> Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

>> Jonah Thomas gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

>>>> Jonah Thomas gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

>>>>>> tg earthlink.net> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>...motor cars didn't 'naturally arise' to solve the
>>>>>>> problem of horseshit in the streets of London.

>

>>>>>> No, but they arose to solve the problem of the relative
>>>>>> inefficiency, limits, and cost of horses.

>

>>>>> I think they arose because people were interested in the
>>>>> engines, and then they looked for things they could use them
>>>>> for.

>

>>>> Well, yes, but why were they interested in the engines? Engines in
>>>> other applications - most especially the steam engine - had
>>>> already amply demonstrated economic viability.

>

>>> Sure, but when they started out on them the things weren't
>>> economicly viable.

>

>> Neither was the electric light or the airplane - and many other
>> inventions. But that doesn't mean that the inventors didn't have
>> commercial applications in mind.

>
> There's often that component. But just as meiotic drive has a big effect
> on biological evolution, the things that people do for fun has a giant
> effect on human invention. Perhaps many of the obvious inefficiencies of
> the reciprocating engine were overlooked in favor of its obvious
> freudian implications, for example.
>

>> Why are we debating this? These are known and uncontroversial
>> historical facts.

>
> No, they aren't. Only to people whose concept of history is particularly
> superficial are these considered "facts".
>

>>>> ... keep in mind
>>>> that I'm just responding to Tiggy's absurd claim that
>>>> "externalities" cannot be addressed by the free market.

>

>>> Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Sometimes they do get
>>> addressed, sometimes they don't.

>

>> Sometimes this, sometimes that - sometimes a lot of variations on the
>> theme. But that was *not* what Tiggy said - and the specific examples
>> he used did not support his point.

>
> Still, the fact is that free markets don't optimise anything in
> particular. Unless you want to claim that what markets ought to optimise
> is by definition whatever they happen to optimise.
>

>>> If you care about global warming...

>

>> I don't. However to whatever extent I had a preference - which has
>> absolutely nothing to do with mankind's activities one way or the
>> other - I'd prefer to see warming. So, since I'd prefer to see warming
>> and since mankind has nothing to do with it and can do nothing about
>> it, there's no point in discussing it.

>
> OK, you're out of that discussion. No more comments about that from
> *you*, Bucko!
>

>>> If you care about pollution ...

>

>> I don't - not if it means shutting down the industrial revolution or
>> putting whole industries out of business. The consequences of that
>> will be far, far worse than any supposed "pollution".

>
> But it needn't have that result. You're caught up in aristotelian
> two-valued logical fallacies. Either we have pollution or we have no
> industry. But there are more than two choices. So, we can build
> coal-fired powerplants that lose maybe 1.5%% efficiency while trapping
> most of their air pollution. We can retrofit old power plants and they
> lose 15%% efficiency. Is it cheaper for the national economy to retrofit
> old power plants, restrict old plants to using low-sulfur coal, build
> new plants, or accept the bad results we get from lots of pollution?
> What we're doing is some of all four, plus other choices too.
>

>>> If you assume that whatever the market does is right,...

>

>> I don't.

>
> Good! We're agreed.
>

>>>>> Exactly. It's the government's job to distort the economy so
>>>>> that profits come to those who do the right things instead of
>>>>> the wrong things.

>

>>>> What are the "right" things vs. the "wrong" things - and by what
>>>> right do you or anyone get to decide what that is?

>

>>> The government chooses what's right, on their authority as our
>>> elected representatives and our paid servants.

>

>> Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

>
> Yes, sure. There's nothing in the bill of rights that says the
> government won't regulate interstate commerce. There's nothing in the
> bill of rights that says our elected representatives csan't put taxes on
> products, except I sort of remember a rule that we can't tax exports --
> and that isn't being followed, is it?
>

>>> If you think they don't have that right then vote Libertarian.

>

>> I would if I thought the "Libertarians" represented the best defense
>> of liberty. Not only don't they, I regard them as an embarrassment,
>> even danger, to the cause.

>
> OK, who's doing the best defense of "liberty"? For myself, I think we
> inevitably lose freedom the closer we're packed together. A man who
> outright owns his 640 acres has freedoms that somebody just can't have
> living in an apartment in a city. We started losing our liberty when the
> frontier was gone, when there wasn't a place you could just pack up and
> move to and own free and clear without having to buy it from somebody
> who'd rather have the money.
>

>> However, if you merely meant that I should vote for the candidates who
>> represent a rational concept of limited gov't, I'd be happy to - if
>> there were any.

>
> So where do you go from there? Run for office yourself?
>
>
>

>>>>>> That's the little thing Malthus overlooked when he predicted
>>>>>> that increasing population would lead to famine.

>

>>>>> Too soon to say on that one.

>

>>>> You mean after 150 years of massive population increases without
>>>> starvation and you still think it's an open question? You need
>>>> another 150 years when we are comfortably feeding 10 or 20 - or 50
>>>> - billion people before you can make up your mind?

>

>>> Without starvation? You've never talked to an irishman about that,
>>> have you?

>

>> Are you referring to the Irish famine of the 1840's? Apparently you
>> have no idea what caused it - or much else in history. But it has
>> nothing whatever to do with the point behind the Malthusian claim that
>> large population increases are necessarily unsustainable by
>> agricultural production - a claim which has been thoroughly disproven
>> and discredited.

>
> Umm. Malthus claimed that populations grow exponentially, while
> agricultural yields tend to grow more linearly. We got a step
> improvement with inorganic fertiliser and insecticides, which both use a
> lot of energy to make. We got a step improvement with strains of plants
> that grow faster when they're grown carefully. We're close to the
> theoretical limit for corn -- to make it more productive we need more
> sunlight per acre. If the population grows exponentially how will we get
> another big improvement, when the fossil fuels are running out? Malthus
> may very well be wrong, but if so it's because human populations don't
> always grow exponentially, not because those increases are necessarily
> sustained by improved agriculture.
>
> You might be like the man who jumps off a tall building and says as he
> passed the 20th floor "See, I've gone 80 stories and nothing has
> happened yet!".
>
> We haven't gone 150 years without starvation. We've had some starvation
> here and there. China, particularly while they were being invaded and
> while they had some government blunders. India. Tibet, under invasion
> and occupation. Iraq under sanctions, invasion, and occupation. Sudan
> under drought and war. Rwanda suffering overpopulation. Rhodesia under
> invasion and occupation. Lots of nations in WWII from disruption due to
> war. But see, as the population increases it gets easier for food
> production and distribution to get disrupted.
>
> You are taking reasonable positions that might have a degree of truth
> that could be argued with a lot of work, and you are stating them as if
> they are known truths. Do you feel that the low-bandwidth of Usenet
> requires you to simplify your ideas this way? I have some doubt that is
> a useful strategy; people are likely to think you really believe it that
> way, or that you are a troll.