Capitalism vs. the planet

I am under the impression that libertarian ideas are quite in vogue among crypto currency enthusiasts, especially anarco-capitalists. I would like to stimulate a discussion

This summer I read Naomi Klein’s new book - “This changes everything” , which basically claims that the free market logic is inherently incompatible with saving us from the disastrous event that climate change will bring to our planet. With a staggering 90% consensus among scientist on the human impact on global warming, it’s hard to disagree. A strong state with heavy regulation is needed to put planet in front of profit, because the free market alone won’t do it. The survival of capitalism as we know it means the quasi-extinction of humans. The required changes to our systems and ideology needs to be dramatic.

It’s hard to discuss politics without getting emotional, but I would like to read some arguments from the community.

What’s your take?

1 Like

My take: Global warming has nothing with CO2 emissions. It is a general fact that all the solar system is heating up. It is caused by the high energy coming from the galactic central sun. So capitalism has nothing to do with global warming. Global warming is not much a problem as Human consciousness low level. People need to get out of the pyramidal paradigm towards a more holographic type of model because the pyramidal centralization is dying. So overall if people use more Nu-like systems, we are good.

1 Like

This thesis have been disproved in many ways in the scientific world and its out of question. The reason why so many people (and documentaries, and books, and articles ) are pushing it, its because it is being promoted and actively funded with carbon corporate money.

EDIT : quote from wiki - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that most of global warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities.

In crypto we call 51% a consensus : here you have 95% of ScienceHolders voting for this .

1 Like

I see.

Edit: consensus does it mean truth.
Ex: the earth is flat theory before galileo


CO2 emission can change a planet’s temperature, this is a fact. if there are other reasons as well, then the
change will be more dramatic!
i am positive that “profit” can “save” the planet.
we only need science and technology to work for us.
like tesla company that build high quality electric cars, like the machine that
get CO2 and transform it to energy, etc.
i see this issue more as a technology thing that a political one :smile:

Global warming seems to have to do with CO2 emissions as well as with emissions of other gases which have a green house effect on the earth, methane (CH4) being another example.
While one can argue whether the majority of those emissions is caused by mankind (and are not naturally ocurring), there’s little doubt that the presence of these gases have an effect on the climate on earth.
The problem begins where you find feedback loops, emissions leading to more emissions:
the seas start to get warmer. As they get warmer they can carry less CO2, which in turn starts leaving the seas and going into the atmosphere.
Frost melt (caused by rising temperatures) in permafrost areas sets CH4 free.

The “good” news for the earth and people living on it is: our ecosystem seems to have an impressive resilience. The global temperature has ever been going through relatively hot and relatively cold phases. The impact that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs roughly 65 million years ago made the earth a cold dead place.
The earth recovered.
Supervolcanic eruptions (say hello to Yellowstone) have (in geological terms) frequently devastated the earth.
Still there’s life on it.
The earth has been a terribly hot place in the beginning and has started to transform to a place where things can live. The first organisms seem to have lived when the earth was just 1 billion years old (and no place where you and I would have liked to live).
In between the earth was several times completely frozen.
Still we are here.

I’m not going to say we don’t need to care, on the contrary. But we need to do it with a sense of proportion, do the right things.

Which leads me to this question:
can you tell me why we still mainly operate on electric energy from nuclear reactors?
Roughly 4 generations of people will have electric energy generated in those reactors. 40,000 generations need to take care of the nuclear waste, although they won’t have any energy or anything else from it.
Wise choice? Yeah, those 4 generations have quite cheap electricity. Who cares about the next 40,000 generations of people…

Tongue-in-cheek question:
what would mankind do during the next ice age? The last ice age caused by a supervolcanic eruption almost lead to the extinction of mankind (“normal” ice ages seem to be a lesser problem :wink: ).
Maybe the global warming can postpone the next ice age until mankind can survive it without millions of people starving and freezing?

I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about global warming. I’m trying to say that we might need to focus on other things first: nuclear energy, starving people, war, etc.
It’s horrible what happens in Syria and so many other places.

1 Like

This is a fundamental problem with capitalism the thought that profit is always good.

Oil companies dumping waste in Africa make profit

Bomb manufactures make profit

Human traffickers make profit

Profit =/= always good, I am convinced merely thinking about profit without considering its consequences is what has gotten us into the current state of affair.

However new technology will generate new opportunities, nuclear fusion and increased effectiveness of green power solutions (wind, solar, etcetc) have amazing potential. Hopefully not before it’s too late

1 Like

[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:6, topic:2607, full:true”]Which leads me to this question:
can you tell me why we still mainly operate on electric energy from nuclear reactors?

Roughly 4 generations of people will have electric energy generated in those reactors. 40,000 generations need to take care of the nuclear waste, although they won’t have any energy or anything else from it.

Wise choice? Yeah, those 4 generations have quite cheap electricity. Who cares about the next 40,000 generations of people… [/quote]

With future technology current nuclear waste might very well be relatively easy to take care off. And even if it isn’t the actual amount of nuclear waste is so relatively small compared to the size of our planet that it’s not really an issue storing them in a safe location. I am highly in favor of going full nuclear (+ wind, solar etc) power and shutting down coal and oil plants to reduce CO2. Generating more CO2 is way more dangerous then creating more nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is predictable and manageable more CO2 leads to climate effects we still can’t properly predict and might cost us a whole lot more than some additional nuclear waste storage place.

Let’s use nuclear power until we can switch over to clean sources (like fusion) and reduce CO2 asap. Our continued production of CO2 is a ticking time bomb and no one knows when and how strong its explosion will be.


First of all, it depends on the country:

Nuclear reactors have a very high startup bar and therefore are run as long as possible. I also agree with @dhume that I’d rather see nuclear than fossil fuel. However, all technological trends point to solar as growing fast:
Many countries are already at grid parity, where it’s cheaper to install your own panels than to get energy from the grid:

Push for solar subsidies and smart grids.

I disagree, it is political. Under current economic regime, there is very little incentive to quit the very profitable carbon business for a much less profitable renewable model. In fact, there is a global trend of de-investing from renewable with large corporation withdrawing from the race and spending money lobbying instead that researching. Small startups cannot compete with Exxon style carbon giants.
There must be a law, or it won’t happen naturally. The electric car was ready 25 years ago, but I am still driving a diesel car because I can’t afford a 50k tesla nor a 25k hybrid . And putting our survival chances on responsible consumer choice, it is not gonna work.

1 Like

I think evidence points to renewable rather than nuclear, indeed the Germany and many other superpower are phasing off nuclear energy.

The very interesting point made by the author of the aforementioned book, is that by solving global warming we can fix the world. Because we need to get rid of capitalism as we know it, which includes the end of colonialism and a wealth redistribution to reduce the alarming rich-poor gap

another example of why it is a political issue :

Let’s say you are the Minister of development in Canada, currently facing financial and ecological crisis. You make a packet of reforms to encourage local production of goods, make discounts on green km-0 goods and services, favourable taxation for companies that setup production within the state (generating jobs) and use low-carbon production chains.

That sounds a very reasonable measure, doesn’t it? It creates job, reduces CO2 emissions by cutting distances, and revamp a dying local economic system.

Well, it turns out that such measures are illegal under World Trade Organisation (WTO) deals, because it will hurt free market. It hurts the competition and hurts the corporation defending them. Nations signed deals to protect the free market all over the world, and now their hands are tied. And instead of putting the capitalist doctrine into discussion, they are signing new deals (TTIP for one) to ensure too-big-to-fail corporations survival in the years to come.

Oh, and this is not science fiction, it is exactly what happened in Ontario in 2012 :

Worldwide there’s still a lot of nuclear energy. Each ton nuclear waste is too much.
But I’m not advocating burning oil and other fossil stuff instead - I’m advocating solar and wind energy.

I know the rumour about fourth generation nuclear reactors, which would be fueled by today’s nuclear waste, but

  1. they don’t exist and I don’t want to hope for future technology solve problems we make
  2. the same logic (hoping for future technology solve today’s problems) could be applied to today’s CO2 emission: let future generation fix that by mumbo jumbo technology; doesn’T sound reasonable, does it?

…and even if that was possible, how to use the hundreds of thousands of tons nuclear waste that have been dumped into sea?

Capitalism has many ugly faces. I sincerely hope that Nu can help make the world a little bit better and not only NSR holders rich.

Forget about nuclear or solar energy.
It s too inefficient or dangerous.
New tech is the future: water, zero point…
Have a look at :
This will park new industries over the coming years.

1 Like

The bottom of the problem is that a large fraction of human population are living under such conditions that thinking and acting 30 years ahead is not a realistic option. Coal and oil has to be burnt to power uplifting of their standard of living above basic needs and security first.

Well it won t take that much. You underestimate the acceleration of technological progress, I feel.

I think you are right for the time being.

i am dreaming for the day that tech will shape politics!
like NU :wink:

Please take a look to the comments, or simply look around for electrolysis.
You used the word ¨inefficient¨ in your post referring to solar energy, you may want to rethink your concepts.

If it is too good to be true, it probably is.

1 Like

I do not want to be rude, but… wow. You better catch up with science soon.

Piece of advice: one should always be careful not to mistake science and dogma.