Symptoms of overshoot
ta
from the environment are not yet strong enough to force an end to
growth. How, then, can society tell if it is in overshoot? The short
list here may help. We’ve grouped symptoms of overshoot described in
Limits To Growth: the Thirty Year Update, into three categories.
Primary Physical Symptoms
Resource stocks fall, and wastes and pollution accumulate
* Capital, resources, and labor diverted to activities
compensating for the loss of services that were formerly provided
without cost by nature (for example, sewage treatment, air
purification, water purification, flood control, pest control,
restoration of soil nutrients, pollination, or the preservation of
species)
* Capital, resources, and labor diverted from final goods
production to exploitation of scarcer, more distant, deeper, or more
dilute resources.
* Technologies invented to make use of lower-quality, smaller,
more dispersed, less valuable resources, because the higher-value ones
are gone.
* Failing natural pollution cleanup mechanisms; rising levels of
pollution.
Resulting Physical Symptoms
As resource stocks fall and wastes accumulate the behavior of natural
systems may change with consequences for ecosystems and human
communities
* Growing chaos in natural systems, with “natural” disasters more
frequent and more severe because of less resilience in the
environmental system.
Resulting Social Symptoms
Society tries to live with, compensate for, and adapt to the primary
physical symptoms (note: these symptoms do not include responses that
address the decline of the resource base in the first place, such
responses are catalogued in Signs of Life Within Limits)
* Capital depreciation exceeding investment, and maintenance
deferred, so there is deterioration in capital stocks, especially long-
lived infrastructure.
* Growing demands for capital, resources, and labor used by the
military or industry to gain access to, secure, and defend resources
that are increasingly concentrated in fewer, more remote, or
increasingly hostile regions.
* Investment in human resources (education, health care, shelter)
postponed in order to meet immediate consumption, investment, or
security needs, or to pay debts.
* Debts a rising percentage of annual real output.
* Eroding goals for health and environment.
* Increasing conflicts, especially conflicts over sources or
sinks.
* Shifting consumption patterns as the population can no longer
pay the price of what it really wants and, instead, purchases what it
can afford.
* Declining respect for the instruments of collective government
as they are used increasingly by the elites to preserve or increase
their share of a declining resource base.
Do you observe any of these symptoms in your “real world?” If you do,
you should suspect that your society is in advanced stages of
overshoot.
— Based on Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update (pp. 176-7)."
*Anarcissie*
> "By definition, overshoot is a condition in which the delayed signals
> from the environment are not yet strong enough to force an end to
> growth. How, then, can society tell if it is in overshoot? The short
> list here may help. We’ve grouped symptoms of overshoot described in
> Limits To Growth: the Thirty Year Update, into three categories.
>
> Primary Physical Symptoms
>
> Resource stocks fall, and wastes and pollution accumulate
>
> * Capital, resources, and labor diverted to activities
> compensating for the loss of services that were formerly provided
> without cost by nature (for example, sewage treatment, air
> purification, water purification, flood control, pest control,
> restoration of soil nutrients, pollination, or the preservation of
> species)
>
> * Capital, resources, and labor diverted from final goods
> production to exploitation of scarcer, more distant, deeper, or more
> dilute resources.
>
> * Technologies invented to make use of lower-quality, smaller,
> more dispersed, less valuable resources, because the higher-value ones
> are gone.
>
> * Failing natural pollution cleanup mechanisms; rising levels of
> pollution.
It seems to me that the above four items would be
occurring regardless of the general condition of the
system. First one picks the low-hanging fruit; then
that higher up the tree. The replacement or
supplementation of natural resources and processes
is not necessarily a sign of overshoot as long as the
replacements prove capable of doing the job.
> Resulting Physical Symptoms
>
> As resource stocks fall and wastes accumulate the behavior of natural
> systems may change with consequences for ecosystems and human
> communities
>
> * Growing chaos in natural systems, with “natural” disasters more
> frequent and more severe because of less resilience in the
> environmental system.
I am not well-versed in natural disasters, with or
without quotation marks, but it doesn't seem to me
that we are observing an unusual level of disasters at
present, either as to number or severity.
For instance, in regard to hurricanes: "The [1900 Galveston] hurricane
caused great loss of life with the estimated death toll between 6,000
and 12,000 individuals;[2] the number most cited in official reports
is 8,000, giving the storm the third-highest number of casualties of
any Atlantic hurricane, after the Great Hurricane of 1780 and 1998’s
Hurricane Mitch. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is to date the
deadliest natural disaster ever to strike the United States. By
contrast, the second-deadliest storm to strike the United States, the
1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, caused more than 6,000 deaths, and the
deadliest storm of recent times, Hurricane Katrina, claimed the lives
of approximately 1,800 people."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston_Hurricane_of_1900)
I am not sure when quotation marks are supposed to
applied to _natural_. so perhaps some of the above
hurricanes must be excluded as being insufficiently
quotation-marked.
In the case of the United States, I would think we could
attribute such of the immediately above as we observe to
the decay attributable to imperialism. That is more an
abuse of social ecology than the physical environment,
although one can expect the physical environment to be
deteriorated as a concomitant effect.
ta
But if the replenishment rate was less than or equal to the
consumption rate, then what need would there be to resort to more
desperate measures ("clean coal", offshore drilling, monocropping,
GMOs etc. etc.)?
The whole point of is that the "replacements" are not replacements at
all. Eating farmed salmon injected with dye and full of PCBs or
mercury is *not* equivalent to eating wild Salmon caught from pristine
waters. Leathery tomatoes shipped from huge monocropped farms in
Mexico are *not* equivalent to organic tomatoes grown down the road.
Having to take asthma drugs to be able to breathe is *not* equivalent
to being able to run and play outside and breathe fresh air without
them.
No doubt mankind has invented technologies to mitigate somewhat the
effects of overshoot, but in the process, you lose *quality of life*
in many instances, while further pushing the limits of the system. And
there are limits.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-natural-disasters
Imperialism is a direct result of too many humans competing for too
few resources. No doubt imperialism existed before the US, it's the
scale that is relevant here in terms of environmental impact.
Also, the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum on
the planet; those planes and tanks need a lot of fuel.
Fred Weiss
> No doubt mankind has invented technologies to mitigate somewhat the
> effects of overshoot, but in the process, you lose *quality of life*
> in many instances, while further pushing the limits of the system. And
> there are limits.
Loss of quality of life? You're kidding, right?
Oh, that's right, you consider prosperity a lowering of our standard
of living.
As for "limits", if you understood even basic economics you would know
how ridiculous that is - not to mention the evidence piled on evidence
to refute it.
Incidentally, it was primitive man and early civilizations which
experienced limits precisely because they didn't have the technology
to overcome the periodic hardships which nature threw their way. We
have no such limits - not at least so long as impediments aren't put
in the way of our overcoming them (mostly by gov't).
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> As for "limits", if you understood even basic economics you would know
> how ridiculous that is - not to mention the evidence piled on evidence
> to refute it.
>
> Incidentally, it was primitive man and early civilizations which
> experienced limits precisely because they didn't have the technology
> to overcome the periodic hardships which nature threw their way. We
> have no such limits - not at least so long as impediments aren't put
> in the way of our overcoming them (mostly by gov't).
>
> Fred Weiss
In short there are no limits in a given context of knowledge to man's
ingenuity - and it has been proven remarkable and repeatedly how
beyond a given context of knowledge we can go when strongly motivated,
i.e. how far we can leap ahead of what anyone ever assumed we could
accomplish given what we knew at the time.
Consider Lord Kelvin's infamous 1895 pronouncement, "heavier-than-air
flying machines are impossible". As if he wanted to assure his place
in history for embarrassingly wrong predictions, he repeated the
sentiment the following year at a scientific meeting.
I just learned of even more ridiculous statement of his which he also
made at a scientific meeting a few years later, "There is nothing new
to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more
precise measurement." Apparently, a similar statement is attributed
to the American physicist Albert Michelson.
Fred Weiss
*Anarcissie*
You're making a different argument now. The
previous article said that a rise in the cost of
obtaining resources is a sign of "overshoot". If
so we are almost always experiencing "overshoot",
and should be quite used to it.
Now you're saying a decline in the quality of
life is "overshoot", but it isn't. It's a way of coping
with the rising cost of (some) resources.
So the experience of the east coast of North America
is some kind of weird outlier -- it doesn't have enough
hurricanes. Mighty strange.
If you think so you must explain why imperialism
has existed for millennia. According to your
theory we should not have observed any of it
until the most recent century or two.
> No doubt imperialism existed before the US, it's the
> scale that is relevant here in terms of environmental impact.
>
> Also, the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum on
> the planet; those planes and tanks need a lot of fuel.
Exactly my point. Imperialism leads to war,
waste, shortages, and eventually bankruptcy.
Environmental destruction is the result of
imperialism, not the cause.
ta
Are we reading the same article? The price of stuff rises as that
stuff becomes scarce, but that really wasn't the point of the article.
> Now you're saying a decline in the quality of
> life is "overshoot", but it isn't. It's a way of coping
> with the rising cost of (some) resources.
No, I was responding to your comment that "The replacement or
supplementation of natural resources and processes is not necessarily
a sign of overshoot as long as the replacements prove capable of doing
the job."
It's only a "replacement" if the thing you're replacing it with is of
equal quality to stuff you've used up. So mushy, PCB-laden, dye-
injected farmed salmon is not a replace for wild salmon caught in
pristine waters.
Hell, we could kill off the oceans and grow more chickens to replace
the protein that we consumed in fish, but that's not a "replacement",
either qualitatively or ecologically.
All wars are fought over the control of resources. Imperialism is
simply the most effective mechanism for controlling resources.
As I said in my next sentence, what is unique about American
imperialism is the scale. In modern 21st century civilization,
imperialism has gone global. That has obvious implications for the
earth as a system.
Besides, imperialism isn't a sufficient condition for overshoot.
> > No doubt imperialism existed before the US, it's the
> > scale that is relevant here in terms of environmental impact.
>
> > Also, the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum on
> > the planet; those planes and tanks need a lot of fuel.
>
> Exactly my point. Imperialism leads to war,
> waste, shortages, and eventually bankruptcy.
> Environmental destruction is the result of
> imperialism, not the cause.
I agree with all of that, but imperialism is not only unnecessary if
resources are abundant, it is insane. The primary cause of imperialism
is increased competition for resources. The existence of a global
imperialist power like the US is therefore a symptom of scarcity. The
difference between US imperialism and say Roman imperialism is that
we've gone global, and there's only one planet Earth.
When the Euros over-forested and over-fished, they came and conquered
the new world. If they had abundant resources in Europe, why would
they have possibly come and killed off the Mayans and American
Indians?
The problem is, there are no more "new worlds" to "discover".
Anarcissie
<0aad15b2-4925-43b8...@s20g2000yqd.googl
egroups.com>,
ta <tap...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm well aware of that. The writer of the article is
claiming that certain phenomena, like the increasing
scarcity and therefore price of certain resources, is
evidence of "overshoot", that is, the initial phase of
some sort of catastrophic ecological breakdown. I am
pointing out why that is an excessive claim.
> > Now you're saying a decline in the quality of
> > life is "overshoot", but it isn't. �It's a way of coping
> > with the rising cost of (some) resources.
>
> No, I was responding to your comment that "The replacement or
> supplementation of natural resources and processes is not necessarily
> a sign of overshoot as long as the replacements prove capable of doing
> the job."
>
> It's only a "replacement" if the thing you're replacing it with is of
> equal quality to stuff you've used up. So mushy, PCB-laden, dye-
> injected farmed salmon is not a replace for wild salmon caught in
> pristine waters.
>
> Hell, we could kill off the oceans and grow more chickens to replace
> the protein that we consumed in fish, but that's not a "replacement",
> either qualitatively or ecologically.
It's a replacement to some people. You just don't
happen to have their tastes.
I don't agree with that. Sure, ruling-class types
like to rip off other people's stuff, and they
always feel they don't have enough. But there
are many cases where it is obvious that they
just like fighting and killing, especially when
others have to do the dirty part of the work.
For example, he U.S. embarked seriously on a career of
imperialism under Woodrow Wilson, although the game
had already started with the Spanish-American war. At
that time the U.S. had no lack of important resources;
its rulers just wanted to take stuff over and have an
important place in the world.
> As I said in my next sentence, what is unique about American
> imperialism is the scale. In modern 21st century civilization,
> imperialism has gone global. That has obvious implications for the
> earth as a system.
>
> Besides, imperialism isn't a sufficient condition for overshoot.
The overshootist postulated a set of conditions
which were supposed to be marks of overshoot.
They look like marks of imperialism to me.
> > > � � � � � � � � � � � �No doubt imperialism existed before the US, it's
> > > the
> > > scale that is relevant here in terms of environmental impact.
> >
> > > Also, the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum on
> > > the planet; those planes and tanks need a lot of fuel.
> >
> > Exactly my point. �Imperialism leads to war,
> > waste, shortages, and eventually bankruptcy.
> > Environmental destruction is the result of
> > imperialism, not the cause.
>
> I agree with all of that, but imperialism is not only unnecessary if
> resources are abundant, it is insane. The primary cause of imperialism
> is increased competition for resources. The existence of a global
> imperialist power like the US is therefore a symptom of scarcity. The
> difference between US imperialism and say Roman imperialism is that
> we've gone global, and there's only one planet Earth.
>
> When the Euros over-forested and over-fished, they came and conquered
> the new world. If they had abundant resources in Europe, why would
> they have possibly come and killed off the Mayans and American
> Indians?
For the hell of it.
ta
> In article
> <0aad15b2-4925-43b8-8202-43aa39485...@s20g2000yqd.googl
> egroups.com>,
But the reason you provided is a straw man. The article doesn't say
anything specifically about increased costs. It says "Capital,
resources, and labor diverted to activities compensating for the loss
of services that were formerly provided ***without cost by nature****.
The relevant point here is that these activities were once regularly
provided by nature without any human intervention. The fact that human
intervention is required to compensate for nature's inability to keep
up is a sign of overshoot.
> > > Now you're saying a decline in the quality of
> > > life is "overshoot", but it isn't. It's a way of coping
> > > with the rising cost of (some) resources.
>
> > No, I was responding to your comment that "The replacement or
> > supplementation of natural resources and processes is not necessarily
> > a sign of overshoot as long as the replacements prove capable of doing
> > the job."
>
> > It's only a "replacement" if the thing you're replacing it with is of
> > equal quality to stuff you've used up. So mushy, PCB-laden, dye-
> > injected farmed salmon is not a replace for wild salmon caught in
> > pristine waters.
>
> > Hell, we could kill off the oceans and grow more chickens to replace
> > the protein that we consumed in fish, but that's not a "replacement",
> > either qualitatively or ecologically.
>
> It's a replacement to some people. You just don't
> happen to have their tastes.
If it were merely a matter of taste preference, then we'd obviously
not be concerned. Besides, we may find out the hard way:
http://marinebio.org/blog/?p=79
No worries though . . . we'll just fill the oceans with dirt and raise
more chickens.
So people are just "bad", eh?
> For example, he U.S. embarked seriously on a career of
> imperialism under Woodrow Wilson, although the game
> had already started with the Spanish-American war. At
> that time the U.S. had no lack of important resources;
> its rulers just wanted to take stuff over and have an
> important place in the world.
But you can't just look at that fact in isolation. You have to
understand that humans have developed certain undesirable/antisocial
behaviours as a result of ecological and economic pressures over time,
as a means of survival. Once those behaviours are established, the
potential for pathology exists, as is the case on a grand scale with
US imperialism. People aren't "bad" -- they are molded by
environmental and social pressures.
> > As I said in my next sentence, what is unique about American
> > imperialism is the scale. In modern 21st century civilization,
> > imperialism has gone global. That has obvious implications for the
> > earth as a system.
>
> > Besides, imperialism isn't a sufficient condition for overshoot.
>
> The overshootist postulated a set of conditions
> which were supposed to be marks of overshoot.
> They look like marks of imperialism to me.
But imperialism is a direct response to the competition for resources.
Imperialism is a symptom, which generates other undesirable effects
like environmental destruction, exacerbating the root problem.
> > > > No doubt imperialism existed before the US, it's
> > > > the
> > > > scale that is relevant here in terms of environmental impact.
>
> > > > Also, the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum on
> > > > the planet; those planes and tanks need a lot of fuel.
>
> > > Exactly my point. Imperialism leads to war,
> > > waste, shortages, and eventually bankruptcy.
> > > Environmental destruction is the result of
> > > imperialism, not the cause.
>
> > I agree with all of that, but imperialism is not only unnecessary if
> > resources are abundant, it is insane. The primary cause of imperialism
> > is increased competition for resources. The existence of a global
> > imperialist power like the US is therefore a symptom of scarcity. The
> > difference between US imperialism and say Roman imperialism is that
> > we've gone global, and there's only one planet Earth.
>
> > When the Euros over-forested and over-fished, they came and conquered
> > the new world. If they had abundant resources in Europe, why would
> > they have possibly come and killed off the Mayans and American
> > Indians?
>
> For the hell of it.
That seems intellectually lazy to me. They weren't "bad people" or
just bored; they became accustomed to a certain lifestyle, poorly
managed their existing resource base (hint: the root cause here), and
sought new resources to exploit.
It's a tired, old story: humans poorly manage and/or destroy the life
that sustains them, and rather than question their methods, they
simply seek out more "replacements". But here's the rub: where is the
next "new world" to exploit? Now that we've gone global, are we going
to learn the lessons of history and change our philosophy, and as a
result our behaviour? Or are we going to keep repeating the same
stupid mistakes, which is essentially the path the "free market" crowd
wants to take.
*Anarcissie*
I can't think of much that is provided free of
cost by nature. Air, I guess, but one still has
to go to the trouble of breathing. And if it
rains hard, you can get some water by lying
back and opening your mouth. In general,
though, I thought the without-cost business
had to be hyperbole. When there are few
people and they don't do much, then some
resources will be very low-cost, and when
there are many and they do more things the
cost of resources will go up unless new ones
are discovered which can be used in place
of the old ones. Nature doesn't "keep up",
it just does its thing and we do ours as a
part of it.
> > > > Now you're saying a decline in the quality of
> > > > life is "overshoot", but it isn't. It's a way of coping
> > > > with the rising cost of (some) resources.
>
> > > No, I was responding to your comment that "The replacement or
> > > supplementation of natural resources and processes is not necessarily
> > > a sign of overshoot as long as the replacements prove capable of doing
> > > the job."
>
> > > It's only a "replacement" if the thing you're replacing it with is of
> > > equal quality to stuff you've used up. So mushy, PCB-laden, dye-
> > > injected farmed salmon is not a replace for wild salmon caught in
> > > pristine waters.
>
> > > Hell, we could kill off the oceans and grow more chickens to replace
> > > the protein that we consumed in fish, but that's not a "replacement",
> > > either qualitatively or ecologically.
>
> > It's a replacement to some people. You just don't
> > happen to have their tastes.
>
> If it were merely a matter of taste preference, then we'd obviously
> not be concerned. Besides, we may find out the hard way:
>
> http://marinebio.org/blog/?p=79
>
> No worries though . . . we'll just fill the oceans with dirt and raise
> more chickens.
Whatever. Maybe the day will come when people
will marvel that large parts of the earth were
covered with sloppy water and supported the
lives of numerous slimy and otherwise unpleasant
beings.
Meanwhile, the overshootist has overshot his
rhetorical resources and needs new arguments.
tg
Your definition of cost is specious. Being alive---consuming but not
being consume---is a state of net profit. You don't have an *exchange*
with nature when you pick a banana and eat it, or catch a fish. All
you do is work, and the energy expended is obviously less than the
energy gained.
-tg
Anarcissie
<71ef6b52-7ea3-4d25...@u7g2000yqm.google
groups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 5:44�pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 11:22�am, ta <tapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > > I'm well aware of that. �The writer of the article is
> > > > claiming that certain phenomena, like the increasing
> > > > scarcity and therefore price of certain resources, is
> > > > evidence of "overshoot", that is, the initial phase of
> > > > some sort of catastrophic ecological breakdown. �I am
> > > > pointing out why that is an excessive claim.
> >
> > > But the reason you provided is a straw man. The article doesn't say
> > > anything specifically about increased costs. It says "Capital,
> > > resources, and labor diverted to activities compensating for the loss
> > > of services that were formerly provided ***without cost by nature****.
> > > The relevant point here is that these activities were once regularly
> > > provided by nature without any human intervention. The fact that human
> > > intervention is required to compensate for nature's inability to keep
> > > up is a sign of overshoot.
> >
> > I can't think of much that is provided free of
> > cost by nature. Air, I guess, but one still has
> > to go to the trouble of breathing. �And if it
> > rains hard, you can get some water by lying
> > back and opening your mouth.
>
> Your definition of cost is specious. Being alive---consuming but not
> being consume---is a state of net profit. You don't have an *exchange*
> with nature when you pick a banana and eat it, or catch a fish. All
> you do is work, and the energy expended is obviously less than the
> energy gained.
I see. So if I'm running a department store, and I
make a profit, then in spite of paying wholesalers,
employees, the power company, maintenance, taxes, etc.
etc. etc., I say my enterprise had zero costs. So
what shall we call what we used to call costs? We're
talking about the things or time or energy or whatever
you part with in order to get what you want from your
customers, or nature, or whatever. I've always said
"cost" but if you've got a better word, let's have it.
tg
> groups.com>,
Yes, but let's say I grow some tomatoes and save the seeds. Next year,
when I plant those seeds, is that a 'cost'? You would have to nitpick
indeed to claim that, by saying that I might sell the seeds and so it
is an opportunity cost. But the author's point, if I understand it, is
that nature offers everyone the ability to grow their own tomatoes, in
which case my seeds would have no market value, and using them would
not be a cost.
-tg
*Anarcissie*
Certainly. It's just not a money cost, but a cost of
time, effort, learning, foresight, self-discipline -- in
short, labor. I don't know why you think costs are
limited to monetary expenditures.
> You would have to nitpick
> indeed to claim that, by saying that I might sell the seeds and so it
> is an opportunity cost. But the author's point, if I understand it, is
> that nature offers everyone the ability to grow their own tomatoes, in
> which case my seeds would have no market value, and using them would
> not be a cost.
Again, I'd like to know what you call X if you have to
give X to get Y. I'd call X a cost but I'll adopt another
nomenclature if you like.
What nature offers is the ability to expend labor and
usually capital and possibly get something in return.
Fred Weiss
> On Dec 21, 7:53 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Yes, but let's say I grow some tomatoes and save the seeds. Next year,
> > when I plant those seeds, is that a 'cost'?
>
> Certainly. It's just not a money cost, but a cost of
> time, effort, learning, foresight, self-discipline -- in
> short, labor. I don't know why you think costs are
> limited to monetary expenditures.
But it's also a money cost if you could have done something more
productive with your time - as even he admits - such as make plows at
which you are very skilled and efficient and then sell them to the
tomato growers, getting back far more tomatoes than you could have had
you in effect wasted your time by planting them yourself.
But as you are observing trying to explain even basic economics to
Tiggy is a fruitless enterprise.
Fred Weiss
*Anarcissie*
> On Dec 21, 11:20 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 7:53 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Yes, but let's say I grow some tomatoes and save the seeds. Next year,
> > > when I plant those seeds, is that a 'cost'?
>
> > Certainly. It's just not a money cost, but a cost of
> > time, effort, learning, foresight, self-discipline -- in
> > short, labor. I don't know why you think costs are
> > limited to monetary expenditures.
>
> But it's also a money cost if you could have done something more
> productive with your time - as even he admits - such as make plows at
> which you are very skilled and efficient and then sell them to the
> tomato growers, getting back far more tomatoes than you could have had
> you in effect wasted your time by planting them yourself.
It's a money cost if you happen to be in a social
context that includes money. My basic idea is that
you're usually going to have to give something to get
something, and the something(s) you give are called
"cost". Money, markets, and so on are special cases
of that principle. We could also speak of "outgoes"
and "income" I suppose -- whatever.
tg
And this leads us back to the eternal question of "what is labor?".
And we also get into your idea about 'replacements', and it is a good
philosophical discussion, which is unfortunately always abandoned in
favor of propaganda and politics.
If I decide to go on a fishing trip, I may well pay money to rent a
canoe, and will have spent money on tackle and so on. But the question
is whether the act of paddling the canoe, casting my lure, bringing
in the fish, cleaning and cooking the fish, and eating the fish,
constitutes 'labor'.
Which part of this is the 'cost' and which part is the 'something I
get in return'? And how is the question different for a farmer or a
hunter-gatherer who spends some portion of his/her time on obtaining
food?
-tg
Fred Weiss
> It's a money cost if you happen to be in a social
> context that includes money.
Well, virtually any social context outside of the most primitive does
include money in some form.
> My basic idea is that you're usually going to have to give something to get
> something, and the something(s) you give are called
> "cost".
Exactly, regardless of the type of money used or medium of exchange -
or even barter for that matter.
Tiggy has this bizarre notion of a primitive fantasy land of
abundance. Even allowing for it, it's not much better than a
subsistence existence. While he may be happy so long as he gets his
fresh fish, given the chance most primitive peoples invariably leap at
the chance to improve their standard of living - even to the point of
literally worshipping its source. Hence the well-known "cargo cults"
of the South Pacific.
Fred Weiss
*Anarcissie*
In this case I'm thinking in much more material terms
which does not require us to find out about anyone's
mental states about what they're doing. We can
think of an individual as an energy system and its
environment as another energy-system. In order for
the individual to acquire more energy (food) it usually
has to expend some energy, and may have to bring
tools (capital) to bear as well. I call these expenditures
"costs". If the energy acquired is greater than the
energy expended, including depreciation of tools,
then the individual has a net gain or profit which is
what the costs were used to obtain. At least, this is
what I mean by costs.
The mental states of this individual do not have to
be taken into consideration to conclude that if the
individual persistently fails to obtain a net gain of
energy, that is, if its costs outrun its gains, it will
die. The same is true of a community of such
individuals no matter how it is organized, although
some modes of organization will achieve this
outcome more rapidly than others.
Now that we have agreed on the meaning of "cost",
we can go back to the overshootist, who contends
that rising costs of resource extraction are a sign of
impending catastrophe. First, there is virtually no
case of cost-free resource extraction. Even in the
pristine forest, one must walk to the stream for a
drink. As resources are acquired those which are
easiest to acquire are taken first, so it is natural
for resource extraction to become more difficult as
time passes. This is not a sign of impending
catastrophe unless you consider the whole
history of _homo_sapiens_ to be an impending
catastrophe, which I concede is a possible
interpretation, but only if "impending" means
"some time in 10,000 years or so." We also
have many cases in which the application of
labor and perhaps capital causes a fall in the
cost of resource extraction, as when our
individuals, tired of walking to the creek, construct
an aqueduct. Needless to say there will be
some who find aqueduct water to be less
attractive than fresh water from the sparkling
creek. As soon as plastic is invented, it will
be possible to sell them premium bottled
sparkling-creek water, possibly from Fiji.
Anyway, I would say the overshootist is
obfuscating important issues of ecology and
economy with spurious and misleading arguments.
While it is fun to go round and round with the
definition of words, it is somewhat depressing
to realize that the public discussion has
degenerated so far into mere propaganda.
tg
I'm not attached to the author's metaphorical language, nor to any
hyperbolic projections of impending catastrophe. My concern is with
your dismissal of the economic/ecological question: Does having
running water necessarily preclude walking to the pure stream?
I think ta is making the case for one of the author's points about
technology being developed when a resource becomes depleted, not
because the new tech is inherently superior. Classic example would be
the switch from wood to coal for heating.
You dismiss preference but your claims seem to be influenced by your
own preferences. How do you figure that building an aqueduct is 'less
costly' than walking to the stream? Or mining coal is 'less costly'
than cutting wood?
It seems to me these are legitimate questions; people are beginning to
examine this class of question in detail when dealing with the net
carbon cost of something, for example,
-tg
Fred Weiss
> ... Does having running water necessarily preclude walking to the pure stream?
Gee, no, Tig. Nor does having cheap clothes from China preclude
keeping a spinning wheel in your house. Nor does flipping on a light
switch preclude kerosene lamps. Nor does being able to spend an hour
or two a week in a supermarket preclude instead spending all day
growing your own food.
> I think ta is making the case for one of the author's points about
> technology being developed when a resource becomes depleted, not
> because the new tech is inherently superior.
Yeah, I guess you could say that fossil fuels are not inherently
superior to whale oil or the hot water heater to boiling your own
water or refrigeration to a root cellar, ice box, or having to shop
almost every day because of food spoilage or...
> You dismiss preference but your claims seem to be influenced by your
> own preferences.
Yeah, Tig, most of us prefer to have other choices for spending our
time than the backbreaking physical labor involved in a subsistence
existence.
> How do you figure that building an aqueduct is 'less
> costly' than walking to the stream? Or mining coal is 'less costly'
> than cutting wood?
Well, I dunno, maybe because streams and woods became less available
with the growth of cities. But, true, we don't have to live in cities.
We can go back to living in tepees.
> It seems to me these are legitimate questions; people are beginning to
> examine this class of question in detail when dealing with the net
> carbon cost of something, for example,
Sure, as soon as you are willing to ignore the net *life* cost of
destroying civilization.
But then very few of us are willing to give up civilization so that
you can have fresh fish - and especially since fresh fish is available
if you are willing to pay for it (and a prosperous, hi-tech economy
would make it possible for many people to do just that.) Why, Tig, you
could even choose to shop at Whole Foods, paying its premium prices,
so long as it doesn't bother you that it's CEO is an outspoken
"libertarian" opposed to socialized medicine.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> ... Does having running water necessarily preclude walking to the pure stream?
Gee, no, Tig. Nor does having cheap clothes from China preclude
keeping a spinning wheel in your house. Nor does flipping on a light
switch preclude kerosene lamps. Nor does being able to spend an hour
or two a week in a supermarket preclude instead spending all day
growing your own food.
> I think ta is making the case for one of the author's points about
> technology being developed when a resource becomes depleted, not
> because the new tech is inherently superior.
Yeah, I guess you could say that fossil fuels are not inherently
superior to whale oil or the hot water heater to boiling your own
water or refrigeration to a root cellar, ice box, or having to shop
almost every day because of food spoilage or...
> You dismiss preference but your claims seem to be influenced by your
> own preferences.
Yeah, Tig, most of us prefer to have other choices for spending our
time than the backbreaking physical labor involved in a subsistence
existence.
> How do you figure that building an aqueduct is 'less
> costly' than walking to the stream? Or mining coal is 'less costly'
> than cutting wood?
Well, I dunno, maybe because streams and woods became less available
with the growth of cities. But, true, we don't have to live in cities.
We can go back to living in tepees.
> It seems to me these are legitimate questions; people are beginning to
> examine this class of question in detail when dealing with the net
> carbon cost of something, for example,
Sure, as soon as you are willing to ignore the net *life* cost of
*Anarcissie*
The overshootist contends that the rising cost of
extracting resources is a sign of impending doom.
I've simply pointed out that that, in itself, has been
a common human experience for the last 10,000
years or so. That does not preclude doom, of
course, but 10,000 years is a long time to wait
for it.
I'm not interested in arguing about individual
preferences, just in refuting the overshootist's
primary argument.
tg
Well, that's not a particularly strong argument. We are pretty
confident that some socio-economic structures (local groupings of
humans living a certain way) have ceased to exist due to resource
depletion relative to population size.
So, what does 'doom' mean beyond its emotional content? A small
village with people living in peace starts to run out of resources,
and changes into an imperial state, conquering and enslaving its
neighbors. Some people would say that the way of life of the village
was doomed by resource depletion, no?
-tg
*Anarcissie*
Locally, sure. And some are wiped out by war, or
disease, or accident. The overshootist was postulating
a universal rule.
> So, what does 'doom' mean beyond its emotional content? A small
> village with people living in peace starts to run out of resources,
> and changes into an imperial state, conquering and enslaving its
> neighbors. Some people would say that the way of life of the village
> was doomed by resource depletion, no?
As I said, I don't believe that imperialism is
caused by the depletion of natural resources,
and I gave an important counterexample.
tg
Lost me there. What is the universal rule you are objecting to? It is
certainly not true that all cases of destruction of a socio-economic
structure is the result of resource depletion, but resource depletion
universally leads to destruction of the socio-economic structure.
>
> > So, what does 'doom' mean beyond its emotional content? A small
> > village with people living in peace starts to run out of resources,
> > and changes into an imperial state, conquering and enslaving its
> > neighbors. Some people would say that the way of life of the village
> > was doomed by resource depletion, no?
>
> As I said, I don't believe that imperialism is
> caused by the depletion of natural resources,
> and I gave an important counterexample.
I tried to look back in the thread but I don't see it. In any case,
you seem to be implying that if there is one case of imperialism that
isn't caused by the desire to obtain natural resources, there are no
cases where it is?
-tg
*Anarcissie*
The universal rule which the overshootist seemed to be
proposing was that the rising cost of resource extraction
was a sure sign of "overshoot", which I take it is some
kind of disaster. I don't believe resource depletion typically
leads to the destruction of the socio-economic structure;
what it is most likely to lead to is substitution of other
resources for those previously in use, and the invention
and development of new methods of resource extraction.
Those activities might destroy the socio-economic
structure, but I think they are more likely to affect the
way in which it changes. This is called "adaptation"
and is a generally considered one of the things
humans are particularly good at.
> > > So, what does 'doom' mean beyond its emotional content? A small
> > > village with people living in peace starts to run out of resources,
> > > and changes into an imperial state, conquering and enslaving its
> > > neighbors. Some people would say that the way of life of the village
> > > was doomed by resource depletion, no?
>
> > As I said, I don't believe that imperialism is
> > caused by the depletion of natural resources,
> > and I gave an important counterexample.
>
> I tried to look back in the thread but I don't see it. In any case,
> you seem to be implying that if there is one case of imperialism that
> isn't caused by the desire to obtain natural resources, there are no
> cases where it is?
If the theory is that imperialism is caused by competition
for resources, and I present one counterexample, then
the theory is incorrect. The counterexample I gave was
that of the United States, which embarked on an
imperial role during the Spanish-American War and
World War 1, when it did not lack any significant
natural resources.
tg
Well, at some level, of course they do. Yoeman farmers become coal
miners. Then they are mistreated, and there is violence, they
unionize, and we get the current socialist state.
That was irony, just in case you didn't get it, but not far from the
truth. Socio-economic structures are strongly determined by how the
group 'makes a living'.
>but I think they are more likely to affect the
> way in which it changes. This is called "adaptation"
> and is a generally considered one of the things
> humans are particularly good at.
As in my example of a bunch of farmers becoming conquerors. See
Sparta for an example.
>
> > > > So, what does 'doom' mean beyond its emotional content? A small
> > > > village with people living in peace starts to run out of resources,
> > > > and changes into an imperial state, conquering and enslaving its
> > > > neighbors. Some people would say that the way of life of the village
> > > > was doomed by resource depletion, no?
>
> > > As I said, I don't believe that imperialism is
> > > caused by the depletion of natural resources,
> > > and I gave an important counterexample.
>
> > I tried to look back in the thread but I don't see it. In any case,
> > you seem to be implying that if there is one case of imperialism that
> > isn't caused by the desire to obtain natural resources, there are no
> > cases where it is?
>
> If the theory is that imperialism is caused by competition
> for resources, and I present one counterexample, then
> the theory is incorrect.
No, your one counterexample only defeats the hypothesis that *all*
imperialism is caused by competition for resources.
It is *your* hypothesis that *no* imperialism is caused by competition
for resources that can be falsified by a single counterexample, and
we have far more than one. We have the entire history of civilization,
full of examples where imperialism was motivated by the desire to
control resources. Or did you think the Conquistadors were actually
interested in converting the heathens for Jesus, and not gold?
> The counterexample I gave was
> that of the United States, which embarked on an
> imperial role during the Spanish-American War and
> World War 1, when it did not lack any significant
> natural resources.
As I said, not all imperialism is caused by the desire to control
resources, although Spanish-American is dubious---I can't agree that
there were *no* territorial ambitions involved.
-tg
*Anarcissie*
It's unwise to use irony on Usenet.
> >but I think they are more likely to affect the
> > way in which it changes. This is called "adaptation"
> > and is a generally considered one of the things
> > humans are particularly good at.
>
> As in my example of a bunch of farmers becoming conquerors. See
> Sparta for an example.
Right. They might become conquerors, or they
might improve their farming methods, or both.
> > > > > So, what does 'doom' mean beyond its emotional content? A small
> > > > > village with people living in peace starts to run out of resources,
> > > > > and changes into an imperial state, conquering and enslaving its
> > > > > neighbors. Some people would say that the way of life of the village
> > > > > was doomed by resource depletion, no?
>
> > > > As I said, I don't believe that imperialism is
> > > > caused by the depletion of natural resources,
> > > > and I gave an important counterexample.
>
> > > I tried to look back in the thread but I don't see it. In any case,
> > > you seem to be implying that if there is one case of imperialism that
> > > isn't caused by the desire to obtain natural resources, there are no
> > > cases where it is?
>
> > If the theory is that imperialism is caused by competition
> > for resources, and I present one counterexample, then
> > the theory is incorrect.
>
> No, your one counterexample only defeats the hypothesis that *all*
> imperialism is caused by competition for resources.
That is what I took to be your proposition.
> It is *your* hypothesis that *no* imperialism is caused by competition
> for resources that can be falsified by a single counterexample, and
> we have far more than one. We have the entire history of civilization,
> full of examples where imperialism was motivated by the desire to
> control resources. Or did you think the Conquistadors were actually
> interested in converting the heathens for Jesus, and not gold?
I think a number of conditions might set off an
imperial episode. Resource depletion is one
possibility. But resource depletion might lead to
other behaviors, and as I've pointed out there
are instances of imperialism which were not set
off or driven by resource depletion.
Fred Weiss
> ... We have the entire history of civilization,
> full of examples where imperialism was motivated by the desire to
> control resources.
We also have the entire history of civilization of the state and
despots motivated by the desire to control people. Socialism and
fascism being its most recent embodiment.
The Enlightenment - and the American Revolution - countered that
notion for the first time in history.
Imperialism was actually a vestige of mercantilism and has faded away
with the growth of capitalism and free trade.
Germany and Japan sought to "control resources" and to engage in
massive death and destruction to achieve it. After their defeat and
our forcing freedom and free markets on them, they exploded
economically and have demonstrated the power of trade vs. military
domination. Both countries get all the "resources" they need, which
they don't possess themselves, by trading the product of their
industrial and financial prowess. Other countries do the same with
even more limited resources, such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
In contrast other countries with ample resources, such as in Africa,
continue to wallow in poverty.
Fred Weiss
tg
Ok, but I think you can only supply a tiny number of examples (if any)
where capitalist/mercantilist entities have eschewed embarking on
imperial adventures in an attempt to extend their survival as such.
The adaptation you so admire is usually connected with a more
communitarian ethos and socio-economic system. Compare the
Scandanavian countries with the rest of Europe.
More recently, consider how, while the US invades Iraq, Sweden is
building biomass electrical plants, Denmark is building wind
generators, and so on.
-tg
Fred Weiss
> ...Compare the Scandanavian countries with the rest of Europe.
Before or after the Vikings? As for now, the comparison is between
welfare states, so it's not clear what would be compared.
> More recently, consider how, while the US invades Iraq,...
With the active help and support of many European countries, including
Denmark.
> Sweden is...
...the epitome of cowardice. They were also "neutral" against the
Nazis, lacking even an active underground.
Their cowardice continued after WWll when they became one of the few
Western countries to not join NATO. So just as they expected others to
defeat the Nazis, they expected others to protect them from the
Russians.
Norway and Denmark are members - as of course are nearly all the
formerly Soviet dominated countries of Eastern Europe.
Fred Weiss
Anarcissie
<0a86cc3b-37ac-497c...@a21g2000yqc.googl
egroups.com>,
tg <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Of course, imperial excursions depend on power.
A few hundred years ago, Sweden was a relatively
powerful state and its rulers found it necessary to
invade Germany, Poland, Russia and Finland. The
usual course of events ensued and Sweden wound
up broke and relatively powerless, unable to swing
much weight internationally. Doubtless this made
biomass plants more interesting. It also led to an
increase of social welfare programs since the
lower orders had to be placated by something
besides war and booty. I imagine this is what
will happen to the U.S. in the next twenty or
thirty years.
Anarcissie
<e25de1ed-dc90-4ef0...@c34g2000yqn.googl
egroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
Don't forget that the German and Japanese ruling
classes (and people) of the 1930s had both been
put through resource wringers by the other
imperial powers of the day. Unfortunately this
sort of thing still seems to be going on.
tg
> egroups.com>,
Can't argue with that---but it supports my point. Imperialism is
*usually* what happens when you need to take other people's resources.
If that fails, you figure out how to 'adapt'. They put together a
model of high quality production, with an educated workforce, and
adapted to their existing resource base, which is pretty renewable---
and that's been the case for a while.
-tg
Anarcissie
<03b5a733-a2ca-4b0e...@j4g2000yqe.google
> On Dec 23, 8:44�am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > ...Compare the Scandanavian countries with the rest of Europe.
>
> Before or after the Vikings? As for now, the comparison is between
> welfare states, so it's not clear what would be compared.
>
> > More recently, consider how, while the US invades Iraq,...
>
> With the active help and support of many European countries, including
> Denmark.
Europe, in spite of its size, is still pretty much a
satellite of the U.S. I wouldn't call their help and
support "active"; it's rather like tribute. There has
been some talk about throwing off the U.S. and NATO,
but "lie back, relax and enjoy it" seems to still be
the dominant philosophy. If the U.S. goes broke
things may change. I do find this lack of autonomy
and responsibility unattractive, but considering the
amount of trouble Europe as made for the world in the
past it seems like an improvement.
> > Sweden is...
>
> ...the epitome of cowardice. They were also "neutral" against the
> Nazis, lacking even an active underground.
Why would they need an underground? But in fact there
were plenty of anti-Nazi Communists in Sweden, although
there were probably more anti-Communist Nazis. A Swede
once told me that, had entering World War 2 become an
issue, there would have been a civil war (as there was
in Yugoslavia over the same issue) followed by Sweden
joining the Nazis; so it may have been just as well
they stayed out.
> Their cowardice continued after WWll when they became one of the few
> Western countries to not join NATO. So just as they expected others to
> defeat the Nazis, they expected others to protect them from the
> Russians.
>
> Norway and Denmark are members - as of course are nearly all the
> formerly Soviet dominated countries of Eastern Europe.
I think that's just satellite politics. The U.S.
leadership may well have preferred to have Sweden and
Finland as buffer states. Moving NATO into Sweden
would have been a good excuse for the Soviets to move
into Finland. Then what? Either nothing, or something
bad. Even imperialists occasionally show signs of
common sense.
ta
No, the claim is this:
"Capital, resources, and labor diverted to activities
compensating for the loss of services that were formerly provided
without cost by nature (for example, sewage treatment, air
purification, water purification, flood control, pest control,
restoration of soil nutrients, pollination, or the preservation of
species)"
Rather than walk to the stream and have a sip, we have elaborate (and
costly) mechanisms for attempting to purify water for drinking. IOW,
we're trying to re-create what Nature once provided on its own without
any human intervention.
The only "cost" involved obtaining the water is the walk to the
stream; that is what is meant by "cost free". Juxtapose that with the
costs associated with grand scale water and sewage treatment and it
would seem a nitpick to claim that the former is not cost-free.
> I've simply pointed out that that, in itself, has been
> a common human experience for the last 10,000
> years or so.
>
> That does not preclude doom, of
> course, but 10,000 years is a long time to wait
> for it.
The Earth is a pretty powerful and resilient system, and along with
human technology and innovation, we can mitigate the effects of poor
management, and at least temporarily postpone collapse. Why we would
choose to continue down that path is incomprehensible to me when there
are far more intelligent choices available.
Contrary to some popular "free market" myths, the earth is not a
magical, limitless system. See "global climate change" for example.
ta
The other relevant point here is that if Easter Island collapses,
while clearly that's not good, it's not the end of the world as we
know it. On the other hand, in 21st century civilization, we've gone
global; we are interconnected in ways that have enormous ramifications
for the survival of the earth and its inhabitants. The world is
becoming "smaller", so to speak. The earth is like Easter Island in
the sense that it is essentially an island, with finite, limited
resources to exploit. Of course, the Easter Island inhabitants didn't
have the technology and innovation that we have, but I'd like to know
what the suitable replacements are for clean water, clean air, and
arable land, for example.
> So, what does 'doom' mean beyond its emotional content? A small
> village with people living in peace starts to run out of resources,
> and changes into an imperial state, conquering and enslaving its
> neighbors. Some people would say that the way of life of the village
> was doomed by resource depletion, no?
Yes.
ta
It doesn't even do that. Of course the Spanish-American war was about
the control over resources. We certainly weren't out to "liberate" the
Cubans. We conquered one slavemaster and replaced them with another.
We were setting up shop in the next area of the world that was ripe
for the picking . . . literally.
James A. Donald
> Don't forget that the German and Japanese ruling
> classes (and people) of the 1930s had both been put
> through resource wringers by the other imperial powers
> of the day.
I am totally unsurprised that those who lie on behalf of
Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao, also lie on behalf of the
Kaiser, Hitler and Tojo.
No, Germany and Japan had *not* been put through
tg
Crazy greenola. Nature is your enemy; it must be conquered and paved
over!
> Rather than walk to the stream and have a sip, we have elaborate (and
> costly) mechanisms for attempting to purify water for drinking. IOW,
> we're trying to re-create what Nature once provided on its own without
> any human intervention.
>
> The only "cost" involved obtaining the water is the walk to the
> stream; that is what is meant by "cost free". Juxtapose that with the
> costs associated with grand scale water and sewage treatment and it
> would seem a nitpick to claim that the former is not cost-free.
And we could, with a reasonable population, have running water in the
house and even flush toilets, and the stream would still be drinkable.
And have those elitist fresh fish in it.
>
> > I've simply pointed out that that, in itself, has been
> > a common human experience for the last 10,000
> > years or so.
>
> > That does not preclude doom, of
> > course, but 10,000 years is a long time to wait
> > for it.
>
> The Earth is a pretty powerful and resilient system, and along with
> human technology and innovation, we can mitigate the effects of poor
> management, and at least temporarily postpone collapse. Why we would
> choose to continue down that path is incomprehensible to me when there
> are far more intelligent choices available.
You mean living in a comfortable house with indoor plumbing, and
walking to a stream to catch your dinner, is preferable to having the
largest possible tv and having a closet full of cheap sneakers in
every possible color? You really are a crazy greenola.
-tg
ta
Sadly, that really is the history of western civilization. Nature is
to be feared, controlled, and tamed. Western man is a domesticator. In
fact, I think the labradoodle is the perfect symbol of modern western
thought. ;-)
> > Rather than walk to the stream and have a sip, we have elaborate (and
> > costly) mechanisms for attempting to purify water for drinking. IOW,
> > we're trying to re-create what Nature once provided on its own without
> > any human intervention.
>
> > The only "cost" involved obtaining the water is the walk to the
> > stream; that is what is meant by "cost free". Juxtapose that with the
> > costs associated with grand scale water and sewage treatment and it
> > would seem a nitpick to claim that the former is not cost-free.
>
> And we could, with a reasonable population, have running water in the
> house and even flush toilets, and the stream would still be drinkable.
> And have those elitist fresh fish in it.
You mean we don't have to "go back to the stone age" and carry torches
or sleep in teepees? Who's the crazy greenola now?
> > > I've simply pointed out that that, in itself, has been
> > > a common human experience for the last 10,000
> > > years or so.
>
> > > That does not preclude doom, of
> > > course, but 10,000 years is a long time to wait
> > > for it.
>
> > The Earth is a pretty powerful and resilient system, and along with
> > human technology and innovation, we can mitigate the effects of poor
> > management, and at least temporarily postpone collapse. Why we would
> > choose to continue down that path is incomprehensible to me when there
> > are far more intelligent choices available.
>
> You mean living in a comfortable house with indoor plumbing, and
> walking to a stream to catch your dinner, is preferable to having the
> largest possible tv and having a closet full of cheap sneakers in
> every possible color?
What about having access to all the tasteless, leathery, genetically
modified tomatoes and iceberg lettuce you can eat at the Wendy's salad
bar?!?
> You really are a crazy greenola.
No, I'm actually an official member of the "sane minority" (tm).
Fred Weiss
Or even better, all of the above with the addition of someone else "to
catch your dinner" for you so you can spend more time in front of your
large tv and enjoy your closets bulging with clothes, cheap, not so
cheap, or high priced designer (or whatever you wish and can afford).
> What about having access to all the tasteless, leathery, genetically
> modified tomatoes and iceberg lettuce you can eat at the Wendy's salad
> bar?!?
Or certifiably greenola "organic" and "local" from the politically
correct coop - so long of course as you are willing to pay the premium
prices and you're not snooty about a little thing like having a year
round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables.
> > > Contrary to some popular "free market" myths, the earth is not a
> > > magical, limitless system.
Actually with technological innovation that's precisely what it is.
Apparently you still haven't gotten the memo that Malthus has been
totally debunked- either that or - as I suspect is the case - you are
in a self-induced delusional time warp.
Fred Weiss
*Anarcissie*
Sure they had been -- real and threatened. In
1900, imperialism seemed to be the only game
in town and a big motivation was getting control
of valuable resources and denying them to the
other guys. What else were the British doing in
the Middle East? After World War 1, the
Germans were put through a regime of
starvation by the Allies until the Allies began
to fear the Germans would turn Communist.
Like hanging, starvation wonderfully
concentrates people's minds. The British
guaranteed themselves civil war and
secession in Ireland by starving the Irish.
Recall also that in 1941, the British and
American governments placed an embargo
on oil to Japan, which gave the Japanese
ruling class the choice of war or surrender --
they needed the oil to keep their own
imperial thing going.
I don't know why you think I'm lying on behalf
of anybody. For one thing, the people we're
talking about have no behalf -- they're long
dead. For another, I'm simply reciting history
which anybody can read. And should read,
if they do not wish to repeat it.
*Anarcissie*
Right there is where you're going wrong. There is
virtually no cost-free extraction of resources. The
fallacy of cost-free resource extraction is later
expanded into a sort of fairy tale falsely comparing
a mythical world of cost-free resources with the
dreary, everyday world we know where we must
trade labor -- attention, time, energy, effort, skill,
capital -- to obtain further resources, find new
ones, or rework one's way of life to make better
use of the existing stuff. In any case, none of
that is necessarily a sign of "overshoot", it's
simply a fact of life.
>
> Rather than walk to the stream and have a sip, we have elaborate (and
> costly) mechanisms for attempting to purify water for drinking. IOW,
> we're trying to re-create what Nature once provided on its own without
> any human intervention.
>
> The only "cost" involved obtaining the water is the walk to the
> stream; that is what is meant by "cost free". Juxtapose that with the
> costs associated with grand scale water and sewage treatment and it
> would seem a nitpick to claim that the former is not cost-free.
>
> > I've simply pointed out that that, in itself, has been
> > a common human experience for the last 10,000
> > years or so.
>
> > That does not preclude doom, of
> > course, but 10,000 years is a long time to wait
> > for it.
>
> The Earth is a pretty powerful and resilient system, and along with
> human technology and innovation, we can mitigate the effects of poor
> management, and at least temporarily postpone collapse. Why we would
> choose to continue down that path is incomprehensible to me when there
> are far more intelligent choices available.
>
> Contrary to some popular "free market" myths, the earth is not a
> magical, limitless system. See "global climate change" for example.
That's an argument over the use of resources,
another thing that's been going on for the last
10,000 years or so. It is the "overshoot" theory
that posits a magical, limitless earth. I'm the
person who says that resource extraction always
entails costs.
tg
A, he just gave counterexamples to your statement! How can you ignore
them?
For example, if you have plenty of land, you can avoid buying
fertilizer and pesticide. Are you claiming that crop rotation is a
'cost'? What, the act of making a list of which fields get which
crops this year is onerous labor?
I suspect the problem is that you don't deal holistically with what
costs are involved in any practice, as I mentioned earlier. Do you
think that in human history people didn't realize that monoculture
would make planting and harvesting a little easier? They no doubt
tried it, and recognized that there was indeed a cost, and that it
wasn't worth doing. We are not in a golden age of agriculture based on
ingenuity, it is through extraction of fossil fuels, with its
associated costs of war and pollution, that we achieve current levels
of production.
-tg
*Anarcissie*
Of course crop rotation is a cost. For one thing,
earning or winning the knowledge requires years
and years of crop failures and consequent hunger,
famine, war, and so on. Then that information
has to be conveyed forward from generation to
generation in spite of everything. Finally it has
to be faithfully practiced, which requires not only
planning but attention and self-discipline.
> I suspect the problem is that you don't deal holistically with what
> costs are involved in any practice, as I mentioned earlier.
I am the person in this discussion who is
thinking and writing holistically. You and ta have
divided the universe into a fairy-tale world and
an overshoot world with no connection with one
another.
> Do you
> think that in human history people didn't realize that monoculture
> would make planting and harvesting a little easier? They no doubt
> tried it, and recognized that there was indeed a cost, and that it
> wasn't worth doing. We are not in a golden age of agriculture based on
> ingenuity, it is through extraction of fossil fuels, with its
> associated costs of war and pollution, that we achieve current levels
> of production.
I am not the one who has been writing about a
golden age of agriculture.
James A. Donald
> > No, Germany and Japan had *not* been put through
> > resource wringers by the other imperial powers of the
> > day.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Sure they had been -- real and threatened. In
> 1900, imperialism seemed to be the only game
> in town and a big motivation was getting control
> of valuable resources and denying them to the
> other guys.
That is the fascist account of colonialism, which has no discernable
connection to reality. The primary cost of resources, then as now,
was extracting them, and once extracted, the primary thing people did
with resources was sell them on the world market, then as now.
Japan's program of imperial conquest cut off its access to resources,
by disrupting trade, and by disrupting the extraction of resources in
recently conquered areas.
> What else were the British doing in
> the Middle East?
The announced and obvious reasons: Ending slavery, protecting the Suez
canal and the right of British shipping to use the Suez canal,
securing freedom of trade for british merchants, protecting the
Christian and Jewish minorities in the Middle East, putting the
Ottoman empire out of business, and the rest. The stuff they said at
the time, a mixture of do-gooder, business, and balance of power
objectives, pretty much the sort of reasons that the US intervenes for
today.
> After World War 1, the
> Germans were put through a regime of
> starvation by the Allies until the Allies began
> to fear the Germans would turn Communist.
The blockade did NOT continue during the armistice. The Armistice
allowed the Germans to import food. That food shipments were slow
during the armistice was the result of German bureaucracy limiting
Germans from doing business with the world, not any blockade. The
German famine that followed World War I was, like the British famine
that followed World War II, self inflicted, a result of wartime
socialism continued into peacetime. The problem was that food imports
had to be done by German bureaucrats, rather than German wholesalers,
and the German bureaucrats, as usual, screwed up.
> I don't know why you think I'm lying on behalf
> of anybody.
The resource justification is the fascist justification. It is not
true, and it is party of fascist theory.
Fred Weiss
> For example, if you have plenty of land, you can avoid buying
> fertilizer and pesticide.
That's highly doubtful, not if you are trying for the highest yields
possible.
But more fundamentally, technological applications to agriculture has
made it possible to grow vast amounts of food on *less land*. That in
itself lowers cost because land is often expensive.
That aside, less land used for agriculture means more land available
for other things, e.g. housing, shopping centers, research parks,
manufacturing, etc. etc.
And one other thing, less land used for agriculture has resulted in a
considerable amount of reforestation. My own area was once farm/ranch
land. It is now predominantly woods. I've heard that we have more
trees now in the US than we did 100 years ago. But 100 years ago half
the population needed to be involved in agriculture to feed the
population. Today it's about 3%.
(snip the rest of Tiggy's typical ignorant and boring blather)
Fred Weiss