DescentBB

How long do you think it will take for us to realize our ideas for civilization are unsustainable? How long do you think it will take for us to realize that capitalism in particular has been unequivocally disastrous in regard to the long term survivability of our species? Our ecosystem is not a rational participant with us beholden to the laws of supply and demand. When sharks become rare due to finning, the ecosystem doesn't simply produce more sharks because the price goes up. The food chain collapses. We die off.

How does Freedom and Self-Determination play into this? Are we rational actors in our survival? Do we know what we're doing and choose to do it anyways? Do we choose Freedom and our long term death over living under the thrall of being beholden to environmental sustainability? I mean, that's one of our cherished sayings isn't it? "Give me liberty or give me death." I suppose it's a valid choice. Many people choose to die for a cause or way of life.

I happen to think we are not rational actors. I may be projecting, but I have to believe that most everyone would choose a sustainable way of life over the demise of the species, even if that sustainable way of life were drastically different from our current. Democracy requires a vibrant news media informing the public accurately, and that public taking responsibility to act on accurate information. But in capitalist media, virtue and accuracy do not equate success. Capitalist pressures on media produce what people want, not what people need. In effect, we've provided capitalism's winners control of the conversation. How can we be rational actors in democracy if capitalist virtue is taken for granted, and not discussed? Our capitalist system actually makes it harder to enact the drastic changes that may be necessary to ensure survival.

Why do we think balancing the economic impacts of protecting the ecosystem is in any way a valid argument? There is no balance. Science fiction aside, we're not going to be migrating to another planet anytime soon. We either protect the ecosystem and learn to live within it quickly or we die.

The knowledge of our planet and how it works is a pretty recent thing. It's really only been in the last 100 years that we've learned how much of our ecosystem works. The first picture of the planet was taken less than 50 years ago. We've reached the end of the map. Our ideas for civilization predate these discoveries by centuries. America itself, a relatively new country, predates these discoveries. How can these ideas for civilization take into account the single most important element to our continuing survival? They don't.

So how long do you think it will be until they do? History doesn't give me much reason to be optimistic.

Humans are pretty adaptable, but I think you're right, we'll probably soon reach our planet's limit to accommodate our excessive consumption, population and it's waste products. Yes, capitalist nations and up and coming capitalist nations like China and India are the worst offenders at excessive waste production, all to produce the products just the U.S. and Europe uses. Not that the U.S. is any better with our love of consumerism and dependence on using oil and the fracking to get at it. Unless we either stop reproducing like rabbits and consuming our resources at such an unsustainable rate, we'll either poison everything, eventually use up all the available fresh drinking water, foul the air to the point we can't breathe, deplete the oceans of all the available food or pave and build over all the best arable land so that we eventually starve. Worse, we'll end up in huge wars fighting over what's left. Unless our technology comes to the rescue or we move off planet, or both, I don't see a good outcome sustaining our present way of life on this planet.

You would have to give better evidence that capitalism is bad path than you have because capitalism is empowerment and people don't relinquish power easily if ever.

Without a provable alternative to it you would do better to co-opt it and use it to instill the rationale you think we need to save us.

Oh, hell.....I just described the proclaimed tenets of our political system!

So I guess we are doomed.

worth a read. Was going to make this a separate thread, but it seems germane to this discussion. Most of you all don't really know how bad capitalism is screwed up in the US.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... A_Facebook

and yes, this affects how the environment is being treated, and a lot of other tangental factors

Too many loaded questions for me…sorry.

And by loaded I mean you have to admit to something in order to answer…Example:

“How long do you think it will take for us to realize our ideas for civilization are unsustainable?”

The answer to that question is giving a timeframe that presupposes the premise to be valid.

I would like to take part in this discussion, but it’s really a speech disguised as a series of questions.

Vander wrote:How long do you think it will take for us to realize our ideas for civilization are unsustainable? How long do you think it will take for us to realize that capitalism in particular has been unequivocally disastrous in regard to the long term survivability of our species? Our ecosystem is not a rational participant with us beholden to the laws of supply and demand. When sharks become rare due to finning, the ecosystem doesn't simply produce more sharks because the price goes up. The food chain collapses. We die off.

Going to have to answer this peace-meal so I'll start with this paragraph. First off why are you picking on capitalism as the main culprit? Capitalism made America great and a leader in the world. Not only militarily but conservation wise. Show me a communist country that compares. China's air is so polluted you have to wear a mask to breath it.If money is not available to protect things then the average Joe is going to take from the environment as he needs it. There will not be enough tax dollars to monitor what is going on. Go into a world wide depression and people will strip the land to gather food to feed their families. In my view capitalism is vastly better than the other systems out there. What is really needed is world wide population controls.

ITT: Woddy confuses economic and political systems and reinforces Vander's point about clueless people.

Will Robinson wrote:You would have to give better evidence that capitalism is bad path than you have because capitalism is empowerment and people don't relinquish power easily if ever.

Without a provable alternative to it you would do better to co-opt it and use it to instill the rationale you think we need to save us.

Oh, hell.....I just described the proclaimed tenets of our political system!

So I guess we are doomed.

Capitalism is a bad path due to the lack of ecosystem sustainability as an irresistable market force. Developing a sustainable product, slapping a "green" label on it, and letting the market decide is simply not good enough. I don't believe people are adequately informed, or understand the consequences of that choice.

Capitalism and Democracy are not the same thing. They are similar solutions for two seperate problems. Entangling them as we have has been our error. Capitalism requires rules. Democracy creates those rules. Informed consent is required for Democracy. Capitalists inform us.

Spidey wrote:Too many loaded questions for me…sorry.

And by loaded I mean you have to admit to something in order to answer…Example:

“How long do you think it will take for us to realize our ideas for civilization are unsustainable?”

The answer to that question is giving a timeframe that presupposes the premise to be valid.

I would like to take part in this discussion, but it’s really a speech disguised as a series of questions.

I want you to take part in the discussion. If anything, I want people to take a critical look the situation. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me why. I'm pessimistic about our future, and I don't want to be pessimistic. How do we move forward?

Well, I believe the problem lies in human nature (greed) not the economic system per se.

Any system can be abused, that is not the fault of the system. Note the discussion on Islam.

vision wrote:ITT: Woddy confuses economic and political systems and reinforces Vander's point about clueless people.

As I have pointed out before, socialism & communism are both political and economic systems, so when talking about socialism/communism, you are speaking of both.

(this comment is not in regard to woody’s comment, but simply to clarify a point)

Vander wrote:..
Capitalism is a bad path due to the lack of ecosystem sustainability as an irresistable market force.

Any form of culture is going to consume resources so if Capitalism is bad and you don't offer an improvement to it you can't get rid of it. So where does that leave you?

Vander wrote:.. a sustainable product, slapping a "green" label on it, and letting the market decide is simply not good enough. I don't believe people are adequately informed, or understand the consequences of that choice.

Perhaps it leaves you correcting the lack of understanding...
From what authority and/or podium do you do that? From a tyrants throne or a democratic seat of power? What will the economic model be in the place your soapbox stands to do the informing?
Back to the alternative and how to implement it...

Vander wrote:...Capitalism and Democracy are not the same thing. They are similar solutions for two seperate problems. Entangling them as we have has been our error. Capitalism requires rules. Democracy creates those rules. Informed consent is required for Democracy. Capitalists inform us.

The rules don't seem to be mutually exclusive, more like interdependent or at the least potentially compatible as in the clashing of the EPA and industry, so the 'information' the capitalists are delivering is the problem? The big oil money funding the anti-anthropogenic aspect of global warming?

I would suggest you don't need to get rid of Capitalism, you need to set a higher standard for the culture and start by example. Then people will demand their consumption be done in a more Eco friendly manor.

When the integrity level of journalists rises up to challenge their sponsors...their capitalist masters... and, among other things reject naming the Al Gore types as hero spokesman maybe the 'information' will be cleaned up? I mention Al to illustrate Capitalism gets in the 'information' game in many forms...Al flying his private jets around from mansion to mansion preaching environment for hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech....suggesting data be removed from UN reports because the people aren't savy enough to understand the science...etc.

He is one of the worst actors you could allow to deliver the 'proper' information, thus making your goal that much more difficult. The goal of journalists and scientists should be to regain control of the cause, take it from the pimps and players who use it for their own selfish gains.

to one of Vander's core points, with which I disagree: Capitalism, as I see it, is not really less ecologically sustainable that any other option, given human nature, and I don't accept utopian visions, preferring to deal in what have proven to be the options. Those would be capitalism, oligarchal order of some sort(feudalism in some fashion), communism, or a capitalist/socialist blend, which is what most Western nations adhere to. The issue, writ large, is that there are too many damned people on the planet, and the prime offenders are NOT the more capitalistic societies. Overpopulation IS, however, linked to poverty, which can be laid at the feet of the global economic inequities.

vision wrote:ITT: Woddy confuses economic and political systems and reinforces Vander's point about clueless people.

Aww...vision comes on all professorial and fails being able to talk on a common level. Kinda cute in a anime sort of way.

Here is a perspective on 'overpopulation' that might interest everyone who thinks about it in the usual way (OMG too many people) we were taught decades ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- ... ainability

I think Capitalism, or more specifically, Market economies, are especially evil. There is a myth that a truly free market will self-regulate, yet there is no evidence of this happening anywhere, anytime. And if the reason why is because it is impossible to have a truly free environment for Capitalism to show it's glory, well then, we should just face the fact that is only works in theory and not practice. It is by definition individualistic and free, thus making it the perfect target for the whims of greed.

Of course, other economic models have their own serious flaws. I'm not a student of economics so I won't go into the details. However, I can say with relative certainty that none of the current economic models have 21st Century global considerations built into them. This is a big problem. We don't have an alternative to strive for, let alone a way to transition into it. I am not exactly sure what it will look like, but here are things it needs to address:

1. We have achieved globalization. I'm sorry to break it to those who are afraid of globalization, but it's already happened. We are there. The global recession over the last decade proved it. We need a new economic model that easily interfaces with current models as they die out, including Capitalism.
2. Our way of life has ruined the planet, The likelihood of a mass extinction event grows every day. We simply cannot use a supply and demand model any further because what people demand now is clean water and air. This is in direct contraction to the current World economy.
3. Barring a mass extinction event, the human race will explode in the next couple decades, even when considering models that show population tapering off and shrinking as countries climb the ladder of development. Current economic theories are already failing. They will fail harder with more people.

Unfortunately, it seems the only solution is the age old one: war. Eliminate huge swaths of people and their economies to buy some time. However, war is killing fewer and fewer people every year (a centuries old trend). Reducing the population to "safe" levels would require a limited nuclear exchange. Maybe it's just coincidence that the people with the nukes are also the ones ruining the planet the fastest, so maybe it's not such a bad thing we are the targets.

woodchip wrote:Capitalism made America great and a leader in the world.

There is no doubt that Capitalism provides the ability to advance technology at great speed, but at a cost of resource consumption. The economic system that can build a stronger military faster is not necessarily the economic system best suited to reach sustainability. Setting the politics aside, I sometimes wonder if Communism had somehow won the cold war. Would the slowed pace of innovation, iteration, and consumption have allowed the emerging awareness of our station on this planet to catch up enough, leaving the species in a better situation?

Hitler's Germany was Capitalist. I only say that to make the distiction to you that Capitalism isn't what supposedly makes America great.

woodchip wrote:What is really needed is world wide population controls.

Now we're getting somewhere. What do you have in mind? I read an article by some scientist a year or two ago, that said the earth can probably sustain 1-2 billion people. I don't know if he's accurate or not. I look at families that have huge numbers of children and I just shake my head. What does control over something like this mean for self-determination? What would something like that look like in America?

I kind of think there will be some sort of pandemic that wipes out huge portions of the population. But that is hardly something to count on when trying to plan a legitimate way forward.

Will Robinson wrote:Any form of culture is going to consume resources so if Capitalism is bad and you don't offer an improvement to it you can't get rid of it. So where does that leave you?

In Capitalist cultures, consumption is its own virtue. The economy is strong when consumption is strong. We seem to be racing to produce more cheaper faster, but I don't know what we're racing for. Perhaps thats an unjustified disillusion I have, born of too much luxury.

Will Robinson wrote:From what authority and/or podium do you do that? From a tyrants throne or a democratic seat of power? What will the economic model be in the place your soapbox stands to do the informing?
Back to the alternative and how to implement it...

Maybe a tyrants throne. Maybe wholesale change to the limits of Capitalism. I don't have a solution. I just know that market forces alone are not going to work. And our news media is ill-equipped for honest discourse on the limits of Capitalism.

Let me ask you, and please disregard whether you think the question is valid or not. Which would you rather have: Capitalist Democracy, but the ecosystem collapses leaving the future generations in doubt; or Malevolent Dictatorship, but consumption is limited for maximum sustainability for future generations.

callmeslick wrote:Capitalism, as I see it, is not really less ecologically sustainable that any other option, given human nature, and I don't accept utopian visions, preferring to deal in what have proven to be the options.

Perhaps a more narrow distiction would be Consumerism. But it is the lack of ecology as a market force within Capitalism that is at issue.

Vander wrote:[...
Let me ask you, and please disregard whether you think the question is valid or not. Which would you rather have: Capitalist Democracy, but the ecosystem collapses leaving the future generations in doubt; or Malevolent Dictatorship, but consumption is limited for maximum sustainability for future generations. ..

It depends on how I interpret the details of the two scenarios. If I envision the level of malevolency as tolerable relative to the eco-disaster you propose then I go dictator. But that choice can only be made after I fill in the blanks.
The question doesn't really reveal anything or even give me pause to re-examine my 'position' because I don't perceive the imminent threat that you seem to be convinced of. My best guess is we end up somewhere in the middle of your two extremes.

And ultimately what we are discussing is 'mother nature' doing what she will in spite of all our grand gestures and hubris. Species come and go...they adapt or die out. Just looking into the 'over population' scenarios show me that even if we all elected to live like the fabled innocent american indian tribes we would still face similar odds for extinction! If nature doesn't eat us we might eat it...and then die as a result...
At least we humans have a menu to choose from.

vision wrote:Unfortunately, it seems the only solution is the age old one: war. Eliminate huge swaths of people and their economies to buy some time. However, war is killing fewer and fewer people every year (a centuries old trend). Reducing the population to "safe" levels would require a limited nuclear exchange. Maybe it's just coincidence that the people with the nukes are also the ones ruining the planet the fastest, so maybe it's not such a bad thing we are the targets.

It sounds rather freaky and unthinkable- but that may be behind the needless escalation of conflict between the west and Russia.

The crisis in Ukraine literally came out of nowhere- there were smoldering conflicts in the middle east already...but what exactly are America's interests in supporting what was essentially a coup in Ukraine in early 2014?

The new government in Kiev is becoming a tyrannical oligarchy with elements of what could even be called fascist parties (with calls for ethnic cleansing to boot.) We're supporting them with weapons, training and advisors? WHY?

The Europeans have been scrambling to put together a peace (Minsk and Minsk II) between Kiev and the separatists- but are being undermined by this administration.

Putin acted in what he believed was his country's self-interest in seizing Crimea and is regarded as naked aggression- but would it have happened if the coup never took place?

For me it boils down to whether we reach a point where technology becomes advanced enough to insure a sustainable future, or we crash and burn first.

Adapt and survive…that is what humans do best, at one time we died at a tremendous rate due to disease, now we have modern medicine, which has now caused its own problems like the superbug, but our economic system is working on that problem, and there is research into such things as “sharkskin” where a surface cannot support the bugs…not due to antibodies or such, but simply due to the texture of the surface.

There is no scientific way to test which will prevail…technology or crash and burn, so our beliefs tend to revolve around whether we are optimists or pessimists and the realists be damned…

If we do crash and burn, I’m pretty sure it will be more a result of our political systems than our economic systems.

Will Robinson wrote:Here is a perspective on 'overpopulation' that might interest everyone who thinks about it in the usual way (OMG too many people) we were taught decades ago.

Doesn't this in some aspects support my premise that Capitalism is at odds with sustainability? It suggests that if the population levels or drops, the fewer people will need to consume more to support the economy. The economy is required to continually grow. How do you sustain perpetual growth?

Vander wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Here is a perspective on 'overpopulation' that might interest everyone who thinks about it in the usual way (OMG too many people) we were taught decades ago.

Doesn't this in some aspects support my premise that Capitalism is at odds with sustainability? It suggests that if the population levels or drops, the fewer people will need to consume more to support the economy. The economy is required to continually grow. How do you sustain perpetual growth?

I think it does support it to a degree,yes. But being at odds doesn't mean sustainability and capitalism are diametrically opposed. It also points out that constantly growing population is needed to sustain the economy because of the way we create debt from printing 'new money' and I'm not convinced that aspect is a necessary component of 'capitalism'. Follow that money....who needs debt sustained? Who profits from it and the management of it?

We don't have a pure democracy and we don't practice pure capitalism (not suggesting it needs to be pure). The government is balls deep into commerce.
So we need to make some changes *if* your projections and conclusions are correct. We don't necessarily need to abandon capitalism.

Private ownership of business drives much of the good we do as well as the bad.
Innovation wouldn't come from communism so just 'slowing down new technology and development' as you alluded to wouldn't solve anything and it wouldn't deliver the good things that capitalism has delivered.
When examining the results of something don't just look for evidence of the negative results.

And look at the alternatives. Have they produced sustainable models?
Some would have us hamstring our current energy systems because of the negatives. They say bankrupt coal and we will be forced to develop alternatives. And what? Freeze to death in the dark while we do it?!? Create an economic disaster that drives the citizens onto the government tit for survival...because, although they created the disaster they have a desire to formulate a plan, eventually?!?

So is this where you would lead us? Abandon capitalism because the way we practice it us destructive? Replace it with communism until we develop an alternative that is better?
That is like the methods of barber surgeons of the 17th century. Bleed the patient just because....
We have to have a better path to follow you down or you will only have fools, anarchists and mental cases at your heels.

My very first question in this thread was: How long do you think it will take for us to realize our ideas for civilization are unsustainable? Our current and most successful idea is Capitalist Democracy. But our current and most successful idea is unsustainable. Capitalism can be limited and tailored to sustainability. Theoretically, Democracy would check and limit Capitalism. But for Democracy to work, honest discourse must take place. How can honest discourse take place in Capitalist Media? Market pressures limit range of thought. Choice in news allows choice in reality. This is really the biggest lynchpin, and probably should be the first focus of remediation. How to fix? I don't know. But the first step is realizing what the problem is.

And this doesn't even take into account what the people would decide to do if they had an honest discourse. Participation in Democracy in America is pathetic. Our biggest elections draw barely 50% participation. The case could be made that we like the idea of Democracy more than theh practice.

In the past, our system has dealt with shocks. Flaws in Capitalism produce loss of wealth, and we go in and fix it to try and make it better and more robust. But those failures that lead to loss of wealth, while producing hardship, pale in comparison to a failure that costs us our ecosystem.

I don't necessarily have any answers to any of the questions. I don't know "the better way." I just see the current answer as wrong.

Vander wrote: Flaws in Capitalism produce loss of wealth, and we go in and fix it to try and make it better and more robust. But those failures that lead to loss of wealth, .

could you clarify this? As I see it, no actual wealth has been lost, merely repostioned and redistributed. Every economic downturn since the dawn of Capitalism has ended up entrenching the existing wealth in fewer hands, but I cannot agree that wealth is lost, within the system.

2008. The incorrect valuation of property. Wealth was lost. It may have ultimately been fantasy wealth, but it was wealth that could've been acted upon in 2005. To tie this into the topic, there is no mechanism for the valuation of ecological sustainability. There will be no government bailout to recoup lost environmental wealth when it is lost.

Vander wrote:My very first question in this thread was: How long do you think it will take for us to realize our ideas for civilization are unsustainable? Our current and most successful idea is Capitalist Democracy. But our current and most successful idea is unsustainable. Capitalism can be limited and tailored to sustainability. Theoretically, Democracy would check and limit Capitalism. But for Democracy to work, honest discourse must take place. How can honest discourse take place in Capitalist Media? Market pressures limit range of thought. Choice in news allows choice in reality. This is really the biggest lynchpin, and probably should be the first focus of remediation. How to fix? I don't know. But the first step is realizing what the problem is.

And this doesn't even take into account what the people would decide to do if they had an honest discourse. Participation in Democracy in America is pathetic. Our biggest elections draw barely 50% participation. The case could be made that we like the idea of Democracy more than theh practice.

In the past, our system has dealt with shocks. Flaws in Capitalism produce loss of wealth, and we go in and fix it to try and make it better and more robust. But those failures that lead to loss of wealth, while producing hardship, pale in comparison to a failure that costs us our ecosystem.

I don't necessarily have any answers to any of the questions. I don't know "the better way." I just see the current answer as wrong.

Bravo!

How to reform a "free press" and keep it free. I've fallen asleep hundreds of nights pondering that one. Peer pressure seems to always be the root of my solution and the implementation falls apart at educating the people to grow up into responsible peers to Make it possible.

Vander wrote:2008. The incorrect valuation of property. Wealth was lost. It may have ultimately been fantasy wealth, but it was wealth that could've been acted upon in 2005. To tie this into the topic, there is no mechanism for the valuation of ecological sustainability. There will be no government bailout to recoup lost environmental wealth when it is lost.

well, sort of correct. The plunge in value represented a loss in wealth for some, but was made up by another set of people. As I stated, actually a transfer, in this case(as with most such cases), the wealth was lost from generally middle class families and individual speculators, and wound up in the hands of bankers and conservative investors. Environmental and other resources, on the other hand, are not wealth until they are incorporated into the economic engine. An example? 'Rare Earth' elements were simply obscure items in the dirt until the development of modern electrical/digital technology, now they are assets/wealth/capital. In 1940, they were dirt.

callmeslick wrote:well, sort of correct. The plunge in value represented a loss in wealth for some, but was made up by another set of people. As I stated, actually a transfer, in this case(as with most such cases), the wealth was lost from generally middle class families and individual speculators, and wound up in the hands of bankers and conservative investors. Environmental and other resources, on the other hand, are not wealth until they are incorporated into the economic engine. An example? 'Rare Earth' elements were simply obscure items in the dirt until the development of modern electrical/digital technology, now they are assets/wealth/capital. In 1940, they were dirt.

We are not on a gold standard. There is no total sum in Dollars for the worlds wealth, growing only with resource extraction. Print more money, and wealth goes down. Wealth only has real value at the time you use it.

But this is all secondary to my point of incorrect valuation. Capitalism defines price. The price of a resource that is extracted from the ground is based on the cost to extract and the demand for the resource. What I'm saying is that there is no mechanism in capitalism to define a resource's intrinsic value to sustained ecology. Does a shark have no value if left in the ocean as part of our food chain?

The only thing close is the nascent "cap and trade" idea for carbon emissions.

Economies must grow every year to cover 3 basic things…

1. Perpetual government spending increases.
2. Population growth.
3. Inflation.

As slick pointed out poverty is one of the main drivers of overpopulation, therefore higher standards of living can help curb population growth.

Government spending…well good luck on that one.

Inflation is just a part of any economy, but good planning can avoid much of it, or at least mitigate its affect.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me blame for the destroyed ecosystem does not fall upon the type of economy, but is a direct failure of government to properly regulate industry, therefore making it a failure of government…not the economy.

Not saying industry doesn’t play its part, but boys will be boys.

On a small side note….

I would also like to point out that we don’t really have a “capitalist” economy, we actually have what is known as a market economy, which contains elements of capitalism. But somehow the term has become the all encompassing word for the economy.

In fact, manufacturing, service industries and agriculture are not capitalist, examples of capitalism are banks, the stock market, insurance and so forth, these are things that use capital to raise capital. (making money with money)

An example:

When a company uses labor to produce a product, that is not capitalism, but when that company goes to a bank to borrow money to expand…that is capitalism. Capitalism is the thing that lets an otherwise sluggish economy to move faster that it would without it.

But, I really didn’t want to digress…it is just a pet peeve.

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:well, sort of correct. The plunge in value represented a loss in wealth for some, but was made up by another set of people. As I stated, actually a transfer, in this case(as with most such cases), the wealth was lost from generally middle class families and individual speculators, and wound up in the hands of bankers and conservative investors. Environmental and other resources, on the other hand, are not wealth until they are incorporated into the economic engine. An example? 'Rare Earth' elements were simply obscure items in the dirt until the development of modern electrical/digital technology, now they are assets/wealth/capital. In 1940, they were dirt.

We are not on a gold standard. There is no total sum in Dollars for the worlds wealth, growing only with resource extraction. Print more money, and wealth goes down. Wealth only has real value at the time you use it.

But this is all secondary to my point of incorrect valuation. Capitalism defines price. The price of a resource that is extracted from the ground is based on the cost to extract and the demand for the resource. What I'm saying is that there is no mechanism in capitalism to define a resource's intrinsic value to sustained ecology. Does a shark have no value if left in the ocean as part of our food chain?

The only thing close is the nascent "cap and trade" idea for carbon emissions.

what you envision is essentially a zero value-added economic system. However, what that leaves you with is this quandry. If value cannot be added, that means, by definition, that wages could not be earned, either, at any level. Nor, could interest be paid or charged. The result would be an absolutely static economy, with no means to exact any benefit out of anything. I can flesh it out, if desired, but ponder what you seem to wish for at a purely economic level. Because, ecological good intent aside, we are still fundamentally primate mammals, and more than instinctually likely to kill one another off to maintain certain levels of consumption. Further, to function as a society of any numbers, we need something resembling an economy, or seem to have needed such for the last many hundreds of years, once society got any level of complexity. Unless I'm missing something, the only solution is to address human overpopulation, in as civilized a way possible. I have every faith that once certain commodites, such as basic foodstuffs or water, become too limited, simple population dynamics will kick in as either epidemics/pandemics or violent conflict. Works with mice, rabbits, most other members of the animal kingdom, why expect differently for us?

callmeslick wrote:what you envision is essentially a zero value-added economic system. However, what that leaves you with is this quandry. If value cannot be added, that means, by definition, that wages could not be earned, either, at any level. Nor, could interest be paid or charged. The result would be an absolutely static economy, with no means to exact any benefit out of anything. I can flesh it out, if desired

I have no idea what you just wrote, so yeah, flesh away if you'd like.

callmeslick wrote:I have every faith that once certain commodites, such as basic foodstuffs or water, become too limited, simple population dynamics will kick in as either epidemics/pandemics or violent conflict.

Sounds like a great plan! I bet Democratic Capitalism will flourish.

ok, a quick version of the flesh-out, Vander.....you seemingly decry that capitalism establishes values and prices on things, and adds costs to them based on market forces. Yes, it does, mainly because it is a value-added economy. So, I dig up a few tons of sand, Woody pays me for them, and turns them into glass. He sells the glass at quite a bit more than the raw sand to Vision. Vision makes some speciality product with the glass, charging even more for the finished product. All of the prices along the way reflect not only the intrinsic value of the stuff, but the labor, creativity and costs involved in transforming it, but also the value of the product to the consumer. That happens with every raw material on the planet, every day. You seem to have an issue with an economic system which assigns worth/prices to basic commodities, but in reality EVERYTHING is a commodity and if such valuation didn't occur, and the built in accomodation for labor, risk, and a host of other factors, we'd have no economy. Even if one wishes to abhor the use of commodity trading as setting prices 'unfairly', a good part of that is merely reward for the risk of committing money to a commodity purchase in the hope that it will be in demand at a later point. Hell, I'm not suggesting that pure capitalism(which really doesn't occur anywhere) doesn't have grave pitfalls for mankind, but I don't see where it is the driver for consumption or depletion of resources. That, it seems to me, is due to the sheer numbers, as man has forever consumed resources.

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I have every faith that once certain commodites, such as basic foodstuffs or water, become too limited, simple population dynamics will kick in as either epidemics/pandemics or violent conflict.

Sounds like a great plan! I bet Democratic Capitalism will flourish.

well, it may, but the point is that economic models of ANY type will not prevent that, at least not in any way I've seen explained.

You're almost there. You're describing why our system can't place value on unused resources, but you're not acknowledging that those unused resources must have value in their ability to produce more resource. The component you're missing is time.

I gave 2008 as an example of how a pricing flaw led to a crash. Home valuation was incorrect and the market correction threatened the entire financial system. What do you think the pricing flaw in the valuation of unused resources will cause? I think it could be extinction.

callmeslick wrote:Hell, I'm not suggesting that pure capitalism(which really doesn't occur anywhere) doesn't have grave pitfalls for mankind, but I don't see where it is the driver for consumption or depletion of resources. That, it seems to me, is due to the sheer numbers, as man has forever consumed resources.

I single out Capitalism because it is successful. It is dominant because it is the most efficient at driving innovation. That efficiency and innovation drive population growth. Greater consumption is produced faster and more efficiently.

I'll accept most of the above, except the 2008 example. Wealth is neither created nor destroyed. It is a human concept, and merely shifts hands, as I demonstrated with that example.

I don't disagree with you that wealth redistribution occurred in 2008. But in the context of this discussion it is a meaningless red herring. We don't get to print more sharks or whatever else our ecology hinges upon. We don't get to redistribute mosquitoes into bees by the stroke of a pen.

Vander wrote:2008. The incorrect valuation of property. Wealth was lost. It may have ultimately been fantasy wealth, but it was wealth that could've been acted upon in 2005. To tie this into the topic, there is no mechanism for the valuation of ecological sustainability. There will be no government bailout to recoup lost environmental wealth when it is lost.

I think you can apply this to the drought in CA. Water is not thought about until it is gone. More than one civilization dried up when the water did. CA is facing this scenario and if the drought doesn't break this year, next year you could see a pretty desperate situation.

woodchip wrote:

Vander wrote:2008. The incorrect valuation of property. Wealth was lost. It may have ultimately been fantasy wealth, but it was wealth that could've been acted upon in 2005. To tie this into the topic, there is no mechanism for the valuation of ecological sustainability. There will be no government bailout to recoup lost environmental wealth when it is lost.

I think you can apply this to the drought in CA. Water is not thought about until it is gone. More than one civilization dried up when the water did. CA is facing this scenario and if the drought doesn't break this year, next year you could see a pretty desperate situation.

part of the issue here is human stupidity. Most of the habited area in SoCal is, for all intents and purposes, desert. Yet, man wishes to live there and does so on borrowed(read:stolen) water from the mountains to the East. Likewise, we build on barrier islands, flood plains and other spots where humans just shouldn't be attempting to survive. Right back to the excess population thing again......

Can't argue with you there slick

callmeslick wrote:part of the issue here is human stupidity. Most of the habited area in SoCal is, for all intents and purposes, desert.

Yup. I'm in San Diego and it pisses me off something fierce when I see these jackasses trying to keep up lush, green lawns. However, over 75% of the water usage in California is for agriculture and residential use is as low as 15% statewide, so at least most of the water that comes is is returned in the form of food. Not sure what route we should take regarding the specific crops we grow.

woodchip wrote:I think you can apply this to the drought in CA. Water is not thought about until it is gone. More than one civilization dried up when the water did. CA is facing this scenario and if the drought doesn't break this year, next year you could see a pretty desperate situation

Absolutely. California is a great microcosm of what I'm describing. We've built our civilization at odds with sustainability before we knew sustainability would be a thing. The delta is incredibly important to northern fisheries, yet we divert more and more water to grow water intensive crops chosen for their profit margins.

But what do you do about it?