The issue has come again in my conversation, and I'd like to expatiate again.
The planet has a carrying capacity that cannot be exceeded. This is an undisputable point. The biosphere is a finite system, whether we like / ignore the fact or not.
We can only find out what that carrying capacity is, I suggest, empirically, by increasing the population. But we still have the problem of quantifying that carrying capacity. It has to be sustainable over time; if we sustained x billion for a month but then people started to die, would that have achieved our target?
Given that we know there is an upper limit, even if we can't quantify it, do we put the brakes on now? My opponent says it is better never to exist than to be born into starvation and curable disease, and that living on another planet is purely fantasy. But this involves speculation that the human population can't be sustained by technology as yet undiscovered and uncovers profound questions about the unborn which are perhaps the epitome of speculation.
If we should put the brakes on now, the problem I still have is with targetting those social groups that currently have the most children per woman. The idea that they can't afford them, or that someone else shouldn't have to bear the expense of them is really abhorrent to me. Is there another species that goes in for this kind of social engineering? Survival of the fittest may seem cruel intellectually, but it is unavoidable in practice.
Social engineering is aan abstraction. It is us imposing our will/morals on others when there are other options.
Friday, 23 August 2013
Friday, 9 August 2013
Population
On the TV news (BBC I expect) recently, an economist was wheeled out to comment on whether the increase in population in the UK and especially London is good for the economy.
Yes, of course there is a need to match resource locations to population locations - a planning and logistical challenge, but what does being 'good for the economy' entail, exactly? How do we know if our ecnomy is doing what we want from it.
"The economy" is an abstract thing, yet it is so oftem mentioned it seems real. Something good for the economy, is something good full-stop.
A good economy is a growing economy, you might say. Usually, economic growth is used to mean an increase in GDP. I have challenged this approach on this blog and elsewhere, as have others far more qualified and able than me to do so. GDP is - very roughly - how much money is spent on things. But money must be spent on things for a reason. What is that reason? What are we trying to get our economy to do?
Have people live longer? That increases population, everything else being equal, yet it does seem to be what we are trying to do. Why do we want more people alive? I would say every species tries to increase its population, so why shouldn't we?
Quantifying the population that the planet can sustain can only really be done for definite by increasing population towards that limit. Te big questin for me is do we aim to have a sustainable population over time, or at any one time.
Yes, of course there is a need to match resource locations to population locations - a planning and logistical challenge, but what does being 'good for the economy' entail, exactly? How do we know if our ecnomy is doing what we want from it.
"The economy" is an abstract thing, yet it is so oftem mentioned it seems real. Something good for the economy, is something good full-stop.
A good economy is a growing economy, you might say. Usually, economic growth is used to mean an increase in GDP. I have challenged this approach on this blog and elsewhere, as have others far more qualified and able than me to do so. GDP is - very roughly - how much money is spent on things. But money must be spent on things for a reason. What is that reason? What are we trying to get our economy to do?
Have people live longer? That increases population, everything else being equal, yet it does seem to be what we are trying to do. Why do we want more people alive? I would say every species tries to increase its population, so why shouldn't we?
Quantifying the population that the planet can sustain can only really be done for definite by increasing population towards that limit. Te big questin for me is do we aim to have a sustainable population over time, or at any one time.
Sunday, 28 July 2013
Will you take a punt?
I was conversing with a climate change sceptic today. His thesis was that the whole global warming thing is just another attempt to make money.
I can understand his cynicism. Unless we verify scientific research ourselves, how can we ever absolutely know to what extent it is purely objective, and how much of it arises from the fact that scientists have to eat and to eat the have to make money.
Yes - the oil companies may be on board with the climate change consensus to make money, but making money is what our current system idolises. It makes it very diffiicult to judge whether someone is being objective, given the temptation.
If man made climate change is really happening, and if it is catastrophic, and it is not too late to do something, then, logically, we have no choice but to act if we want to save humanity and the consquences of inaction are dire.
The consequences of action are not dire, At best we will be wasting time/effort in a misguided attempt save ourselves for something that it is not in fact a threat.
In a simple truth table it looks like this:
Four possibilities. We cannot change whether man made climate change is true or false. We can only change whether we act on it or not. If we act on it, we save ourseles from it. If we don't, we gamble on whther it is true or not.
I can understand his cynicism. Unless we verify scientific research ourselves, how can we ever absolutely know to what extent it is purely objective, and how much of it arises from the fact that scientists have to eat and to eat the have to make money.
Yes - the oil companies may be on board with the climate change consensus to make money, but making money is what our current system idolises. It makes it very diffiicult to judge whether someone is being objective, given the temptation.
If man made climate change is really happening, and if it is catastrophic, and it is not too late to do something, then, logically, we have no choice but to act if we want to save humanity and the consquences of inaction are dire.
The consequences of action are not dire, At best we will be wasting time/effort in a misguided attempt save ourselves for something that it is not in fact a threat.
In a simple truth table it looks like this:
| TRUE | FALSE | |
| ACT | OK | OK |
| DON'T ACT | !!!!!! | OK |
Four possibilities. We cannot change whether man made climate change is true or false. We can only change whether we act on it or not. If we act on it, we save ourseles from it. If we don't, we gamble on whther it is true or not.
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
Manfred Max Neef
There's a playlist of videos of progressive economist Max Neef here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOsw2To4GRY&list=PLFC602C39EF0B310C
It is worthy of your time. I found a transcript here
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/22/chilean_economist_manfred_max_neef_us
from which I want to extract a nugget:
"The principles ,... of an economics which should be[,] are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.
One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy [sic]
Two, development is about people and not about objects.
Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.
Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.
Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.
And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life"
and in the interview, Max Neef clarifies / expands on two terms used:
"Nothing can be more important than life. And I say life, not human beings, because, for me, the center is the miracle of life in all its manifestations."
"Growth is a quantitative accumulation. Development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Every living system in nature grows up to a certain point and stops growing. You are not growing anymore, nor he nor me. But we continue developing ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn’t be dialoguing here now. So development has no limits. Growth has limits."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOsw2To4GRY&list=PLFC602C39EF0B310C
It is worthy of your time. I found a transcript here
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/22/chilean_economist_manfred_max_neef_us
from which I want to extract a nugget:
"The principles ,... of an economics which should be[,] are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.
One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy [sic]
Two, development is about people and not about objects.
Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.
Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.
Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.
And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life"
and in the interview, Max Neef clarifies / expands on two terms used:
"Nothing can be more important than life. And I say life, not human beings, because, for me, the center is the miracle of life in all its manifestations."
"Growth is a quantitative accumulation. Development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Every living system in nature grows up to a certain point and stops growing. You are not growing anymore, nor he nor me. But we continue developing ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn’t be dialoguing here now. So development has no limits. Growth has limits."
Monday, 15 July 2013
BBC compliant in "economic growth" lie
The BBC just broadcast a TV news item on the reducing rate of economic growth - a widely deployed euphemism for increase in GDP - in China. The preamble stated as fact that getting economic growth is a worldwide problem. Thus the whole item was based on the false premise that an increase in GDP is entirely desirable.
The New Scientist reported on the Genuine Progress Indicator - a measurement that removes negative elemts from GDP. As the article puts it:
"[GDP as a] measure of prosperity fails to account for social factors and environmental costs. Oil spills and crime, for example, increase GDP because money must be spent on clean-up and replacement of lost goods, yet few would claim that they increase the general well-being of a state."
The New Scientist reported on the Genuine Progress Indicator - a measurement that removes negative elemts from GDP. As the article puts it:
"[GDP as a] measure of prosperity fails to account for social factors and environmental costs. Oil spills and crime, for example, increase GDP because money must be spent on clean-up and replacement of lost goods, yet few would claim that they increase the general well-being of a state."
Housing ladder
A BBC news item I just saw on TV lamented the lack of affordable housing, particularly in London & the Southeast, but it still used the term "housing ladder". According to our crackpot system, housing has to be lower in price so that people can afford it, but once you've nought somewhere, the price is expected to go up - the housing ladder - as your "investment" pays off.
It's so self contradictory as to be laughable. Apart from anything else, your house is falling down - entropy - so how can it be increasing in value over time. OK you can improve an maintain it, to help it hold its true value, or lose it less quickly, but most house price rise is simply inflationary.
It's so self contradictory as to be laughable. Apart from anything else, your house is falling down - entropy - so how can it be increasing in value over time. OK you can improve an maintain it, to help it hold its true value, or lose it less quickly, but most house price rise is simply inflationary.
Saturday, 13 July 2013
Smoking kills but let's not abolish it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/12/plain-cigarette-packaging-anger-ministers
I heard a BBC Radio 4 news item along similar lines. The quote that stands out:
"plain packaging legislation could cost jobs in manufacturing and in retail".
Yes - if people stop smoking fewer cigarettes will be sold and fewer cigarettes sold and smoked means fewer jobs in the related industries. Also, fewer cigarettes sold means less GDP.
Thus jobs and GDP are placed above health and human life in the "ecomoronic" system we operate in.
I heard a BBC Radio 4 news item along similar lines. The quote that stands out:
"plain packaging legislation could cost jobs in manufacturing and in retail".
Yes - if people stop smoking fewer cigarettes will be sold and fewer cigarettes sold and smoked means fewer jobs in the related industries. Also, fewer cigarettes sold means less GDP.
Thus jobs and GDP are placed above health and human life in the "ecomoronic" system we operate in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)