• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Heathrow expansion

It's not about the environment for him, not really. Read his posts and it always comes down to a hatred of capitalism.

His sort are just as dangerous as the far right nutters and just as controlling.
I'm not sure @Rorschach is guilty of that but clearly a large proportion of the movement are people who have tried to battle capitalism on merit and have failed miserably. So now they're looking for another way to execute their politics of envy.
 
At the moment heathrow is at 100% capacity. So if there is any delay there is a domino effect meaning huge delays and planes can be circling for ages waiting for a landing spot. That's not opinion, that is fact.

Freight is the same as passengers. The demand is there or it isn't. Increasing the amount of runways does not affect demand. It just increases the ability to meet the demand.

If you are telling me that building a new runway and terminal (s) will not lead to more air traffic I am afraid we are never going to agree.

These new facilities will both create new demand and also cater for increasing future demand - even if I accept your argument that existing demand is met (for which I have no particular feeling).

But to reiterate, my real concern is about the local road infrastructure failing to cope short term with the building of this thing and then collapsing under the weight of the additional traffic in the longer term.

I think we should have done Boris island for commuters and left Heathrow for freight but we have lost the plot over national infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
If you are telling me that building a new runway and terminal (s) will not lead to more air traffic I am afraid we are never going to agree.

These new facilities will both create new demand and also cater for increasing future demand - even if I accept your argument that existing demand is met (for which I have no particular feeling).

But to reiterate, my real concern is about the local road infrastructure failing to cope short term with the building of this thing and then collapsing under the weight of the additional traffic in the longer term.

I think we should have done Boris island for commuters and left Heathrow for freight but we have lost the plot over national infrastructure.
I don't think that's what he's saying.

Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I think the point is that if there's demand for more flights, they will happen with or without Heathrow.

Expanding Heathrow just means that we get the revenue rather than Frankfurt or Doha.
 
I'm not sure @Rorschach is guilty of that but clearly a large proportion of the movement are people who have tried to battle capitalism on merit and have failed miserably. So now they're looking for another way to execute their politics of envy.
Oh I am staunchly anti-capitalist. I have hardly hidden that fact. My motivations are more pragmatic than ideological though as anyone with half a brain can see that the capitalist system is destroying the planet rather quickly. Capitalism will disappear soon enough, either by collapsing in on itself along with everything else or in a more managed way into something more sustainable. My bet is the former.

I find the infantile hairshirt mud hut jibes are a tell though, as if those who are fighting to save what is left are in some way primitive troglodytes trying to roll back progress when in fact the opposite is the case. Capitalism is destroying the systems we rely on. Those who have accepted that our path is unsustainable are also some of the best prepared. I can assure you that the mud hut I live in has systems that are state of the art.

The politics of envy is how the right imagines the left thinks, because their stunted emotional intelligence means they cannot fathom that people are not all self-centred and greedy like they are. It is a right-wing trope regurgitated time and again as notions of fairness and equality are foreign concepts. The left is not motivated by envy, but empathy.

I certainly find you interesting as you don't hide who you are, and your views are consistent, even though I largely disagree with them. I will debate anyone willing to make an argument on its merits, and do my best not to make things personal. I won't engage with anyone who does. And for anyone triggered by my posts on these topics, it is probably best you put me on ignore for your own mental health. I won't be stopping. I am a zealot for the living world after all.
 
I keep telling them that if the answer to global warming is a hair shirt, people will never be on their side.

The solution has to be at least as good and at least as cheap as what we already have.
Innovation will cure all the problems.

But when we get electric planes and stuff they will find something else to moan about.

It's like that gay campaigner, Tachell I think his name is. He is still on his crusades despite the fact that you rightly can't prejudice against people because of their sexuality as its against the law.
 
If you are telling me that building a new runway and terminal (s) will not lead to more air traffic I am afraid we are never going to agree.

These new facilities will both create new demand and also cater for increasing future demand - even if I accept your argument that existing demand is met (for which I have no particular feeling).

But to reiterate, my real concern is about the local road infrastructure failing to cope short term with the building of this thing and then collapsing under the weight of the additional traffic in the longer term.

I think we should have done Boris island for commuters and left Heathrow for freight but we have lost the plot over national infrastructure.

No I am telling you that demand and supply are 2 different things. Economics 101. Demand and supply curves.
 
Oh I am staunchly anti-capitalist. I have hardly hidden that fact. My motivations are more pragmatic than ideological though as anyone with half a brain can see that the capitalist system is destroying the planet rather quickly. Capitalism will disappear soon enough, either by collapsing in on itself along with everything else or in a more managed way into something more sustainable. My bet is the former.

I find the infantile hairshirt mud hut jibes are a tell though, as if those who are fighting to save what is left are in some way primitive troglodytes trying to roll back progress when in fact the opposite is the case. Capitalism is destroying the systems we rely on. Those who have accepted that our path is unsustainable are also some of the best prepared. I can assure you that the mud hut I live in has systems that are state of the art.

The politics of envy is how the right imagines the left thinks, because their stunted emotional intelligence means they cannot fathom that people are not all self-centred and greedy like they are. It is a right-wing trope regurgitated time and again as notions of fairness and equality are foreign concepts. The left is not motivated by envy, but empathy.

I certainly find you interesting as you don't hide who you are, and your views are consistent, even though I largely disagree with them. I will debate anyone willing to make an argument on its merits, and do my best not to make things personal. I won't engage with anyone who does. And for anyone triggered by my posts on these topics, it is probably best you put me on ignore for your own mental health. I won't be stopping. I am a zealot for the living world after all.
Without capitalism we'd all still be dying at 30 and eating gruel.

He had a test subject with/without capitalism, known as West/East Germany. You might prefer life the way it was East of the wall, I don't think you'll find many to join you.
 
Without capitalism we'd all still be dying at 30 and eating gruel.

He had a test subject with/without capitalism, known as West/East Germany. You might prefer life the way it was East of the wall, I don't think you'll find many to join you.
Well we are going back to that pretty soon again because of capitalism.
 
Well we are going back to that pretty soon again because of capitalism.
Those who bring non-polluting air travel to market will become very rich.

Those who design usable, safe batteries to store solar/wind energy on a large scale will become very rich.

Etc, etc. Capitalism is working just fine and will solve any real problems. Except, of course, for those of you who have convinced yourselves (against all the evidence) that capitalism is a problem.
 
Those who bring non-polluting air travel to market will become very rich.

Those who design usable, safe batteries to store solar/wind energy on a large scale will become very rich.

Etc, etc. Capitalism is working just fine and will solve any real problems. Except, of course, for those of you who have convinced yourselves (against all the evidence) that capitalism is a problem.
You are not describing capitalism. There was innovation and business for 1000's of years before capitalism, and those examples you cite would certainly happen under another economic system too now. Infact post-growth proposals talk about those exact things - prioritising the things we need over the stupid brick we don't.

What makes capitalism different from most other economic systems in history is that it’s organised around the imperative of constant expansion and it is now running out of resources to expropriate. To even keep a modest GDP growth rate of say 3% would mean that the global economy doubling every twenty years or so. At this point in time we are already overshooting nearly all the planetary boundaries. Capitalism is the problem of this age.
 
You are not describing capitalism. There was innovation and business for 1000's of years before capitalism, and those examples you cite would certainly happen under another economic system too now. Infact post-growth proposals talk about those exact things - prioritising the things we need over the stupid brick we don't.
That's a generous description. Not much of anything happened at any kind of pace before capitalism - certainly not anything near the kind of pace you'd like things to change in order to reduce climate change.

What makes capitalism different from most other economic systems in history is that it’s organised around the imperative of constant expansion and it is now running out of resources to expropriate. To even keep a modest GDP growth rate of say 3% would mean that the global economy doubling every twenty years or so. At this point in time we are already overshooting nearly all the planetary boundaries. Capitalism is the problem of this age.
I think you've misunderstood.

You're seeing capitalism through the lens of a/some/all leftist economic and political theories. Capitalism isn't organised around anything, nobody is conducting it. Capitalism is just the default that occurs when one doesn't override it with central control.
 
Those who bring non-polluting air travel to market will become very rich.

Those who design usable, safe batteries to store solar/wind energy on a large scale will become very rich.

Etc, etc. Capitalism is working just fine and will solve any real problems. Except, of course, for those of you who have convinced yourselves (against all the evidence) that capitalism is a problem.
Is there any problems with it?
 
Back