posted by dsk on October 9th, 2011 at 6:45PM
>As you might have guessed, life can't really be reduced to a 2x2 game-theory table.
It may be a case of lack of imagination on my part. Maybe I'm not imaginative enough to see how an Anarchist society would tackle problems like overfishing, overpopulation or global warming. I don't think it can. I can't see a way it would without becoming despotic in some way.
>Are they generally retarded and don't know about potential extinction (environmental, etc) problems?
If we're talking about feeding 6 billion+ of people , it doesn't matter. Anything you do will be resource devastating.
>...and possibly bear just-retaliation for said initiation of violence.
By definition there will be retaliation regardless, even if the environmentally conscious 'aggressor' is "just" (e.g. saving the planet from global warming/overpopulation/etc.). What's interesting is when the aggressor loses. Now "might makes right".
It may be a case of lack of imagination on my part. Maybe I'm not imaginative enough to see how an Anarchist society would tackle problems like overfishing, overpopulation or global warming. I don't think it can. I can't see a way it would without becoming despotic in some way.
>Are they generally retarded and don't know about potential extinction (environmental, etc) problems?
If we're talking about feeding 6 billion+ of people , it doesn't matter. Anything you do will be resource devastating.
>...and possibly bear just-retaliation for said initiation of violence.
By definition there will be retaliation regardless, even if the environmentally conscious 'aggressor' is "just" (e.g. saving the planet from global warming/overpopulation/etc.). What's interesting is when the aggressor loses. Now "might makes right".
|
posted by dennisn on October 10th, 2011 at 8:19PM
"You don't think it can be solved voluntarily" is not a good enough reason to initiate brutal violence. You have to have a bit more evidence. Not that I have any burden of proof, but I'd say that the greatest/only way to fix such massive external problems is through education and awareness -- after which eco-friendly companies will prosper.
I'm not exactly sure if 6B people necessarily have to cause devastation to resources, but even assuming it's true, you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of an actual solution. As I mentioned earlier, who chooses whether fishing-permits or mandatory-birth-control is the better option? I'm not sure what you meant by retaliation regarding a "just environmentally conscious aggressor". Retaliation is basically self-defense -- it's not an initiation of violence. Of course, there may be confusion whether raising yearly temperatures by 1C over 10 years is an initiation of violence :P. I'm also not sure what you mean by "might-makes-right". Are you assuming bad people are more numerous and powerful than good people? (This is similar to my earlier question, asking whether most people are responsible/vote-worthy -- if they're not, we're doomed regardless, and democracy isn't a viable solution at all.) |
