Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, one way or the other, you're going to find out. Both are environmental disaster areas.

Doesn't mean they are not making efforts to improve the situation.

"Making efforts," are they? Well, well.

[Immanuel Can]

Why would it be bad for the US to pursue green efforts, even if China is still the world's largest polluter and greenhouse gas creator?

No, it's not wrong for anybody to pursue efforts that ACTUALLY produce results. But it is wrong for anybody to pretend to produce such results, while simultaneously making the situation worse. And I think it's immoral as well for people to support such phony measures and posture as if they're really caring and helping things, when all they're doing is helping make them worse.

[Gary Childress]

Why would it be bad for the US to pursue green efforts, even if China is still the world's largest polluter and greenhouse gas creator?

No, it's not wrong for anybody to pursue efforts that ACTUALLY produce results. But it is wrong for anybody to pretend to produce such results, while simultaneously making the situation worse. And I think it's immoral as well for people to support such phony measures and posture as if they're really caring and helping things, when all they're doing is helping make them worse.

If our current efforts are only making things worse, then how could they be made better? What can be done differently instead of what is already being done? And are you saying that green organizations in the US are wrong and pursuing measures that are making things worse, or is it the corporations and their political pawns who are making things worse in their struggle against green organizations and regulatory efforts?

[Immanuel Can]

Why would it be bad for the US to pursue green efforts, even if China is still the world's largest polluter and greenhouse gas creator?

No, it's not wrong for anybody to pursue efforts that ACTUALLY produce results. But it is wrong for anybody to pretend to produce such results, while simultaneously making the situation worse. And I think it's immoral as well for people to support such phony measures and posture as if they're really caring and helping things, when all they're doing is helping make them worse.

If our current efforts are only making things worse, then how could they be made better?

I've been talking about that already.

Help the Developing World modernize more safely. Build on better technologies...many of which we already have. Create cheap-energy solutions. Use farming methods that do not destroy the land. Educate your populace, and particularly, young women. Create a thriving local economy, so people have prosperity to aspire toward. And here's a big one: end Socialism, because Socialist governments are a huge reason why there are so many corrupt, polluting, failing economies in the world. Start with China.

[phyllo]

And here's a big one: end Socialism, because Socialist governments are a huge reason why there are so many corrupt, polluting, failing economies in the world. Start with China.

What a ridiculous way to improve the environment.

China is second to the US in terms of GDP. Hardly a failed economy.

Aside from that, China doesn't even qualify as socialist by your crazy definition of socialism.

[Gary Childress]

No, it's not wrong for anybody to pursue efforts that ACTUALLY produce results. But it is wrong for anybody to pretend to produce such results, while simultaneously making the situation worse. And I think it's immoral as well for people to support such phony measures and posture as if they're really caring and helping things, when all they're doing is helping make them worse.

If our current efforts are only making things worse, then how could they be made better?

I've been talking about that already.

Help the Developing World modernize more safely. Build on better technologies...many of which we already have. Create cheap-energy solutions. Use farming methods that do not destroy the land. Educate your populace, and particularly, young women. Create a thriving local economy, so people have prosperity to aspire toward. And here's a big one: end Socialism, because Socialist governments are a huge reason why there are so many corrupt, polluting, failing economies in the world. Start with China.

Some of that sounds like what some non-profit environmentalists are saying and advocating for now. Generally, the corporations are the ones that are not complying with those recommendations because they are beholden to profits, and if something isn't profitable, then they won't do it, even though they'll virtue signal that they are. Are you suggesting that environmental organizations aren't saying and advocating for those things now? Are you aware that the Trump administration and many in the Republican Party don't believe in cutting back on pollution and emissions?

[Immanuel Can]

And here's a big one: end Socialism, because Socialist governments are a huge reason why there are so many corrupt, polluting, failing economies in the world. Start with China.

What a ridiculous way to improve the environment.

China's the world's biggest polluter...by far. And with India, they have the largest proportion of the world's population. So focus on those two.

China doesn't even qualify as socialist by your crazy definition of socialism.

Sure it does. You didn't read my definition. It has two main things: the abolition of private property, and State ownership of the means of production. Pretty much Marx's definition, actually. But maybe you think you know more about Socialism than Marx, so I'll grant you that.

But it doesn't work any better than any of the other Socialist states. A 100% record of disastrous failure.

How bad does a political idea have to be, before you can bring yourself to question it?

[Immanuel Can]

If our current efforts are only making things worse, then how could they be made better?

I've been talking about that already.

Help the Developing World modernize more safely. Build on better technologies...many of which we already have. Create cheap-energy solutions. Use farming methods that do not destroy the land. Educate your populace, and particularly, young women. Create a thriving local economy, so people have prosperity to aspire toward. And here's a big one: end Socialism, because Socialist governments are a huge reason why there are so many corrupt, polluting, failing economies in the world. Start with China.

Some of that sounds like what some non-profit environmentalists are saying and advocating for now.

Some. And those "some" are doing the right thing. But not most, as the USAID scandals have proved. And certainly not what Western "greens" are advocating.

Generally, the corporations are the ones that are not complying with those recommendations because they are beholden to profits, and if something isn't profitable, then they won't do it, even though they'll virtue signal that they are.

Sounds exactly like what the "green" industry is also doing...only that which is profitable, and just virtue signalling.

But how do you explain China's polluting industries? They're all State-owned, and they're the worst in the world.

[phyllo]

And here's a big one: end Socialism, because Socialist governments are a huge reason why there are so many corrupt, polluting, failing economies in the world. Start with China.

What a ridiculous way to improve the environment.

China's the world's biggest polluter...by far. And with India, they have the largest proportion of the world's population. So focus on those two.

China doesn't even qualify as socialist by your crazy definition of socialism.

Sure it does. You didn't read my definition. It has two main things: the abolition of private property, and State ownership of the means of production. Pretty much Marx's definition, actually. But maybe you think you know more about Socialism than Marx, so I'll grant you that.

But it doesn't work any better than any of the other Socialist states. A 100% record of disastrous failure.

How bad does a political idea have to be, before you can bring yourself to question it?

Changing the political system doesn't clean up the environment.

China has private property.

AI Overview:

China has one of the highest homeownership rates globally, often cited between 90-96%. This, largely driven by late-1990s reforms that privatized public housing, is deeply cultural, viewing property as essential for marriage, stability, and wealth. Urban rates are roughly 87%, with over 95% in rural areas.

Key Drivers: Intense social pressure to own a home before marriage, with parents often using savings to fund down payments for their children.

Ownership Structure: Residents own the structure, but land is state-owned (urban) or collectively owned (rural), with individuals holding long-term land-use rights (typically 70 years for residential).

Market Dynamics: The sector is high-priced, often considered a "market bubble," and acts as a major source of inequality where many citizens are "trapped" into paying high mortgages.

Social & Economic Factors: Homeownership is closely tied to access to public services (like education) through the hukou (household registration) system.

Multiple Homes: Many families own multiple properties, contributing to high ownership numbers.

[Gary Childress]

I've been talking about that already.

Help the Developing World modernize more safely. Build on better technologies...many of which we already have. Create cheap-energy solutions. Use farming methods that do not destroy the land. Educate your populace, and particularly, young women. Create a thriving local economy, so people have prosperity to aspire toward. And here's a big one: end Socialism, because Socialist governments are a huge reason why there are so many corrupt, polluting, failing economies in the world. Start with China.

Some of that sounds like what some non-profit environmentalists are saying and advocating for now.

Some. And those "some" are doing the right thing. But not most, as the USAID scandals have proved. And certainly not what Western "greens" are advocating.

Generally, the corporations are the ones that are not complying with those recommendations because they are beholden to profits, and if something isn't profitable, then they won't do it, even though they'll virtue signal that they are.

Sounds exactly like what the "green" industry is also doing...only that which is profitable, and just virtue signalling.

But how do you explain China's polluting industries? They're all State-owned, and they're the worst in the world.

Industries flock to China because labor is cheaper and educated and environmental regulations aren't as strict as in many places in the West. Industries once polluted the shit out of the West, even though they were in capitalist countries. Rivers were catching fire from all the chemicals being dumped into them. Strip mining was tearing up the land. Acid rain was a huge problem. In the end, it all comes down to profit. It doesn't matter whether a country is socialist or not. What stopped the polluters from destroying us all completely is regulations by the government. They did not do it on their own. The last place you are going to find voluntary change (if it negatively affects profits) is in industry. Do you agree?

[Immanuel Can]

Some of that sounds like what some non-profit environmentalists are saying and advocating for now.

Some. And those "some" are doing the right thing. But not most, as the USAID scandals have proved. And certainly not what Western "greens" are advocating.

Generally, the corporations are the ones that are not complying with those recommendations because they are beholden to profits, and if something isn't profitable, then they won't do it, even though they'll virtue signal that they are.

Sounds exactly like what the "green" industry is also doing...only that which is profitable, and just virtue signalling.

But how do you explain China's polluting industries? They're all State-owned, and they're the worst in the world.

Industries flock to China because labor is cheaper and educated and environmental regulations aren't as strict as in many places in the West.

Yes. That's called "slave labour" and "low environmental standards." They're stock realities in Socialist regimes, actually. I've never seen them praised, until now.

It doesn't matter whether a country is socialist or not.

It really does seem to...especially in regard to environmental standards.

The last place you are going to find voluntary change (if it negatively affects profits) is in industry. Do you agree?

Not really, no. Change is part of the business cycle; those companies that don't do it die. And for-profit companies are highly susceptible to the open market -- to competition from rivals, to innovation and technological upgrading, to discoveries, and to what people demand. Wherever their clients demand cleaner solutions, and if they will pay more for them, then you can bet that business will be on it in a second. They know their survival depends on supplying the market with what people will voluntarily pay for.

I'm not saying business is operating altruisticially. Government certainly isn't. Both operate in their own interests, really. But just as in democracies the people decide which package of policy and which party they want, and get to choose between options, so too in free markets the people get to choose where they put their money. If business doesn't give the people what they want, business isn't in business very long. Call it "the democracy of the free market," if you will.

[Gary Childress]

Some. And those "some" are doing the right thing. But not most, as the USAID scandals have proved. And certainly not what Western "greens" are advocating.
Sounds exactly like what the "green" industry is also doing...only that which is profitable, and just virtue signalling.

But how do you explain China's polluting industries? They're all State-owned, and they're the worst in the world.

Industries flock to China because labor is cheaper and educated and environmental regulations aren't as strict as in many places in the West.

Yes. That's called "slave labour" and "low environmental standards." They're stock realities in Socialist regimes, actually. I've never seen them praised, until now.

It doesn't matter whether a country is socialist or not.

It really does seem to...especially in regard to environmental standards.

The last place you are going to find voluntary change (if it negatively affects profits) is in industry. Do you agree?

Not really, no. Change is part of the business cycle; those companies that don't do it die. And for-profit companies are highly susceptible to the open market -- to competition from rivals, to innovation and technological upgrading, to discoveries, and to what people demand. Wherever their clients demand cleaner solutions, and if they will pay more for them, then you can bet that business will be on it in a second. They know their survival depends on supplying the market with what people will voluntarily pay for.

I'm not saying business is operating altruisticially. Government certainly isn't. Both operate in their own interests, really. But just as in democracies the people decide which package of policy and which party they want, and get to choose between options, so too in free markets the people get to choose where they put their money. If business doesn't give the people what they want, business isn't in business very long. Call it "the democracy of the free market," if you will.

No, IC. I said that if it "negatively affects profits" a company will be much less likely to change. Look at the tobacco industry. They profit off of pushing tobacco products that kill their customers with cancer. People have been pushing them to stop their suggestive advertising for decades and they are still in business because even though it negatively affects their customers, they PROFIT off of the sales. A company CANNOT stay in business if it doesn't profit and if something isn't profitable, then they won't do it because they won't stay in business. It requires government regulations to change companies under those circumstances. Do you agree?

[Immanuel Can]

Industries flock to China because labor is cheaper and educated and environmental regulations aren't as strict as in many places in the West.

Yes. That's called "slave labour" and "low environmental standards." They're stock realities in Socialist regimes, actually. I've never seen them praised, until now.

It doesn't matter whether a country is socialist or not.

It really does seem to...especially in regard to environmental standards.

The last place you are going to find voluntary change (if it negatively affects profits) is in industry. Do you agree?

Not really, no. Change is part of the business cycle; those companies that don't do it die. And for-profit companies are highly susceptible to the open market -- to competition from rivals, to innovation and technological upgrading, to discoveries, and to what people demand. Wherever their clients demand cleaner solutions, and if they will pay more for them, then you can bet that business will be on it in a second. They know their survival depends on supplying the market with what people will voluntarily pay for.

I'm not saying business is operating altruisticially. Government certainly isn't. Both operate in their own interests, really. But just as in democracies the people decide which package of policy and which party they want, and get to choose between options, so too in free markets the people get to choose where they put their money. If business doesn't give the people what they want, business isn't in business very long. Call it "the democracy of the free market," if you will.

No, IC. I said that if it "negatively affects profits" a company will be much less likely to change. Look at the tobacco industry. They profit off of pushing tobacco products that kill their customers with cancer.

Yes, that's a good example of a bad industry. It's not an example of all industry, or even most industry. It's just one particularly egregious case.

It requires government regulations to change companies under those circumstances. Do you agree?

I don't see how governments have been able to stop tobacco companies, do you? How are you guys doing with the war on drugs, too?

What people want to buy, people will get. The black market will take over if industry doesn't supply it. Government can't stop people doing that, if the desire is great enough.

There is not one legal manufacturer of fentanyl in your country; your government has banned them all. So how is it that you have a fentanyl crisis?

[Gary Childress]

Yes. That's called "slave labour" and "low environmental standards." They're stock realities in Socialist regimes, actually. I've never seen them praised, until now.
It really does seem to...especially in regard to environmental standards.

Not really, no. Change is part of the business cycle; those companies that don't do it die. And for-profit companies are highly susceptible to the open market -- to competition from rivals, to innovation and technological upgrading, to discoveries, and to what people demand. Wherever their clients demand cleaner solutions, and if they will pay more for them, then you can bet that business will be on it in a second. They know their survival depends on supplying the market with what people will voluntarily pay for.

I'm not saying business is operating altruisticially. Government certainly isn't. Both operate in their own interests, really. But just as in democracies the people decide which package of policy and which party they want, and get to choose between options, so too in free markets the people get to choose where they put their money. If business doesn't give the people what they want, business isn't in business very long. Call it "the democracy of the free market," if you will.

No, IC. I said that if it "negatively affects profits" a company will be much less likely to change. Look at the tobacco industry. They profit off of pushing tobacco products that kill their customers with cancer.

Yes, that's a good example of a bad industry. It's not an example of all industry, or even most industry. It's just one particularly egregious case.

It requires government regulations to change companies under those circumstances. Do you agree?

I don't see how governments have been able to stop tobacco companies, do you? How are you guys doing with the war on drugs, too?

What people want to buy, people will get. The black market will take over if industry doesn't supply it. Government can't stop people doing that, if the desire is great enough.

There is not one legal manufacturer of fentanyl in your country; your government has banned them all. So how is it that you have a fentanyl crisis?

Anti-pollution laws have gone a long way in curtailing industrial pollution from where it once was in the US. Government also works at times. It's not all bad.

[Immanuel Can]

No, IC. I said that if it "negatively affects profits" a company will be much less likely to change. Look at the tobacco industry. They profit off of pushing tobacco products that kill their customers with cancer.

Yes, that's a good example of a bad industry. It's not an example of all industry, or even most industry. It's just one particularly egregious case.

It requires government regulations to change companies under those circumstances. Do you agree?

I don't see how governments have been able to stop tobacco companies, do you? How are you guys doing with the war on drugs, too?

What people want to buy, people will get. The black market will take over if industry doesn't supply it. Government can't stop people doing that, if the desire is great enough.

There is not one legal manufacturer of fentanyl in your country; your government has banned them all. So how is it that you have a fentanyl crisis?

Anti-pollution laws have gone a long way in curtailing industrial pollution from where it once was in the US. Government also works at times. It's not all bad.

You've got to find something that works in the Developing World, not in America or the UK. Nothing could be more simple to understand: the bulk of the problem is not in the US. It's not anywhere in the Western world. It's outside of all that.