And also, is there a way that capitalism can work so society is in harmony with the environment (excepting a massive change of a society's mindset). Something to think about: Australia has on of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and according to Spiphel Rike:
Here in Australia the "unfair dismissal" laws and many similar things were recently abolished. That is something that can be taken advantage of. Even with the artificial restrictions on employers the unemployment rate was extremely low. Companies need people to get the work done, so they're offering more than they normally would because there is only a finite number of available workers. One of my friends (a highschool dropout) was recently able to get a great job (good pay and conditions) with no qualifications because general motors was looking that hard for new office jockeys.
This leads me to believe a developed and surging economy naturally leads to pollution and environmental disaster.

Prove me wrong.

Our modern economic system is built on exponential growth. If you don't have growth the economy suffers. To fuel this growth you need resources. And this means you need more and more resources every year. Hence it does hurt the environment.

'The only people who believe that things are infinite are economists'

Capitalism = get dat money
Rain forest trees = $

Therefore,

Get dem trees!

So yes, in a broad sense, it does hurt the environment.

Capitalism=Mr. Creosote

I think it's more general human greed and stupidity than capitalism.

-deus-

Private property laws. People won't pollute or over fish their own private land/sea. Basically eliminates the tragedy of the commons phenomenon. The rain forest and air are still fucked though.

Private property laws. People won't pollute or over fish their own private land/sea. Basically eliminates the tragedy of the commons phenomenon. The rain forest and air are still fucked though.

Thats just plain stupid. Private property laws

The idea of capitalism is to allow exploitation so that the exploiters are able to make more money, while the exploited deal with it in the knowledge that one day, they too might have someone to exploit.

So, in short, no. I'd really doubt there was a capitalist system that didn't exploit the environment.

The idea of capitalism is to allow exploitation so that the exploiters are able to make more money, while the exploited deal with it in the knowledge that one day, they too might have someone to exploit.

So, in short, no. I'd really doubt there was a capitalist system that didn't exploit the environment.

Well naturally exploitation occurs, but could that be counteracted?

Well naturally exploitation occurs, but could that be counteracted?

The only sort of "natural exploitation" I can imagine is just a general responsible use of the environment, existing within the normal carrying capacity of it. The problem comes into the picture when a person uses the resources of the environment faster than they are replenished, killing off an area to almost nothing... it takes a while to recover from that sort of thing.

Take that little global footprint test, maybe that could help you see if you are "exploiting" the environment selfishly, or if you're living within a range of acceptable "use" of the natural resources. There are apparently 5 production acres available per person on the planet. My lifestyle, according to that overly simple little test, uses 4.

It's only profitable to allow environmental destruction in the course of your business if you externalise the environmental costs.

However, it is very easy to do this, and so it is done.

If corporate ecological responsibility were as effectively legally enforced as, say, worker health and safety, legal capitalist solutions would probably also be enviromentally sound solutions.

as long as capital can be made, nothing is sacred. if there was only one tree left on the earth and someone could make money off of it, the tree would go. fucking money grubbing pigs.

as long as capital can be made, nothing is sacred. if there was only one tree left on the earth and someone could make money off of it, the tree would go. fucking money grubbing pigs.
Anarchy!

Anarchy!

No, socialism. Or at least anarcho-socialism.

The only time it doesn't hurt the environment is when a company cashes in on self-proclaimed "green" items because being environmentally friendly has become trendy in some places.

That's not to say that something as say, Communism, would be any better for the environment. If done correctly yeah, but since that's yet to happen I'm skeptical.

http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2007_hippies.shtml

http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2007_hippies.shtml

Logical fallacy: False dichotomy.

The only alternative to capitalism is not communism or vice versa; the free market is inherently flawed because it only considers the societal impact of at most, 2 entities: the buyer and the seller. Environmental impact is not measured since it can't buy anything, nor would there be any reason to save the environment from a business standpoint, which is the only standpoint that the market espouses.

And also, is there a way that capitalism can work so society is in harmony with the environment (excepting a massive change of a society's mindset). Something to think about: Australia has on of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, and according to Spiphel Rike:

This leads me to believe a developed and surging economy naturally leads to pollution and environmental disaster.

Prove me wrong.

The whole carbon credit thing is capitalism and helps the environment. You pay a company to plant trees to offset your carbon emissions.

The whole carbon credit thing is capitalism and helps the environment. You pay a company to plant trees to offset your carbon emissions.

But it's forcing the company to pay another company, which isn't the free-market capitalism that most people think about when they hear the term.

But it's forcing the company to pay another company, which isn't the free-market capitalism that most people think about when they hear the term.

Sometimes a company may be forced, but other times it may do it out of its own will. Nobody held a gun to the Vatican's head when they offset their carbon emissions. And yes, the Vatican is a business. Other than that there are other companies who do it just because. Is there a bill that has been passed forcing companies to offset carbon emissions?

Sometimes a company may be forced, but other times it may do it out of its own will. Nobody held a gun to the Vatican's head when they offset their carbon emissions. And yes, the Vatican is a business. Other than that there are other companies who do it just because. Is there a bill that has been passed forcing companies to offset carbon emissions?

No but there have been countless pollution regulations. The Vatican has always (well, since the '30s) taken a liberal stance towards social and environmental issues. Competition is such that if it costs money to offset your emissions, you're not likely to do it.

No but there have been countless pollution regulations. The Vatican has always (well, since the '30s) taken a liberal stance towards social and environmental issues. Competition is such that if it costs money to offset your emissions, you're not likely to do it.

It may also be a marketing plus to the green minded people. Green is a new marketing fad, and it may actually bring in more business.

It may also be a marketing plus to the green minded people. Green is a new marketing fad, and it may actually bring in more business.

True, but you and I both know the odds of that are slim for most industries.

I recall a study (couldn't find it :() that said that only 20% would switch to green power if it required a 50% increase (the amount necessary) in their power bills. And that's an overestimate. Electricity use still amounts for a large percentage of greenhouse emissions, and I don't need to tell you the market (or lack thereof) that there is for hybrid cars. It just isn't economical for either party.