[closeparen]

People like meat. People like suburbs. People like air travel. Whether they signal these preferences with their wallets or at the ballot box is immaterial (and to be clear, they already do in both). Environmental damage is guaranteed by the fact that production is connected to desire.

[dionidium]

> Whether they signal these preferences with their wallets or at the ballot box is immaterial

It's not, because when we make decisions with our wallets we're forced to weigh personal tradeoffs. No such constraint exists for preferences expressed at the ballot box.

[poetically]

People seem to like heroin as well. What is your point?

[r3trohack3r]

Human's aren't the only species to do this. Yes, we are doing it at a novel scale, but boom/bust cycles of overpopulation are common in species that do not participate in a free exchange of goods and services.

Deer are a well studied example of a species that will expand beyond the ecosystem's natural carrying capacity - followed by a season where their population collapses from starvation. But deer do not chase profit.

I like to cut humans a bit of slack here. We are the first species I know of to identify we are exceeding our ecosystems carrying capacity and attempt to modify our own behavior to mitigate the looming bust cycle.

The worst thing I can say about humans is that we are collectively smart enough to identify we are causing damage to the ecosystem on a global scale but - so far - we are not collectively smart enough to effectively stop it. Though I think in time we will find we can curb this, and we will be smart enough to get through whatever damage we cause along the way.

[AnimalMuppet]

The Soviet bloc was not noted for being driven by profit, but they still caused lots of environmental devastations. Roving bands of hunter-gatherers weren't driven by profit, either, but they still hunted a number of North American megafauna to extinction.

So I'd say that you are also preaching an ideology - one that an objective look at reality shows to be overly simplistic.

[AbrahamParangi]

Money is the medium of transaction of human needs and desires. Profit causes global warming only in so much as it fulfills human needs and desires for light, heat, transportation, industry, and energy in general.

Your argument is not with profit but with human nature, which in its infinite ambition always desires more. Removing the profit motive is like shooting the messenger, your fundamental issue remains unaddressed. Easy evidence for this is that communist societies are by no means greener or less rapacious than capitalist ones.

[poetically]

This is a common confusion. My argument is with profits and not with human nature because human nature is malleable. People can change their eating habits, they can change their transportation habits, they can change institutional arrangements that favor profits over well-being, they can change the forms of market transactions they find valuable.

This isn't anything deep. These are just basic facts.

[brightstep]

"Profit is human nature" is a fundamental myth of capitalism, and obviously untrue considering the many economic systems which existed until the last few hundred years.

[lend000]

This really hits the nail on the head. The OP cannot change human nature. The most vicious personalities in the business world, currently forced to create value (except where already able to seek rent from government inefficiency) would instead end up as government leaders in his socialist utopia, creating less value and no less pollution.

The answer is simply to capture externalities in a market economy. For example, I wouldn't outlaw smoking, but I would certainly tax the hell out of it to (as precisely as possible) counter-act the effects on nearby people. Same for any type of pollution -- the tax should be exactly what is required to "undo" it. If it cannot be practically undone and it is significantly harmful, then it can be banned outright (such as dumping of certain poisons and toxins into a water supply).

[VictorPath]

> Your argument is not with profit but with human nature

As capitalism and profit on capital only started on the steps to being the prevailing economic system in the fourteenth century, in pockets of Europe, I wonder what year it became "human nature" worldwide exactly - 1350? 1848?

[orange8]

What is your definition of profit?

[poetically]

Same as Naval's definition.

[mam4]

You speak as if theres anotver reality than profit. There is none

[brightstep]

You sound like someone from the church shouting down a heretical scientist.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. I'm not saying you're wrong, but these lead to reliably repetitive and tedious discussion, which is not on topic for a site focused on intellectual curiosity.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Separately—but related—please don't take HN threads into flamewar. You can make your substantive points without snark, swipes, or flamebait; on HN, please do so.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: also, please don't cross into personal attack. You did that repeatedly in the thread below.

[dredmorbius]

Isn't it inconsistent to demand comments refrain from ideological claims where a posted article's raison d'etre is unsupported ideological argument?

[brightstep]

so basically, no questioning of capitalism on HN, got it.