The Earth is Full - A Gibbsian Orgasm Piece

[kptvol]

Gibbs, I fully acknowledge your many limitations.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MG1968]

Faustus was my favorite character in the old "Gunsmoke" series.

 

[volinbham]

Schumpter and the notion of creative destruction explain how capitalistic growth can and does occur without population growth.

 

[volinbham]

I don't think anyone has taken a purely Malthusian view on the population question. HOWEVER, it will be interesting to see how we feed the 10 billion (the estimated leveling off point) with few hydrocarbon inputs AND 550ppm CO2. Cuba, again, has provided the only real world example I know of that has come close.

BUT, it's not us I'm worried about - it's everybody else. Biodiversity is obviously adversely affected by population increase. The true impoverishment of the world is already happening, at a rate that makes the Chixulub meteor appear to moving at a snail's pace.

As for economic growth - population is a primary driver. However, the 20th century saw technology "expand the bubble" so to speak and generate the majority of that century's wealth. However, even here we are at a point of diminishing returns for technology. Hence, the mad rush of the Capitalists to get into biotech, the only potential growth tech industry. We have also seen the rather ludicrous and somewhat sinister practice of patenting genetic material. There is no amount of :crazy: the Capitalsts will go to in order to secure profits.

"Innovation will save us!" is an understandable, but ultimately naive fantasy. It has been clear for a long time we are on the down slope of diminishing returns on technology.

What can truly save us is a change in culture, and I believe it starts with two absolutely amazing revelations whose truths were revealed only in our own historic time:

1. That we are the genetic kin of every living thing on the planet
2. That we are only fully human when acknowledging our limitations.

Break out your Faust. We are intimately connected to this planet, and this planet as it has existed for the last two million years. We cannot create something from nothing like good Doctor Faustus, and we are in the process of creating an alien world.

Cuba serves kettle chips and would never create and distribute Pringles.

GSM

 

[jamesd1628]

Diminishing need for growth assumes innovation cessation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So to what extent can innovation fuel growth? Physics would seem to impose a hard limit at some point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[jamesd1628]

Schumpter and the notion of creative destruction explain how capitalistic growth can and does occur without population growth.

I haven't read Schumpter, but it seems to me that, if growth isn't fueled by population, then there is only one other possible fuel: hard resources. Hard resources have a limit, so what provides the growth? Everything must trace back to resources, either human or physical, both of which have a limit.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[jamesd1628]

global warming will save us.

imagine those millions, billions of hectares of unusable, frozen land in Siberia and Canada converted into arable land for the purpose of crop production and living space.

I think I'll go out and buy an SUV now.

I recognize the sarcasm, but there surely is an implication embedded here: growth for the sake of . . . growth? What is the end game? That is the question for capitalism.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[jamesd1628]

Capitalist growth without a net population increase relies on increased mechanization of means of production, at least in a common theoretical understanding. Means of production being the foundation for any capitalist expansion here.

I heard a good analogy for this. In the 19th century, music would come from a guitar or violin. Took just one person to assemble this, maybe some more to gather the materials but in general production of one stringed instrument was fairly simple and comparatively small scale. Then you had the gramophone as one of the early results of industrialization. The purpose was the same, to listen to music, but the process for building one became much more involved. Factories were made to produce these for increasing population and thus increasing demand (although this could theoretically happen with static population as well). The process becomes more mechanized. Then you have even further mechanization with cassette tapes and international production and much more complicated machinery, even moreso with cd's, and even more with mp3 players.

So the very act of listening to music has undergone incredible expansion in every way over the course of the last 200 years or so.

The same theory of economic growth can be applied to calculators, paper, farming, entertainment, you name it.

What capitalist western countries have done isn't work themselves beyond these means; the man hours are still needed but they are occurring in other countries now where input capital is minimal.

Obviously since mechanization requires fewer man hours, there will be a tipping point where people are less and less needed for economic growth. Who knows when that will be.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Admittedly, I'm going to have to think about this post a bit before I can fully understand what you're saying. I am, however, reminded of my uncle, who is a techno addict. He is, for example, obsessed with the resolution enhancements of TVs. He can't wait until the next TV comes out that comes even closer to producing a true picture of a flower. He will gather everyone around the TV to show everyone how real the flower looks. I always have the same reaction: why not walk outside and look at a real flower? A TV will never be able to reproduce the real thing. Physics prohibit a reproduction of reality.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

My post was an exceedingly crude example of te marxist-Leninist conception of capitalist growth. I have yet to read an economist that takes issue with at least that portion of their ideas.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[jamesd1628]

My post was an exceedingly crude example of te marxist-Leninist conception of capitalist growth. I have yet to read an economist that takes issue with at least that portion of their ideas.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I'm not being sarcastic here. Are you saying Marxist/Leninist thought has proposed an explanation of the apparent conflict between the fact of limited resources and the capitalistic idea of constant growth?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

So to what extent can innovation fuel growth? Physics would seem to impose a hard limit at some point.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Innovation spawns entire new economies, mindsets, lifestyles. Im not limiting my comments to electronic technology.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

No, their end game was the occurrence of socialism once the means of production were adequate -- Marx actually worked to promote capitalism in the middle 19th century for this reason.

That obviously didn't work. The general consensus I've gleaned from economists who've studied him is that he did an excellent job explaining how things got to that point, but was completely off on what would happen. For example, there is no prediction for the rise of fascism. Somebody here iirc (maybe Gibbs fwiw) quoted a saying they have in the former east bloc: "everything Marx said about capitalism was right -- everything he said about socialism was wrong." this was corroborated by a couple friends whose parents were from Ukraine and Estonia.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[jamesd1628]

Innovation spawns entire new economies, mindsets, lifestyles. Im not limiting my comments to electronic technology.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I can agree that innovation can be transformative, but even so, nothing can transform without an effect on resources. The end result is always a draw on resources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

This thread reminds me of that movie "collapse." worthwhile viewing -- the guy in it is nuts but a good film.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

global warming will save us.

imagine those millions, billions of hectares of unusable, frozen land in Siberia and Canada converted into arable land for the purpose of crop production and living space.

I think I'll go out and buy an SUV now.

How is Siberian and Canadian crops going to help Sub Saharan Africa?

Don't tell me we can bring it to them, because we (the worldly we) let them starve and die now, when their food shortage is relatively mild compared to what could come about.

 

[IPorange]

And much of what the footprint stuff is getting at is ecological capacity and recharge-- not economic. I'm not sure how economic innovation is going to change fishery recovery or soil formation on oceanic and continental scales.

 

[utgibbs]

Schumpter and the notion of creative destruction explain how capitalistic growth can and does occur without population growth.

I think Naomi Klein has brilliantly demonstrated exactly where this logic takes us. Ol' John Williamson summed it up brilliantly:

"One will have to ask whether it could conceivably make sense to think of deliberately provoking a crisis so as to remove the political logjam of reform..."

Disaster capitalism, which we see every day in glorious technicolor, could not be summarized better. By the man who coined "the Washington Consensus."

Yet there is something to be said for "creative destruction" - perhaps not in the way you and Schumpeter believe (maybe Schumpeter)

In Capitalist reproduction, the notion is either 1. sinister as described by Williamson or 2. suffers from diminishing returns. Despite all the efforts of the last 10 years, and the growth of the Cleantech sector, there is still no easier way to produce electricity than to burn coal and natural gas. Technology is having greatly diminished returns.

Just as a for instance, we may imagine a world where we can "creatively destroy" the grid - and I think about this a lot - but those solutions never ever fit a Capitalist conception of how things should be done.

We can think of hundreds of other examples: flat screen vs cathode ray; washing machines; cars; the list is endless. Take hybrid technology - its little more than a clever gimmick. It's not like the step-change, for instance, to color television broadcasting. Technology is having diminishing returns - as it is utilized in a Capitalist mode of social reproduction.

Technology, however, can be revolutionized to new modes of social reproduction. This is true "creative destruction," and is the one way we could improve QoL while living more in sync with the planet upon which we depend. Such a revolution would also recognize technology is not a savior but a tool to improve the quality of people's lives. It's not a method exclusive to increasing the sphere of Capital.

Another for instance: The one radical technology innovation - the Internet - is trying to be reeled into a Capitalist mode of reproduction. It has proven resilient against the attacks, because it does involve a new social paradigm. Wikipedia is actually an incredible example of what could be unleashed by rejecting Capital production and unleashing the free time of the people. This is the real powerhouse of creative potential in the world.

 

[kptvol]

"glorious technicolor" is pretty well played now, Gibbs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

I haven't read Schumpter, but it seems to me that, if growth isn't fueled by population, then there is only one other possible fuel: hard resources. Hard resources have a limit, so what provides the growth? Everything must trace back to resources, either human or physical, both of which have a limit.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I think we need some common understanding on what we mean by "growth".

What I'm referring to is that change is a natural imperative and innovation occurs regardless of population growth. Capitalism works fine in a world of zero population growth - creative destruction is basically a view innovation via entrepreneurship.

Here's an example. The iPod and shift to digital music is a perfect example of creative destruction and capitalism that requires no population growth. As for resources, this particular shift is likely an earth friendly shift that provides massive consumer convenience and plenty of profit growth yet requires no reliance on population growth.

Looked at more broadly, growth can occur without additional resource consumption as the population is freed up to pursue additional innovation.

 

[volinbham]

I think Naomi Klein has brilliantly demonstrated exactly where this logic takes us. Ol' John Williamson summed it up brilliantly:

"One will have to ask whether it could conceivably make sense to think of deliberately provoking a crisis so as to remove the political logjam of reform..."

"disaster or crisis capitalism" ala Naomi Klein is not what Schumpeter nor creative destruction is about at all. While she throws a shout out to the notion her critique is not about creative destruction. To add to that, her thesis is flawed as proven by the current inhabitant of the WH who has used crisis not to advance free market capitalism but instead advance government involvement and crony capitalism.


Disaster capitalism, which we see every day in glorious technicolor, could not be summarized better. By the man who coined "the Washington Consensus."

Yet there is something to be said for "creative destruction" - perhaps not in the way you and Schumpeter believe (maybe Schumpeter)

In Capitalist reproduction, the notion is either 1. sinister as described by Williamson or 2. suffers from diminishing returns. Despite all the efforts of the last 10 years, and the growth of the Cleantech sector, there is still no easier way to produce electricity than to burn coal and natural gas. Technology is having greatly diminished returns.

Just as a for instance, we may imagine a world where we can "creatively destroy" the grid - and I think about this a lot - but those solutions never ever fit a Capitalist conception of how things should be done.

We can think of hundreds of other examples: flat screen vs cathode ray; washing machines; cars; the list is endless. Take hybrid technology - its little more than a clever gimmick. It's not like the step-change, for instance, to color television broadcasting. Technology is having diminishing returns - as it is utilized in a Capitalist mode of social reproduction.

Technology, however, can be revolutionized to new modes of social reproduction. This is true "creative destruction," and is the one way we could improve QoL while living more in sync with the planet upon which we depend. Such a revolution would also recognize technology is not a savior but a tool to improve the quality of people's lives. It's not a method exclusive to increasing the sphere of Capital.

Another for instance: The one radical technology innovation - the Internet - is trying to be reeled into a Capitalist mode of reproduction. It has proven resilient against the attacks, because it does involve a new social paradigm. Wikipedia is actually an incredible example of what could be unleashed by rejecting Capital production and unleashing the free time of the people. This is the real powerhouse of creative potential in the world.

what makes you think the Internet is not exactly what capitalism and creative destruction are all about?

 

[volinbham]

And much of what the footprint stuff is getting at is ecological capacity and recharge-- not economic. I'm not sure how economic innovation is going to change fishery recovery or soil formation on oceanic and continental scales.

Did you happen to see the 60 Minutes (repeat) about Craig Venter? He is using economic incentive to design and genetically engineer new organisms - many of the energy companies are large investors.

In short, you cannot separate economic from the equation. The history of man is economic and there is no escape from adding economic consideration into analysis. Or, any analysis on this scale without adding economic variables is incomplete and has serious problems with external validity.

 

[volger]

Too much too fast. Brain hurts from this thread....Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

 

[volinbham]

I can agree that innovation can be transformative, but even so, nothing can transform without an effect on resources. The end result is always a draw on resources.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Let's explore this - if all actions have a draw on resources then even the move towards "less" has a draw on resources. As we reduce conveniences we change our lives - use less of some resources and use more of others.

So we move away from processed foods. What will happen? More fresh production will have to occur at the micro level or we create a bigger resource draw on transportation to reduce transit times for fresh produce and livestock. So if we now all be come partial producers of our own foods what will happen to the local environment? Just one small example but I don't see why the population growth is necessary for capitalism growth is some how the problem here.

Now, let's look at the innovation/capitalism/creative destruction path. If I can innovate to capture nutritional value from algae and create resource neutral growth environments then I can feed more with the same resources or better stated; different and formerly un or under-used resources.

For my money (no pun intended) a capitalistic system encourages this type innovation better than any other system.

 

[IPorange]

Let's explore this - if all actions have a draw on resources then even the move towards "less" has a draw on resources. As we reduce conveniences we change our lives - use less of some resources and use more of others.

So we move away from processed foods. What will happen? More fresh production will have to occur at the micro level or we create a bigger resource draw on transportation to reduce transit times for fresh produce and livestock. So if we now all be come partial producers of our own foods what will happen to the local environment? Just one small example but I don't see why the population growth is necessary for capitalism growth is some how the problem here.

Now, let's look at the innovation/capitalism/creative destruction path. If I can innovate to capture nutritional value from algae and create resource neutral growth environments then I can feed more with the same resources or better stated; different and formerly un or under-used resources.

For my money (no pun intended) a capitalistic system encourages this type innovation better than any other system.

Algae aren't magic. They require nutrients, and are certainly not resource or environmentally neutral.

 

[volinbham]

Algae aren't magic. They require nutrients, and are certainly not resource or environmentally neutral.

I understand that and threw it out as an example of how we might become more efficient - nothing we do is resource neutral. At best we can be better at using resources but the notion that somehow living simpler reduces resource use is off too. If we all start growing our own food I would be we use more not less of those diminishing resources.