems are Luddites environmentalists who think technology bans are the only way to deal with uncertainty and risk.

That's just not true, we're more than willing to employ all sorts of technology to monitor corporations and governments when they get together in mutual interest.

The problem is sycophants that rail against anyone doing anything that might penetrate the secrecy their betters enjoy and that so often leads to uncertainty, risk and outright disaster in the public's domain.

It's hilarious when conservatives get on their high horses about Luddites and getting with the times.

[TimG]

Most of the basic research that has been done over the ages has been funded by organizations or people who never expected to turn a profit, universities, governments, philanthropists.

So what? Basic research is useless until it gets turned into something that people can use and the process of taking basic research and making it relevant to people's lives has been the result of private corporations: from cars to cell phones. Please give me one example of a innovation that changed society that was not perfected by private for profit corporations.

Utter hogwash. Do you even think about the nonsense your write?

Are you capable of constructing an argument or are your insults simply your way of saying I am right?

very technology has good and bad applications. There's a word for people who want more caution exercised to ensure the good outweighs the bad: it's called wisdom. Try it.

Benefiting from technology requires that it actually be used. Luddites that seek to ban new technology because they can't understand it hold society back. People with wisdom look for ways to use a technology while managing risk instead of finding excuses to ban it. Edited July 25, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

People that seek to obstruct new approaches to governance or economics are worse than any Luddite could ever hope to be.

Edited July 25, 2015 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm reminded of one technology in particular - the creation of plastics, may be one of the major contributors to dieoffs of plankton, fish and marine mammals in the oceans. All of the plastics created never completely break down to natural organic compounds, and will remain in the oceans for thousands of years...and yet we keep adding to them, throwing out more and more disposable plastic garbage. Back in WWII, when many of these compounds were created, nobody thought of doing any sort of risk assessment for unintended impacts....and that's the primary failing of nearly all new tech that gets added every year.

That's a great point. In our economy, people care so much about acquiring money and things that they just don't give a crap about these problems. People think that if it doesn't impact them negatively personally, especially in the short term, why should they care?

[TimG]

In our economy, people care so much about acquiring money and things that they just don't give a crap about these problems.

Yep. People think that food and shelter are a higher priority than hypothetical impacts. It is ridiculously condescending to act like the use of technology is a luxury. It isn't. There are 7 billion people on the planet that would not be able to survive without all of the technology we have at our disposal.

[bush_cheney2004]

Self anointed High Priests of Mother Earth have very little credibility as they live and consume the same way as the rest of us.

[kimmy]

Well, the fact is prices are at the level they are at only because a lot of people are willing and able to take on debt. If people were not willing to take on that debt then the housing prices would be that much lower. IOW, the housing market automatically adjusts to what people collectively deem to be affordable.

Imagining for a moment that air were a scarce commodity we had to bid for, people would purchase it regardless the price, and would be willing to borrow heavily to obtain it.

Shelter is likewise pretty necessary (though the hobos in my city manage to survive without it.) People do have more options when it comes to shelter; the two major ones are renting, and remaining with their parents. I can't speak for other places, but here, the vacancy rate is perpetually near zero, and renting is actually more expensive than mortgage payments-- that was what pushed me to buy.

But we weren't talking about reasons why housing has become so much more expensive, just the fact that it has. Sure, there's market factors at work, but those market factors have been working against people who are just entering the market for housing, and in favor of people who bought in a lot earlier. In short, no, people aren't really better off than ever.

You claim that people are better off than ever and that people are only complaining because of moving goalposts, but the truth is that there's a lot of economic factors working against people who are just reaching adulthood. The cost of education, housing, stagnant wages, globalization. Increased government debt that will virtually ensure that whatever old age security and pension plans exist in the future will be a shadow of what they presently are. People need to be saving more of their own money to take care of themselves in the future, because the generous programs the boomers made for themselves won't be around in the future. Unfortunately instead of saving they're trying to pay down their debt.

-k

[Shady]

The poor in North America today have smart phones. Nuff said.

[PrimeNumber]

So that means they are better off?

[bush_cheney2004]

The poor in North America today have smart phones. Nuff said.

True....when In was a kid...the poor had shared party line phones or no phone at all.

[TimG]

Imagining for a moment that air were a scarce commodity we had to bid for, people would purchase it regardless the price, and would be willing to borrow heavily to obtain it.

Except almost everyone borrows more than they need to in order to secure shelter because the desire for the lifestyle that comes with a bigger house is stronger than the fear of debt. When I first graduated I lived in an apartment that was as big as the detached home my mother and her 6 siblings grew up in. The goal posts have moved a lot when it comes to what people perceive as the 'minimum necessary shelter'. You need to factor in the moving goal posts before you make claims about what generation is better off.

those market factors have been working against people who are just entering the market for housing, and in favor of people who bought in a lot earlier. In short, no, people aren't really better off than ever.

Saying that we are collectively better off does not imply that every individual is better off. FWIW, the higher prices do mean it is more difficult for people to save the down payment even if the mortgage is just as affordable as it was in the past. But the fact that people buy because it is 'cheaper than renting' kind of proves it is not an insurmountable barrier.

People need to be saving more of their own money to take care of themselves in the future, because the generous programs the boomers made for themselves won't be around in the future. Unfortunately instead of saving they're trying to pay down their debt.

How do you think it was in the 30s? You could argue that the boomers and their parents set up an unsustainable benefits system and the generations that come after will have to make do with less in terms of government benefits. But that generation will still be healthier and wealthier than previous generations when you look at the types of goods that they are able to afford instead of trying judge things based on 'free cash flow' because every generation's perceived needs always expand to consume all of the available cash. As a result, every generation always feels their life is harder than in the past even when it is not objectively worse. Edited July 25, 2015 by TimG

[PrimeNumber]

True....when In was a kid...the poor had shared party line phones or no phone at all.

True....when In was a kid...the poor had shared party line phones or no phone at all.

When you were a kid I bet the telephone was the best new invention.

[waldo]

The poor in North America today have smart phones. Nuff said.

oh my! Are smartphones a 'luxury' item for the poor?

[kimmy]

Except almost everyone borrows more than they need to in order to secure shelter because the desire for the lifestyle that comes with a bigger house is stronger than the fear of debt. When I first graduated I lived in an apartment that was as big as the detached home my mother and her 6 siblings grew up in. The goal posts have moved a lot when it comes to what people perceive as the 'minimum necessary shelter'. You need to factor in the moving goal posts before you make claims about what generation is better off.

I don't think that really jives with what's going on in the market right now. Personally, my first home purchase is this 700 sq foot apartment; dad's first home purchase was a 3 bedroom detached home that he was able to pay off within 10 years on one income while supporting a wife and 2 kids.

If people have this taste for ever-more ostentatious housing, why do I keep reading these articles about how Millennials are ruining peoples' retirement plans by not buying homes from Boomers who want to downsize?

Saying that we are collectively better off does not imply that every individual is better off. FWIW, the higher prices do mean it is more difficult for people to save the down payment even if the mortgage is just as affordable as it was in the past. But the fact that people buy because it is 'cheaper than renting' kind of proves it is not an insurmountable barrier.

So what standard are you using to say that we are "collectively" better off? Does "we" include the relative handful of individuals who are receiving the overwhelming majority of all new wealth created in North America? If you go by the mean, we might be better off, but if you go by the median, we're not. And as the Boomers start dying out the median will start sliding down hill even faster.

I can't speak to what's going on in Vancouver or Calgary or Toronto, but here, "cheaper than renting" is less a comment on the affordability of housing and more a comment on the results of a rental market where the vacancy rate is perpetually near zero. I was able to scrape together a down payment mostly using the New Homebuyer Plan, which let me use my RRSPs to make up most of my down payment.

How do you think it was in the 30s? You could argue that the boomers and their parents set up an unsustainable benefits system and the generations that come after will have to make do with less in terms of government benefits. But that generation will still be healthier and wealthier than previous generations when you look at the types of goods that they are able to afford instead of trying judge things based on 'free cash flow' because every generation's perceived needs always expand to consume all of the available cash. As a result, every generation always feels their life is harder than in the past even when it is not objectively worse.

So just to clarify... we've gone from arguing that "we're better off than ever!" to "we're better off than it was in the 1930s"?

Yeah, we've got better toys than you guys did. And we have better medical technology, which we're going to need because we're going to be working into our 80s. What did the old financial planning slogan used to be? "Freedom 55"? We don't hear about "Freedom 55" anymore. Maybe they can update it to "Freedom 85" or "Freedom When-You-Die".

-k