Author Topic: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT  (Read 3560 times)

Freeky

  • Can't breathe anymore.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 187789
  • wat
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2016, 09:51:15 pm »
Yeah, that's the problem with most people investing in a company, or the company itself.  It's a lot of scum that rule the world.

Or just "we all want to see BIG returns on our 401K".

Right?  Fuck people.
If someone does the ďFine, youíre right, Iím clearly a terrible person, Iím Satan, Iím the worst person alive, I should just dieĒ thing in response to criticism of their harmful behavior, they are trying to manipulate people and flip the situation around so that they look like a victim.

As a neuroscientist I have to disagree with the perception that anyone is doing mathematical modeling of cognitive intelligence, yet; intelligence as an economist defines it, yes, but economists are worlds away from actual cognition.


Although it is outside the purview of this organization to offer personal advice, we can say -- without assuming any liability -- that previous experience indicates (and recent market studies corroborate) that given the present condition of the marketplace, continuing with your present course of action is likely to result in substantial in

Pergamos

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15995
  • Did it for the cookies.
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2016, 12:46:42 am »
A quick government fix for the quarterly profits uber alles approach is an increase in corporate taxes.  High taxes on net profits makes investments much more attractive, since that money isnt being taxed and also leads to more profit in the long term.

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 13037
    • View Profile
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2016, 05:14:05 pm »
Without red tape, why would a company change to a more expensive production process?

How do you "force" a company to make a change without applying a regulation?

I don't think that consumer demand is a strong enough force to change things on its own.


The process of getting one kilogram of beef onto my plate produces as much carbon emission as driving 63 miles. Fruit and nuts have a much, much smaller carbon footprint. I know this, but I still prefer hamburgers and steak to all the salad in the world.

Lazy Armchair Enthusiast becomes Active (Slightly less lazy) Armchair Enthusiast ITT:

Many would argue (as they have, above) that the Green Solution tends to only be more expensive in the short term.

You force a company (Companies) to make a change by making it desirable, financially. Or, you render their current methods obsolete.

To make a change financially desirable, it would usually take strategic and tactful introduction by someone in corporate who already knows a lot about the new system and the current system. If someone introduces it who does have a lot of power but doesn't know much about either system, it will be rejected by those in charge, or the change will be less efficient and financially undesirable.

Both, rendering the current method of production obsolete and making the change financially desirable, are made simpler by large strides in innovation. Many would argue that the Green technology just isn't cheap or efficient enough yet to upgrade our country's (Or any country's) entire infrastructure. But if the technology had private AND public R&D involving more creative minds than are currently involved, then we might see some infrastructure-worthy Green-tech.

This thread was supposed to provide topics of productive discussion while keeping in mind the limited influence of the individual on the workings of big things. But the influence of many can be pretty large. I would rather not just rely on people in the private sector to do the right thing. I would rather influence those decisions myself, with the help of others. As soon as my life becomes a bit more stable (Probably in August or September.), I'm going to hit the books and get acquainted with all things business and Green, and I plan on obtaining the influence I desire to make a change. But it can't be done alone.

My question is (In the spirit of an armchair enthusiast, hence the thread name), do you (Or anyone else) want to collaborate and work towards a Greener future without lobbying for regulation?


There's societal profit hidden in private Green-tech market support. The problem is, there is no private Green-tech market support. So let's go build some.
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

P3nT4gR4m

  • Official SSOOKN Pariah
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 72167
  • I'm an artist now - isn't that depressing?
    • View Profile
    • fuck you
Re: Lazy Armchair Enthusiast Making Proposals For Change ITT
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2016, 03:01:13 pm »
We're fast approaching grid parity with wind and solar and storage is set to take off shortly, too. Germany famously ran for a whole day on 90% renewables. It got so bad that negative tariffs ran briefly - the energy providers were paying people to use the power. Portugal (although hardly a comparable industrial nation) went four days on 100% renewable.

It'll get to a point soon where price per watt is significantly less than the fossil fuel alternative. At that point the argument is moot. Market forces will take over when human self preservation failed miserably. Any business that insists on paying over the odds for power will very quickly cease to be a business. Of course it'll be too late. It's already too late. Failing some scientific solution to the problem, most indicators are imminent biosphere collapse.

Preservationists are just as bad. Why the fuck even try to preserve a system that evidently can't deal with 7billion-odd myopic apes, shitting up the walls of the domicile? A far more sensible option would be to engineer something that works better. Myopic apes, however, aren't predisposed to thinking big-picture like that.

The good news is that the big picture is the same, whether people want to look at it or not and the big picture strongly suggests that there won't be people for much longer. Problem is self-correcting.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and itís not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesnít matter." -- Max Tegmark