Washington Post declares "mission accomplished" on lowering consumption (of its newspapers)

[Aeson]

I think you'd make a great ventriloquist.

I wouldn't say you're a dummy. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. You're just not precise and have stuck your foot in your mouth.

You said you don't buy my arguments. That was one of my arguments. Thus you were saying you didn't buy that argument.

If you meant you don't buy a specific argument (or arguments) of mine, you should have been more specific. You'd still have been wrong of course, but at least you could have avoided "not buying" what amounts to a blatantly obvious fact.

[Dauphin]

You can 'not buy' an argument without disagreeing with facts forming the basis of that argument.

[Aeson]

You can 'not buy' an argument without disagreeing with facts.

I said you could have avoided "not buying" what amounts to a blatantly obvious fact. That is not analogous to "disagreeing with facts" in at least two regards. First, "a fact" is singular, while "facts" are plural. Second, "not buying" doesn't necessarily mean "disagreeing".

So your response is a strawman. You are however commended upon making what amounts to an actually true statement. Perhaps you would like to try again, this time attempting to make a true statement in regards to something I have said?

[Aeson]

You can 'not buy' an argument without disagreeing with facts forming the basis of that argument.

Your edit seems to be trying to redefine "argument" into something it was not used as.

You said you don't buy my "points". I used "argument" in response as a synonym of "point". A point I raised specifically was that immigration restrictions cause distortions in labor markets. Your statement was thus implying that you do not buy that immigration restrictions cause distortions in labor markets (among other things ...).

[Dauphin]

You've gone off the deep end. My condolences.

[Aeson]

Bluster. Waffle. Strawman. Ad hominem. Can't wait to see what you have in store for us next! I'm guessing it still won't be "address the arguments actually made", since that definitely isn't your style.

[kentonio]

kentonio's points are terrible.

A concise and well argued rebuttal.

[Zevico]

That lack of omniscience doesn't mean we still shouldn't act to limit harm and effect positive outcomes to the best of our ability.

A lack of omniscience means that we shouldn't act if there is demonstrable, credible and compelling evidence to suggest that action is unnecessary or if we simply don't know enough to tell.

In the case of the physical sciences, moreover, claiming that we are acting on the basis of "settled science" when we act on the unknown is simply a subversion of words, logic and history. In cases like global cooling, peak oil or global warming, where there is no empirical evidence, the claim that we act on the basis of settled science is no more than a repudiation of both the scientific method and the Enlightenment.

It is blatantly obvious that less consumption will cause less environmental impact. If by "save the environment", people mean something like "keep it like it is" (and this is generally how it's used), then reducing consumption is actually going to "save the environment" far better than consuming more in that respect.

Of course, whether keeping the environment like it is is "beneficial" is also an assertion that, after all, one that deserves thought. What is the evidence for it?

The environment has changed throughout history and will change dramatically in future no matter what we do. That's the world we live in. Who says we can keep as it is and if so, at what cost, for what benefit and to whom?

There may or may not be other unconsidered (and unquantifiable) effects of consuming less.

There may be, but they're not relevant unless and until we specify what they are and how they benefit us. We can only act on the world as we understand or conceive it.

Perhaps by consuming less people slow technological advancement,

Replace perhaps with "undoubtedly." How many computers are being manufactured in Ethiopia? How many scientists are there in Sudan?

and thus get to advances that would allow us to cause less harm to the environment in various ways

There you go with harm again. What harm, for what benefit, for what cost? People extract far more crops from the same amount of land today than they did in the past. Is that beneficial to the environment, in that more of it can lie fallow as a result? Why is land that lies fallow "better" than land that is cultivated or in use? Should we forbid any human activity in public parks to "save the environment"?

It's equally possible that by limiting consumption, advancement will focus on those things faster as they are more necessary. Those questions are unanswerable, and even in hindsight we can only hope to be able to accurately quantify the option we actually went with.

I repeat. How many scientists are there in Sudan? What about Egypt?

The resources at the disposal of and consumed by Egypt today dwarf those of any pre-modern civilisation. No doubt it consumes far more than they did. Yet its populace is still approaching starvation. Should Egyptians consume less, as their government has asked of them in the wake of food riots? Will that induce more food scientists to go to Egypt and experiment or less? More social instability or less? Who are you to decide for them?

What about the aged or the poor in our society: if we consume less, they approach death. Aged people in France die by the thousands every summer from heat waves because they cannot afford to turn on the airconditioning owing to high energy prices. Is this your vision for the future? More people dead in heat waves? Is their sacrifice worth your unknown, unstated benefits of decreased consumption?

[Aeson]

A lack of omniscience means that we shouldn't act if there is demonstrable, credible and compelling evidence to suggest that action is unnecessary or if we simply don't know enough to tell.

That is a ridiculous segue. Your original statement was that we should only choose based on empirical evidence. I pointed out we often have to choose (one way or the other) when there isn't empirical evidence to back up any choice (including not doing anything).

Your response just isn't applicable to what you quoted.

Of course, whether keeping the environment like it is is "beneficial" is also an assertion that, after all, one that deserves thought. The environment has changed throughout history and will change dramatically in future no matter what we do. That's the world we live in. Who says we can keep as it is and if so, at what cost, for what benefit and to whom?

Highlighted the applicable portion of your response. Everything else is irrelevant to what you were quoting.

There may be, but they're not relevant unless and until we specify what they are and how they benefit us. We can only act on the world as we understand or conceive it.

That was the point. I was giving both sides of the argument. Why you want to argue with the side you're obviously on (by argumentatively stating the implication I made) is beyond me.

Replace perhaps with "undoubtedly." How many computers are being manufactured in Ethiopia? How many scientists are there in Sudan?

"Undoubtedly" is not supportable. Investment and savings are also beneficial towards advancement, and are generally what people who do not consume their wealth do with it.

Also, when the consumer base makes it known to those providing goods and services that something is not acceptable, it promotes those providers finding new, acceptable ways of providing goods and services. This can be an impetus for innovation. (It can also be an impetus for devolution.)

At what level of consumption to savings/investment we would be best off is hard to say, and the ratio would vary from time to time. It was pretty clear that the American consumer was consuming more than they should havebefore the downturn, especially in regards to home ownership.

So no, the only "undoubtedly" is that you are undoubtedly incorrect in your statement.

There you go with harm again. What harm, for what benefit, for what cost? People extract far more crops from the same amount of land today than they did in the past. Is that beneficial to the environment, in that more of it can lie fallow as a result? Why is land that lies fallow "better" than land that is cultivated or in use?

It's obviously a benefit for the general welfare of humanity that we produce more nutrition per unit of area. That you question that makes me think you may be completely beyond reason. Spending money simply to waste resources is inefficient. Accept that simple fact and move on.

As for the specific harms with your scenario ... cultivating land has certain unavoidable effects. The soil is compacted every time it is mechanically worked. Dust is released into the air (unless worked when very wet, which dramatically increase soil compaction). Microbial activity is disrupted. Erosion is increased. These all lead to less fertile and less productive land unless amendments are made to counteract the loses.

The working of soil increases the leeching of minerals (and of course any fertilizers/sprays) into groundwater. This can affect the quality of water, which can have negative impact on health of people, wildlife, and even productivity of land downstream.

All in all, cultivating land just to cultivate land is absurdly inefficient. Letting fields go fallow has obvious benefits. This isn't even something new to farming. You're less knowledgeable in this regard than people who lived thousands of years ago.

I repeat. How many scientists are there in Sudan? What about Egypt?

You're confused. The choice is between what use of wealth is most beneficial. Consumption is not always the right answer. The examples you are raising seem to be going after "having wealth is good", which is of course true, yet has absolutely nothing to do with anything you are responding to.

The resources at the disposal of and consumed by Egypt today dwarf those of any pre-modern civilisation. No doubt it consumes far more than they did. Yet its populace is still approaching starvation. Should Egyptians consume less, as their government has asked of them in the wake of food riots? Will that induce more food scientists to go to Egypt and experiment or less? More social instability or less? Who are you to decide for them?

What about the aged or the poor in our society: if we consume less, they approach death. Aged people in France die by the thousands every summer from heat waves because they cannot afford to turn on the airconditioning owing to high energy prices. Is this your vision for the future? More people dead in heat waves? Is their sacrifice worth your unknown, unstated benefits of decreased consumption?

Stop being ridiculous.

If I consume less that doesn't mean my money goes to waste. It goes to other endeavors. Those could be to give the money to a charity which provides elderly with air conditioners ... or invest in a business which is developing new energy sources ... or developing more efficient (or cheaper) air conditioners ... or starting a business which employs elderly (or their loved ones) increases their ability to meet their own (and their family's) needs financially ... or countless other things of various levels of benefit or harm.

Which one of those things would be most beneficial is going to vary based on a bunch of factors. But what is patently obvious is that you are wrong to think that personal consumption is the end-all-be-all best use of wealth.

[Zevico]

What I disagree with is the notion that consumption can or should be regulated. It can't be without affecting "investment" or "savings" which after all simply allow others to consume the product of that investment or saving.

[Aeson]

What I disagree with is the notion that consumption can or should be regulated. It can't be without affecting "investment" or "savings" which after all simply allow others to consume the product of that investment or saving.

It's good you can admit that your entire line of discussion with me has been a strawman ...

That aside, consumption is and must be regulated. The alternative is anarchy. For instance, property rights are a type of regulation on consumption. It is government saying to the owner that they can consume/use the property, and that their right is protected against others consuming/using that property without permission.

Taxation necessarily regulates consumption by changing the amount of money available to spend. Pigovian taxes go further than just affecting the amount of money available to use towards consumption, and attempt to change behavior. They have their place.

Changes made to the money supply in general are attempts at regulating consumption. There is great potential for benefit/harm in how it's handled. Even if you're one of the crazies who want to go back to the gold standard (I honestly don't recall your position on this issue), even that would be a method of regulating consumption.

Rationing in war-time is a regulation on consumption. As you've already said, one you can see is necessary at times.

Then there are types of consumption are that not allowed by law, for good reason. Buying a slave? Paying for sex with prepubescent children? How about paying someone to murder someone else? Of course we want to regulate that sort of consumption ... because it's awful stuff that should not happen at all.

So just stop trying to pretend you have some moral high ground about letting people consume what they want on general principles. Because no one sane actually occupies that ground ... and even you aren't that insane.

[Zevico]

I'm going to go ahead and put down my last two posts on a brain freeze.

That aside:

So just stop trying to pretend you have some moral high ground about letting people consume what they want on general principles. Because no one sane actually occupies that ground ... and even you aren't that insane.

Conceded.

Even if you're one of the crazies who want to go back to the gold standard (I honestly don't recall your position on this issue), even that would be a method of regulating consumption.

I honestly don't recall ever expressing a view on that issue.