[monk_e_boy]

I keep thinking that capitalism, the pursuit of money above all else, can't be the correct way forward. Not with weak governments that refuse to correctly TAX pollution and non-recyclable items.

[edit] Down votes, OK. But why do you disagree? I can't think of a solution other than having Guido van Rossum as our benevolent dictator for life for the entire globe.

[ams6110]

Capitalistic democracies are the only thing likely to solve the problem. The dictatorships are among the worlds worst offenders in terms of pollution and overall environmental protection.

[zbyte64]

Was curious about the data on this, here is green house gasses per capita (circa 2000):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

Does anyone have more recent data then this? Canada, America and Australia were some of the worse offenders back in 2000. It would be interesting to see how this has changed.

[SwellJoe]

Democracy doesn't require capitalism. Even free markets are possible without capitalism (as we currently practice it). I'm not making any argument about whether we want a democracy or a market without capitalism, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the alternative to capitalism is a dictatorship.

[tpm]

Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism), because with only illiquid types of capital (land, social ties etc), there is no freedom and mobility. Other types of democracy may not require it, but they are not used much currently.

[dragonwriter]

> Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism),

"Capitalism" is not named for or defined by the existence of liquid capital (which both predates and exists outside of capitalism.)

[tpm]

Correct, it is named for accumulation of capital. However I don't know of any systems that are liberal (which is a nice feature) and democratic, without being also capitalistic. Maybe there some theoretical ones.