Jump to content

Can humanity survive while continuing with the economic mechanisms of the past 3 centuries?


InDefenseOfPOMO

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Pandark said:

There is plenty of air, water and food for everyone. There's also plenty of room for entrepreneurs, provided a handful of harmful practices are abolished. If you ask me the solution to this is more or less as simple as to stop poisoning the well with agricultural malpractices. Give the earth its forests back and stop leaking shit into the water and air.

In very few years, that will not be the case, and the damage will not be reparable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
14 hours ago, gisiebob said:

so, if about any recipe that is worth it's salt says "Revolution"

how we revolution?

how do we unify ideals and goals?

how do we coagulate into groups from individuals?

how do we press against society until it bends?

 

Read "Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures", by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash. I read the 1998 edition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pandark said:

The system is flawed but unavoidable. As long as political progressive and conservative parties keep distancing themselves from each other the flaws will remain. 

hey, dude having this shotgun leveled at my head is all I've ever known too!

 

I don't have faith in regulatory salvation while maintaining the statis quo. there are too many profits that need to be oppressed. too much innovation is required ("the free market creates innovation" is a good joke) and too much apathy to wade through.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry

One big roadblock is intimidation. People in power know all too well intimidation is indispensable for keeping us peasants in line, at least until some of us disobey the Wizard of Oz's order to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. If things continue the way they are sociologically, what we'll see is not only more power, wealth, and intimidation being concentrated into increasingly fewer individuals, but said individuals will necessarily have to become increasingly more paranoid and insulate themselves from the rest of us to the point where they risk losing control of all they survey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
19 hours ago, Pandark said:

The problem is everyone wants a bigger share of the earth and its resources. We've more people to share with every day, but most people seem to feel they've more people to compete with.

 

No, the problem is not what "everyone wants". The problem is what the system that dominates the globe requires: perpetual economic growth.

 

To keep the system going people are socialized to consume more and more commodities, even when they do not really want or need them. To keep the system going credit is handed out like Halloween candy so that consumers can keep on buying stuff even though they cannot afford it.

 

Capitalism dominates the globe. Almost all economic, environmental, political and social problems can be attributed to global capitalism.

 

We definitely are not living within the Earth's means. But that is because of what an economic system requires, not what anybody wants.

 

Every human on Earth could live a happy, fulfilling life outside of capitalism. But then capitalism would cease to exist, history books notwithstanding.

 

Few people are prepared for life without capitalism. We probably won't prepare anybody as long as we keep allowing capitalism's language, "economics", to dominate discourse.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gisiebob said:

hey, dude having this shotgun leveled at my head is all I've ever known too!

Heh, sorry. Guess we're more alike than I thought.

 

5 hours ago, gisiebob said:

too much innovation is required ("the free market creates innovation" is a good joke) and too much apathy to wade through.

There's a tricky part. Changes are required in both consumer culture and the regulating system. Influencing culture is about as easy as campaigning to get people to stop smoking. Changing the system is even harder, because of the political divide. Also, applying regulations tends to decrease people's sense of freedom, leading to resistance. This is another reason why I think abolishing animal agriculture is the way to go, it directly targets a source of great suffering and freedom should in my opinion not be at the peril of others anyway.

 

3 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

The problem is what the system that dominates the globe requires: perpetual economic growth.

The system is everyone. It has a pyramid structure. We are the foundation. The "man behind the curtain" is at the top. If we at the lower levels decide we go another way, the top needs to follow or fall off.

 

3 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Capitalism dominates the globe. Almost all economic, environmental, political and social problems can be attributed to global capitalism.

Capitalism is only a name for a system we're all part of. It stands for free trading and goes hand in hand with freedom in general. Things I personally rather like. I mean, I don't need some government getting between me and someone I trade with at every opportunity they get. I DO need the government to do something about unethical behavior, i.e. all greatest causes of suffering.

 

4 hours ago, Woodworker1968 said:

People in power know all too well intimidation is indispensable for keeping us peasants in line

Yep. Example: government in Brazil has killed people who chained themselves to trees. They were trying to protect their homes in the forest. The government makes deals with companies to cut down trees for hardwood and to use the ground for fodder crops. These things can only take place because consumers like these products. Of course most consumers are completely ignorant of this. It is a good example of what I mean when I say the government should eliminate the greatest causes of suffering. That doesn't mean we consumers can't do anything about it, though. Imagine what we could save by not using hardwood or fodder crops and by stopping the shitflow in our water and air supply.

 

14 hours ago, Sally said:

In very few years, that will not be the case, and the damage will not be reparable. 

Maybe. Some of the damage is already irreparable. Still I think we may owe it to the ones still fighting to keep up hope. Besides that, by talking about it we can keep the political discussion from derailing into a popularity contest, which it tends to do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 4:14 AM, Ardoise said:

Colonizing Mars is a genuine possibility in the foreseeable future.  With time, we might even be able to create a self-sustaining biosphere there.  Moving out into the asteroid belt like in The Expanse is also a potential option.

Yes, and then we have a two tier solar system with Rich people living on Mars and the rest of us on a very polluted earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 4:46 PM, Ardoise said:

And, as to what others have said on this thread, moving to other planets would free up this one to recover from our impact on it.  We wouldn't have to go extinct for the biosphere to heal.

Another, less outlandish but equally utopian solution as things are, would be for all of us to have fewer children. The world population is set to shrink within the mediam term according to Rosling but that may be too late. It's not that there are people on the planet (though the planet can survive (better) without us), but that there are too many, and too few of those 'too many' care enough/too many are stuck in the status quo out of laziness, 'it's not my problem' thinking, following fashion (a new mobile phone coming out... let's get one quick because I want to be the first to have one) or a myriad of other things, to make a difference. A while ago, there was a family on tv with no less than twenty children or so with one more on the way. I'm sorry but I find that completely and utterly irresponsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 3:37 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

A few minutes ago I was researching zero growth and climate change. One article that I stumbled on--from "Science Direct", I believe--reported that after manipulating some economic models the authors found that there can be economic stability under both an economy that encourages continued growth and a steady-state zero growth economy.

 

It then occurred to me--someone who has read and thought about economic anthropology more than the overwhelming majority of other people--for the first time that all discourse concerning climate change subconsciously privileges the neoclassical, market-dominated economic culture that can probably be traced to Adam Smith while excluding all other lifestyles and economic cultures, such as those found in traditional, indigenous cultures. Basically, the thinking that is taught in college Economics departments.

 

But is this wise?

 

Can we survive continuing to filter climate change and every other problem through that paradigm?

 

Would we be wise to start addressing problems with a more holistic framework such as economic anthropology?

In short, yes to the last question IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

The problem is what the system that dominates the globe requires: perpetual economic growth. 

I agree with what you are saying in the rest of your post, but does it, really? Isn't that a myth kept alive by economists, politicians and CEOs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
3 hours ago, Acing It said:

Isn't that a myth kept alive by economists, politicians and CEOs?

 

If creditors are going to get their money back plus interest; if investors are going to get returns on their investments; if households, firms and governments are all going to be able to withdraw their bank deposits plus interest, etc., more things have to be commodified and exchanged. If at the same moment every creditor was to demand all of their money back plus interest, every investor was to demand dividends, and every bank customer was to demand all of their deposits back plus interest, it would not work. That is why we continuously develop more land, fight more wars for resources, research and develop new products, etc.--more things need to be commodified, more value needs to be added, etc. to keep the system from imploding.

 

However, you are correct. If we were living within our means there would be no requirement of perpetual economic growth. But we have convinced ourselves that living within our means would mean everybody living in a Hobbesian state of nature where life for everybody would be "nasty, brutish and short".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt
19 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

The problem is what the system that dominates the globe requires: perpetual economic growth

I do think you are misusing the words economic growth.

 

Economic Growth means the economy is growing, usually in terms of real GDP. Real GDP grows by only two methods, a larger workforce (usually population expansion) or technological advancements (technological in the broadest sense of the word). If one wants to stop economic growth one would need to prevent the workforce from expanding and halt all technological improvements.

 

Workforce is easier to control, many nations have ceased growing their GDP by workforce expansion unless they are undeveloped or rely on immigrants to increase the workforce.

 

While technological improvements are a double-edged sword, technological improvements can bring enormous potential. As you yourself claim to be an Anthropologist I feel no need to elaborate further on how technological advancements have shaped our lives since the first Homo Sapiens emerged.

 

What I think you meant to be rallying against is Extensive Economic Growth. Extensive growth is caused by increasing the inputs. This is contrasted with Intensive Economic Growth, making more efficient use of the inputs but not increasing them.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that Extensive Economic Growth should be limited, and we should do our best to reduce it with the goal of eliminating it. However, if you eliminate all economic growth, as you seem to be implying, that would cut out Intensive Economic Growth and leave us back in pre-historic times. Which as indications in the historical record, archaeological record, and cultural anthropological record, was not exactly a pleasant time to be living.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 5/22/2019 at 9:09 AM, Aebt said:

If that is true, then if the employment rate is low (unemployment rate being high, logically) then there may not be a strong connection between wages and the number of people employed.

 

In other words, demand for labor is inelastic?

 

On 5/22/2019 at 9:09 AM, Aebt said:

That is usually very true, economists are often tied to what they experience. Oftentimes the economies of traditional societies are impractical or impossible to measure the same way the economy can be measured in a Capitalistic, State Capitalistic, or USSR-Socialistic society.

I think that it is more like a square peg and a round hole. The academic discipline known as Economics was created, the thinking goes, to serve the system it measures, describes and predicts. It, therefore, is a self-fulfilling prophecy, not an objective view of all cultures past and present.

 

But academic disciplines are arbitrary divisions, so there is probably overlap between Economics, Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology, etc. Each discipline could probably learn a lot from the others.

 

However, we should not pretend that academic disciplines do not have concepts, assumptions, etc. incompatible with other disciplines and subject matter that other disciplines' do not have the tools to investigate. Disciplinary diversity is a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 5/22/2019 at 9:09 AM, Aebt said:

So while wealth does not equal happiness, poverty does not either. Rather happiness tends to increase with wealth, up to a certain point. Happiness through other societal factors would also factor in to determining happiness. Just because we are not happy does not mean the entire economy is at fault, our society can be broken also.

 

More wealth means more opportunities to do things like view fine art and architecture, listen to the finest music past and present from around the world, think about questions/problems that philosophers have worked on for thousands of years, try cuisine from all over the world prepared by chefs trained at the finest culinary schools, etc. More people can experience things that previously only a small percentage of humans could experience.

 

That is probably why more wealth leads to more happiness.

 

Poverty is irrelevant. The point is that while some people have opportunities previously unavailable others lose their culture, livelihood, etc. in the process.

 

We are told that it is more efficient and that the benefits far outweigh the costs.

 

The problem with that is that much of what we lose cannot be assigned a numerical value. If a family has been making furniture in their home for generations, no numerical price that we assign to that family livelihood and tradition can do justice to what is lost when zoning laws force them to move to an industrial park, automation results in big corporate-owned competitors being able to put them out of business, and they end up standing at an assembly line all day rather than sitting in or moving around a small shop with tools inherited from one's grandparents.

 

Restoring earlier forms of economic organization--even if affects only a small number of people--could bring exponential psychological benefits that can't be quantified, and reduce emissions as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

If creditors are going to get their money back plus interest; if investors are going to get returns on their investments; if households, firms and governments are all going to be able to withdraw their bank deposits plus interest, etc., more things have to be commodified and exchanged. If at the same moment every creditor was to demand all of their money back plus interest, every investor was to demand dividends, and every bank customer was to demand all of their deposits back plus interest, it would not work. That is why we continuously develop more land, fight more wars for resources, research and develop new products, etc.--more things need to be commodified, more value needs to be added, etc. to keep the system from imploding.

 

However, you are correct. If we were living within our means there would be no requirement of perpetual economic growth. But we have convinced ourselves that living within our means would mean everybody living in a Hobbesian state of nature where life for everybody would be "nasty, brutish and short".

Yes, but what you wrote in the first part has a sting in tail. A lot of us are hoping for the pay back that gets us the (completely unsustainable) luxury lifestile based on more things (often things that pollute more, like the fuel guzzling 4 by 4 a lot of people seem to crave - often pathetically to get one up over the proverbial neighbours), which in turn fuels a relatively overheated/ing economy again, and so on. Luxury is relative. What was a luxury 20 years ago is commonplace now and not even that deep down, it doesn't make life more worthwhile. A lot of people would do good to 'tone it down a bit' and realise you're not a more valuable person because you've got the newest phone and the biggest car. In that sense at least, a need for growth is psychological and fictional, but yes, there is a mechanism, however ill grounded, that demands growth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
4 hours ago, Aebt said:

As you yourself claim to be an Anthropologist

 

I wish I was an Anthropologist. It may not pay much more than the $28,000 I made last year working two near-minimum wage jobs, but it would be a lot more interesting.

 

I simply said that I have read and thought about economic anthropology more than most people, yet only a few days ago did it occur to me that perspectives like economic anthropology are being excluded from the conversation about climate change.

 

4 hours ago, Aebt said:

However, if you eliminate all economic growth, as you seem to be implying, that would cut out Intensive Economic Growth and leave us back in pre-historic times. Which as indications in the historical record, archaeological record, and cultural anthropological record, was not exactly a pleasant time to be living.

 

I do not think that even the most anti-business ideologue is opposed to well-planned management and utilization of resources to meet social goals.

 

I think that what people are opposed to is mindless, reckless, ideologically-driven, leave-it-to-the-invisible-hand economic growth for the sake of economic growth that we are told must continue uninterrupted or the sky will collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

More wealth means more opportunities to do things like view fine art and architecture, listen to the finest music past and present from around the world, think about questions/problems that philosophers have worked on for thousands of years, try cuisine from all over the world prepared by chefs trained at the finest culinary schools, etc. More people can experience things that previously only a small percentage of humans could experience. 

You are right by saying that more wealth means more opportunities to do things and more 'stuff' but exactly that is the fallacy. See my other message above. I think you are also confusing enjoyment with happiness. You can enjoy all those things but whether they make you a happier person is relative. Some of the things that people strive for are based in a sense of entitlement, rather than enjoyment, and are empty. 20 years go, flights were more expensive and we enjoyed weekends in our own country.

These days, if you fancy going skiing for the weekend, you just hop on a cheap flight and you can. Our sense of entitlement has normalised (and in my view increased) over the years and our expectations and framework of 'what makes us happy' keeps pace with this. I don't remember there were a lot of people less happy, or deeply unhappy because they couldn't go skiing for a weekend, or couldn't eat 'the finest food' in some far away country. My premise is that at the bottom of this is envy. We see someone drive x car, which marketing tells us is the summum of achievement in life, and most of us fall for this bumf and strive to have car x, but by the time we have car x, the initial person and the market now tells us car x is old tat and we now need car z, and off we go again, increasingly buying into the fallacy that having car z will make us happy.

 

There is truth in what you say in that money buys you the freedome to do things over and above what is strictly necessary for survival, but we have long passed that mark I think while taking full part in society demands ever more, presenting it as need, rather than want. The philosopher's example is exactly right. Having a society that goes beyond subsitence creates the time and space for people to engage in thinking, art, etc... but as I said, I think we have long past that point, at least for most people in the west, but we don't realise we have because of the ever increasing 'needs' presented to us by a greedy economy that always 'needs' to grow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you get past the point of basic financial security, having more money won't make you happier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
5 hours ago, Ardoise said:

Once you get past the point of basic financial security, having more money won't make you happier.

 

The things really worth having are not commodified and privately owned to be exchanged for profit at market equilibrium price.

 

But when the overwhelming majority of people around you are functioning almost entirely as producers, consumers and regulators in markets, the things really worth having become extremely difficult to find and acquire. Under those conditions having a lot of money increases the likelihood of finding and acquiring those things and gives a person a big advantage. Things like being an altruist and making a difference in the world are much easier for a wealthy person to realize than a person living paycheck to paycheck.

 

Alas, people who have a lot of money do not seem to take advantage of their easier path to having what is really worth having. Instead they seem to use their wealth to acquire more of the things that are not really worth having.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt
On 5/24/2019 at 12:44 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

demand for labor is inelastic?

Yes, Alan Krueger's research showed it was inelastic up to a point. In 1993 New Jersey raised minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05 and compared that to economically-similar areas in Eastern Pennsylvania and found that the number of minimum-wage jobs suffered no major change. If I remember correctly I think the number went up slightly. Even assuming wages are sticky, as per Neoclassical-Keynesian Synthesis theory, there should have been some change or at least minor rumblings or future change.

 

On 5/24/2019 at 12:44 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

But academic disciplines are arbitrary divisions, so there is probably overlap between Economics, Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology, etc. Each discipline could probably learn a lot from the others.

Absolutely, I am going to university now as a History major, yet I love Economics, Anthropology, Political Science, Philosophy, etc. Everyone should try to look at everything through as many different viewpoints as possible before reaching a decision. Sadly the division lines between disciplines can be very inconvenient for such well-rounded reviews.

On 5/24/2019 at 1:16 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

The problem with that is that much of what we lose cannot be assigned a numerical value. If a family has been making furniture in their home for generations, no numerical price that we assign to that family livelihood and tradition can do justice to what is lost when zoning laws force them to move to an industrial park, automation results in big corporate-owned competitors being able to put them out of business, and they end up standing at an assembly line all day rather than sitting in or moving around a small shop with tools inherited from one's grandparents.

Exactly, that is and will always remain a fundamental problem with assessing happiness. Regarding that hypothetical scenario, that is, in my opinion, a failure of governance. City zoning boards should, as urban planners tell you, grandfather in exceptions to the rules that as a whole are beneficial, even though they break the rules. Sadly governments can get hung up on the rules, rather than the people involved.

On 5/24/2019 at 1:16 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Restoring earlier forms of economic organization--even if affects only a small number of people--could bring exponential psychological benefits that can't be quantified, and reduce emissions as well.

What exactly do you suggest? I personally have not been too involved with Economic Anthropology, focusing my Anthropological interests on Cultural Anthropology, so you would be better placed than I would to suggest a well-rounded plan. My plan for the matter would not involve restoring earlier forms of economic structure, but I would like to hear exactly your details.

On 5/24/2019 at 1:37 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I wish I was an Anthropologist.

Many many people wish they were Anthropologists, sadly it seems they are not valued in today's society.

On 5/24/2019 at 1:37 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I do not think that even the most anti-business ideologue is opposed to well-planned management and utilization of resources to meet social goals.

 

I think that what people are opposed to is mindless, reckless, ideologically-driven, leave-it-to-the-invisible-hand economic growth for the sake of economic growth that we are told must continue uninterrupted or the sky will collapse.

Okay, I agree with that. I apologize if I mischaracterized your position on the matter. I do think that the study you presented in the beginning failed to account for that though. While I do think we need growth, I think we need that growth to achieve social goals and allow us technological advancement that will drive us forward. Again, no technology in the simplest definition, but the broadest definition, as Economists tend to use. Growth by exploitation can be problematic, most Economists who work with developing nations realize that. Equatorial Guinea might have a high GDP per capita, but the GDP in that case is driven by Oil-based geographic exploitation and the governing clique will not allow any benefit to fall to the masses. It is economically unstable growth without productive increases. Growth for growth's sake makes no sense.

The one thing in defense of that the opposing argument would be it can be hard to tell apart Intensive from Extensive Economic growth at any level besides the hyper-microeconomic level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 5/25/2019 at 10:44 AM, Aebt said:

What exactly do you suggest? I personally have not been too involved with Economic Anthropology, focusing my Anthropological interests on Cultural Anthropology, so you would be better placed than I would to suggest a well-rounded plan. My plan for the matter would not involve restoring earlier forms of economic structure, but I would like to hear exactly your details.

 

We can't return to another time. We can, however, try to restore practices that have been lost. Not everybody will want to take advantage of the opportunities that it would present. Or maybe an unexpectedly large number of people would quickly seize the opportunities.

 

I am talking about production returning to the household. I am talking about children--even small children--again contributing to household income. I am talking about the extended family being the primary family unit (as opposed to the nuclear family being the primary family unit and the extended family being secondary). I am talking about neighbors knowing each other and taking care of each other rather than being strangers who live in their own worlds behind the walls of houses and tuned in to their lives on social media.

 

That would mean that I, a 47-year-old adult, could live with my parents and it not be socially unacceptable (you know, no more of things like women saying on internet dating sites that if you "still" live with your parents they will not date you), rather than live alone and heat and cool an apartment with way more space than I need (think of the wasted energy and the emissions).

 

It would mean borrowing milk from a neighbor rather than driving to a convenience store just to purchase one item. Or trading some laundry detergent for that small amount of milk you need.

 

It would mean running a business from your home by making things you enjoy making and selling them to people you know and who appreciate the care you put into it (not to be confused with a work-from-home gig where you are working for somebody else).

 

It would mean children--even small children--could work in the household business and contribute to household income rather than be an economic liability that you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on so that they can start being productive 24 years down the road working for somebody else. If your friends and neighbors like your homemade strawberry soda and you decide to make large quantities and sell it, your 8-year-old could contribute by doing work such as pouring the soda in the bottles.

 

Those are just a few examples of economic life that has been lost and would likely result in happier lives and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases if restored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt
On 5/27/2019 at 1:02 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Those are just a few examples of economic life that has been lost and would likely result in happier lives and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases if restored.

Do you think it would really make the people happier though?

 

Not everyone really gets along well with their extended family, My grandparents drive me crazy and being around them for more than a two weeks out of year would ruin whatever kindness and love I have for them.

Eliminating social media would be lovely, but it could also have unintended consequences. The Arab Spring would not have happened the way it did, if at all, without it. Reducing people's time on it would be good though.

I guess I just do not feel any connection to my neighbors, they exist and occasionally I talk to them, but there is little chance, even if we tried really hard, that we would ever be close friends. Friendships are dependent on more than just knowing someone's name, job, and face. You need to have similar interests, etc. And I really do not know if I want to know my neighbors better, I have nothing in common with them besides being a fellow human.

 

Changing society's opinions of those who do what it sees as improper would be great. About the emissions from living on ones own, as I do not know where you live I can only state my experiences. I live in the USA and larger houses/apartments/etc. are the norm, if we could change that norm to more compact living arrangements that would help both with the emissions of house upkeep but also reduce urban sprawl. The good news is there is already a lowering or average home sizes, and the nearest metropolitan region to me, DC, home sizes have shrunk 10% since 1910.

 

Everyone should do a job they enjoy, but not everyone wants to run a business.

I like locally-produced products, a large portion of the furniture in my house is from local artists, but for them knowing everyone that they sell to is an impracticality, there are simply too many people. They also cannot get everything they need for their products from local suppliers, there is no glass manufacturer in the region, there is no supplier of hinges, etc.

Even then, making things at home would also have to bring deurbanization, which would bring disastrous consequences.

 

For humanity's sake we should probably all either disperse and live low-waste minimal lives where each has to farm, hunt, etc. sustainably, or else all move in towards urban areas and abandon building/exploiting the wilderness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 5/28/2019 at 9:56 AM, Aebt said:

Do you think it would really make the people happier though?

 

Not everyone really gets along well with their extended family, My grandparents drive me crazy and being around them for more than a two weeks out of year would ruin whatever kindness and love I have for them.

Eliminating social media would be lovely, but it could also have unintended consequences. The Arab Spring would not have happened the way it did, if at all, without it. Reducing people's time on it would be good though.

I guess I just do not feel any connection to my neighbors, they exist and occasionally I talk to them, but there is little chance, even if we tried really hard, that we would ever be close friends. Friendships are dependent on more than just knowing someone's name, job, and face. You need to have similar interests, etc. And I really do not know if I want to know my neighbors better, I have nothing in common with them besides being a fellow human.

 

Changing society's opinions of those who do what it sees as improper would be great. About the emissions from living on ones own, as I do not know where you live I can only state my experiences. I live in the USA and larger houses/apartments/etc. are the norm, if we could change that norm to more compact living arrangements that would help both with the emissions of house upkeep but also reduce urban sprawl. The good news is there is already a lowering or average home sizes, and the nearest metropolitan region to me, DC, home sizes have shrunk 10% since 1910.

 

Everyone should do a job they enjoy, but not everyone wants to run a business.

I like locally-produced products, a large portion of the furniture in my house is from local artists, but for them knowing everyone that they sell to is an impracticality, there are simply too many people. They also cannot get everything they need for their products from local suppliers, there is no glass manufacturer in the region, there is no supplier of hinges, etc.

Even then, making things at home would also have to bring deurbanization, which would bring disastrous consequences.

 

For humanity's sake we should probably all either disperse and live low-waste minimal lives where each has to farm, hunt, etc. sustainably, or else all move in towards urban areas and abandon building/exploiting the wilderness.

 

There is nothing natural about economic actors being divided into households, firms and governments and households being limited to consuming retail goods and services and providing labor. There is nothing natural about producers functioning only outside of the home. It is entirely a cultural construct.

 

Furthermore, there is nothing natural about the family institution consisting of nothing more than the nuclear family, or community relationships not occurring at every level. All of that is also a cultural construct.

 

Anecdotal evidence of individuals preferring the status quo does not change the anthropological and sociological facts of the past and the present.

 

Meanwhile, a presence or lack of interest in or desire for something does not make it a good or bad idea. There was little interest in same-sex marriage for most of history, but that did not make it a bad (or good) idea.

 

More importantly, we seem to have a miscommunication here. I have not said that anything should be reformed or replaced, let alone an entire system be reformed or replaced. I have simply said that certain forms of social and economic organization need to be restored. Like I said before, maybe nobody would want to take advantage of the opportunities that would be presented. A lot of women do not bother to vote, but that does not mean that women's suffrage never should have happened.

 

A more holistic economic life will not hurt anybody other than those who are unfairly benefitting from the present narrow, rigid structure of economic life. I have never heard of more freedom and more opportunities to be productive, take care of each other, etc. hurting anybody.

 

I have no idea how increased freedom to be productive and take care of each other could have zero positive impact on happiness. The last time I checked, oppressive behavior makes everybody less happy, including the oppressors. The fact of oppressive forces being weakened would alone increase everybody's happiness.

 

Finally, I fail to see how a more flexible, less oppressive approach to economic life would have zero impact on emissions. Even if nobody borrows milk from their neighbor rather than driving to a convenience store, more kinds of economic transactions taking place in more kinds of places between people in more kinds of relationships will certainly lead to environmentally-conscious people being creative in other ways, such as carpooling on family vacations rather than just to and from work.

 

Has there ever been a system of thought more narrow-minded than "economics"? Any suggestion of anything that deviates from the orthodoxy of "economics" is met with "The market will not support that", "That goes against people's self-interested nature and is wishful thinking", or warnings that the sky will collapse. Religions--those supposed champions of dogmatic oppression--do not, in my estimation, begin to even rival the limits that "economics" puts on the human spirit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 5:54 AM, Homer said:

I said it before and I'll say it again - the only way to save this planet is to eradicate mankind.

That planet will be fine.   Human damage is nothing compared to natural disasters of past.  A few 10s of millions of years and we'll just be another one of the dozens of extinction events.     It is hubris to think we can break the earth - it is ourselves we need to worry about in a universe that is vast and dangerous beyond our imagination. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before thinking about the right sort of economic system, people need to agree on the goal: What should the world look like in 1000, or 10,000 years?  What are we aiming for: sustainable low impact living?  Galactic empires?  Need to figure out where we want to go before deciding which way to turn 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...