Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our destruction(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our destruction
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/30/capitalism-is-killing-the-planet-its-time-to-stop-buying-into-our-own-destruction
70 comments
"In reality, the biggest source of water pollution is farming, followed by sewage" That's from the article. I do not see how the proposed wealth redistribution would make people eat and shit less. Accept it - we are just tooooo many. Rich are not the problem. Poor are, cause there are more of them and they breed faster.
The headline itself, let alone the content is so stupid it drools (well, I suspect people do not take the Guardian seriously in any case). Similar headline from Guardian about '..Oil CEOs lied ...' etc. The framing of the issues, the utter lack of contextual and theoretical framework ... just not respectable. One would have to unravel this garbage at the expense of lot of energy to even begin aspiring for useful and practical discourse on such topic.
I've heard that around 130k people are delivered from poverty each day lately. That's due to markets and such, not the good intentions of people like Pol Pot.
There is some argument to be made along these lines, but it involves changing human beings themselves, e.g. through something like meditation. These kinds of articles never have and never will mention such things that might actually effect the changes they seem to want to make in the world but are unable or unwilling to make in themselves.
There is some argument to be made along these lines, but it involves changing human beings themselves, e.g. through something like meditation. These kinds of articles never have and never will mention such things that might actually effect the changes they seem to want to make in the world but are unable or unwilling to make in themselves.
> I've heard that around 130k people are delivered from poverty each day lately. That's due to markets and such, not the good intentions of people like Pol Pot.
Can you provide a citation for such a wild claim?
Can you provide a citation for such a wild claim?
Wild claim? How is it wild? It is well established that China’s economy was stagnant for decades until free market reforms. Same with India. There is absolutely nothing wild about this claim as it is common knowledge to anyone who’s followed economic reforms in developing countries.
https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
This page provides some useful info.
With just the briefest of glances, some cited numbers: 1.9 billion people in extreme poverty in 1990, 730 million in 2015, 650 million in 2018.
The 1.9 billion -> 650 million in 28 years is 120k people / day. The 730 million -> 650 million in 3 years is 73k people / day.
This page provides some useful info.
With just the briefest of glances, some cited numbers: 1.9 billion people in extreme poverty in 1990, 730 million in 2015, 650 million in 2018.
The 1.9 billion -> 650 million in 28 years is 120k people / day. The 730 million -> 650 million in 3 years is 73k people / day.
Is it due to markets or to due to people who had their formative years in the 1960 student revolts selling out hard won Western IP and production processes starting in the 1980s?
Thereby impoverishing the middle class in the West but driving the stock market up.
Thereby impoverishing the middle class in the West but driving the stock market up.
Capitalism (or free market, there is a difference between the two) is just a mechanism, and as such doesn't have any values. It is impartial to whether there is poverty or not. The values have to come either from individuals (provided they can participate in the system, and if they are poor, they can't by definition); or social institutions, such as government.
"Cars are killing millions of people. It's time to stop driving towards death." type of things to say.
Not wrong.
Sounds about right to me.
I agree with this statement more than with the title of the article.
Capitalism itself objectively is not bad, but it depends on good will of participants. (On the other hand, attempts at communism or socialism so far try to enforce such good will onto people, with predictable results.)
Cars and heavily car-oriented (sub)urban areas, however, are just avoidable bad design.
Capitalism itself objectively is not bad, but it depends on good will of participants. (On the other hand, attempts at communism or socialism so far try to enforce such good will onto people, with predictable results.)
Cars and heavily car-oriented (sub)urban areas, however, are just avoidable bad design.
Nitpick. The principal premise of capitalism is that pursuing self-interest leads to common good. In other words, good will, in the context of capitalism, is self-interest, which is not what you normally mean by good will: usually it implies some degree of selflessness.
Given honest participants acting in good faith, self-interest aligns with common good. You start a business that provides value and does it sustainably with care about the environment; I recognize that and support your business by being your customer and maybe investing in your company; you profit, I get the value, everyone benefits.
Now, speculative investment, information asymmetry, short-term gain seeking, etc. kind of ruin the idea.
Now, speculative investment, information asymmetry, short-term gain seeking, etc. kind of ruin the idea.
It's all about how you define self-interest and whether your pursuit of self-interest is so short-sighted that it's effectively suicidal; which is what the trend has been. I think it's best to drop the term capitalism all together.
It doesn't require anything remotely close to total selflessness, just not abusing the market and abiding by its spirit would be enough.
Sadly, the way many individuals and entities act is why the totalitarian straightjacket of zero-trust approaches a la “blockchain and reputation points for everything” seems appealing to some (not that I think it would help).
Sadly, the way many individuals and entities act is why the totalitarian straightjacket of zero-trust approaches a la “blockchain and reputation points for everything” seems appealing to some (not that I think it would help).
Yeah. I avoid driving because there's no metric in my life that's positively correlated with me driving (not seeing loved ones, not being paid, not learning) so I use ride hailing so that "I" do not drive, own a car, or spend time looking for parking. One fewer vehicle on the road.
However, I also choose the time to move. When I worked in an office 18 kilometres away and took public transportation, I'd wake up at 0430 in the morning to avoid traffic. When I hired a cab, I'd still do the same and arrive very early at the office, and either leave very late, or very early to avoid traffic.
Usual disclaimer: to each their situation. I have the flexibility to leave and come as I please, and now to work remotely, but on the other hand, horrible public transportation system (up to 6 hours daily. Heck we built our machine learning platform in part so we don't come to the office).
However, I also choose the time to move. When I worked in an office 18 kilometres away and took public transportation, I'd wake up at 0430 in the morning to avoid traffic. When I hired a cab, I'd still do the same and arrive very early at the office, and either leave very late, or very early to avoid traffic.
Usual disclaimer: to each their situation. I have the flexibility to leave and come as I please, and now to work remotely, but on the other hand, horrible public transportation system (up to 6 hours daily. Heck we built our machine learning platform in part so we don't come to the office).
> horrible public transportation system
Changing this is exactly what you should understand by "time to stop driving towards death".
Changing this is exactly what you should understand by "time to stop driving towards death".
It is what I understand, and my comment was a "poetic" version with a musical reference to Rob Dougan's "Speed me towards death". The litteral interpretation is slightly mocking the recent similar headlines about 'stop buying things' or 'stop shopping'. Let people stop buying subscriptions to their newspapers and see what kind of articles they'll then pen.
`Instead of focusing on ‘micro consumerist bollocks’ like ditching our plastic coffee cups, we must challenge the pursuit of wealth and level down, not up`
The mask is so close to being completely off with these malthusian social movements.
The mask is so close to being completely off with these malthusian social movements.
It’s the end of an era, like the sixties, buy a nice car now before all they are selling are golf carts. Right now something like 70% of energy comes from petroleum.
if you ask the electric grid to triple in 10 years you’re going to have large scale blackouts meaning Teslas and nice electric cars will go the way of the 1969 Camaro SS/RS
if you ask the electric grid to triple in 10 years you’re going to have large scale blackouts meaning Teslas and nice electric cars will go the way of the 1969 Camaro SS/RS
Think of how much progress could be made if a typical HN reader changed their lifestyle to be only an average polluter instead of the top 1%
I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.
Or do you mean something as mundane as "lives in a rich country, owns a dishwasher"?
Or do you mean something as mundane as "lives in a rich country, owns a dishwasher"?
Did anyone else bet that this is written by George Monbiot just from reading the title?
Didn’t even consider reading it given it was theguardian but now that you mention it that’s an additional excellent reason not to click.
When I have the misfortune of reading a Monbiot article, I like to brighten my day by going and reading a Conrad Black article which usually informs me of a part of history I didn’t know, or even better, a word I didn’t know.
I remember a story on HN about how it was the plastic industry that promoted the narrative of recyclable plastic. Doesn’t make sense at first glance, perhaps; why not sell more plastic instead of telling people to recycle it? But they promoted that narrative because it is inefficient/hard to recycle plastics, and thus there is apparently no “sustainable” way to keep using plastics.
It was a useful tale to spin past a certain point of environmental consciousness.
So that narrative—engineered by the plastic industry itself—became just another part of RRR (reuse, repurpose, recycle).
Now think about all the billions of dollars that are in marketing. How much of the popular eco-agenda could be corporoate-sponsored?
(This is just to suggest that it is possible—there are always at least a dozen people in the comments who will demand direct proof in the form of leaked memos from at least three different giant corporations were they directly and explicitly (no innuendo) tell their subordinates to come up with such agendas, signed off by at least three executives. But it might be something to consider.
Or not.)
Now the Zeitgeist tells us that the world will be saved by middle class Joe making better consumer choices. I.e. rock the person, not the system.
The same thing goes for the economic system writ large.
It was a useful tale to spin past a certain point of environmental consciousness.
So that narrative—engineered by the plastic industry itself—became just another part of RRR (reuse, repurpose, recycle).
Now think about all the billions of dollars that are in marketing. How much of the popular eco-agenda could be corporoate-sponsored?
(This is just to suggest that it is possible—there are always at least a dozen people in the comments who will demand direct proof in the form of leaked memos from at least three different giant corporations were they directly and explicitly (no innuendo) tell their subordinates to come up with such agendas, signed off by at least three executives. But it might be something to consider.
Or not.)
Now the Zeitgeist tells us that the world will be saved by middle class Joe making better consumer choices. I.e. rock the person, not the system.
The same thing goes for the economic system writ large.
Lots of it is, in the 70s the coal industry paid Greenpeace to kill the nuclear industry. Now KSA pays the same people to shutdown the tar sands.
By chance I met with a guy who runs a startup in the plastics industry a few days ago.
Sadly it would appear at that a lot of the recycling type initiatives are a sham. There's no effective control over the numbers, and a huge proportion of waste gets dumped overseas.
Even his own business was struggling until recently, when it turned out that some large players are in need of something positive to say in marketing terms.
Sadly it would appear at that a lot of the recycling type initiatives are a sham. There's no effective control over the numbers, and a huge proportion of waste gets dumped overseas.
Even his own business was struggling until recently, when it turned out that some large players are in need of something positive to say in marketing terms.
Planet Money did an episode on the recycling issue last year. Excellent reporting, and they do come up with memos: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/912150085/waste-land
One key point made is that the marketing approach was preferred because the costs were so low compared to solving the real problems. While I think redirecting those amounts to push people in a different direction would be great, it still seems minor compared to the challenges of plastic waste and broader environmental concerns.
One key point made is that the marketing approach was preferred because the costs were so low compared to solving the real problems. While I think redirecting those amounts to push people in a different direction would be great, it still seems minor compared to the challenges of plastic waste and broader environmental concerns.
> So that narrative—engineered by the plastic industry itself—became just another part of RRR (reuse, repurpose, recycle).
RRR is and was Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. It should have been RR (or even just R), since reduce >>>>>>>>>>>>> reuse >> recycle (metals, paper, and glass) > garbage.
RRR is and was Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. It should have been RR (or even just R), since reduce >>>>>>>>>>>>> reuse >> recycle (metals, paper, and glass) > garbage.
The current fashion is to recycle plastic into smoke and electricity by incineration.
E.g. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b9081...
It used to be that we would sell the plastic to energy producers in places like India, where environmental controls where less strict. But, more recently, we are burning the stuff domestically. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/co2-emissi...
One problem with this is that the incinerators are being placed close to the source, i.e. residential areas. So that toxic smoke is adding to urban air pollution.
E.g. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b9081...
It used to be that we would sell the plastic to energy producers in places like India, where environmental controls where less strict. But, more recently, we are burning the stuff domestically. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/co2-emissi...
One problem with this is that the incinerators are being placed close to the source, i.e. residential areas. So that toxic smoke is adding to urban air pollution.
I gradually went freegan. Every dollar I do not spend is one less item pulled off the shelf, one less item restocked from the case, one fewer cases pulled off the pallet, one less pallet delivered from the warehouse, one less order placed to the factory... A little bit less diesel burned by all the trucks and ships delivering it... A little bit less of my biome stripped for the resources.
I live somewhere with an over-abundance of items and food and shelter, so why not reduce my complicity to the processes I don't like, while also reducing the work required for my upkeep?
(Freegan means avoiding the use of currency, instead relying on barter, gift economy, gifts from above, unsubscribing, etc.)
I live somewhere with an over-abundance of items and food and shelter, so why not reduce my complicity to the processes I don't like, while also reducing the work required for my upkeep?
(Freegan means avoiding the use of currency, instead relying on barter, gift economy, gifts from above, unsubscribing, etc.)
What's freegan? Some sort of conscious consumption?
Freegan means avoiding the use of currency.
Living without the use of money, instead relying on barter, gift economy, and help from above.
I still use money for domains and hosting, which works out to about 20-30 bucks per month, on average. I also sometimes travel by train or bus for my FOSS project, which gets paid for by people who support me.
That's about it, I don't use money for shelter or food, with occasional minor exceptions, e.g. last month I bought a can of sweet carbonated beverage because I really really really wanted one...
Combined with meditation, optimistic outlook, minimal desires, I feel so much better off than when I was working six-figure tech jobs, I don't even know how to quantify it.
Living without the use of money, instead relying on barter, gift economy, and help from above.
I still use money for domains and hosting, which works out to about 20-30 bucks per month, on average. I also sometimes travel by train or bus for my FOSS project, which gets paid for by people who support me.
That's about it, I don't use money for shelter or food, with occasional minor exceptions, e.g. last month I bought a can of sweet carbonated beverage because I really really really wanted one...
Combined with meditation, optimistic outlook, minimal desires, I feel so much better off than when I was working six-figure tech jobs, I don't even know how to quantify it.
Ok I get it. That wouldn't even be legal here, helping others and getting something in exchange would count as illicit work.
How does it work for when you reach retirement age though or when you get ill, do you have a monetary fund you can tap into if needed? I guess you don't technically retire when you live like this but at some point you'll need outside help.
How does it work for when you reach retirement age though or when you get ill, do you have a monetary fund you can tap into if needed? I guess you don't technically retire when you live like this but at some point you'll need outside help.
Where do you live where helping someone voluntarily is illegal?
I do that much more than straight "tit for tat" bartering.
I do that much more than straight "tit for tat" bartering.
I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most of western Europe. In theory at least. You can't just go and help a friend paint their house, but you can go and paint a child or parents house. It's pretty much impossible to enforce in practice. If you do voluntary work through an NGO it's different though, then it's not counted as illicit work.
I can most definitely go and help a friend paint his house, this is nonsense, do you have any sources?
It likely depends. The point of laws like this is that they don't want people to exchange favours as a means to avoid paying taxes. When you help a friend paint his house you usually expect that he returns the favor and that's not allowed. If there's no expectation to return the favor it's fine. Anyway, these things are hard to prove.
> When you help a friend paint his house you usually expect that he returns the favor and that's not allowed.
I'm not sure that's true for "usually".
I'm not sure that's true for "usually".
It's important for a mutual friendship though. If you're there for your friends when you need them, you kind of expect for them to return the favor. Friendships are usually not one-sided, that particular "honor" is more common in family relationships.
Wow, that is pretty surreal! Do you know what these laws are called? I'd like to read more about them, but not sure what to google for...
I don't think they have any special names. Laws that regulate what does and does not count as illicit work will cover this.
I don't have answers to your questions, because I'm not there yet, and I'm not following someone else's path. The short answer to your questions is: I don't know.
I've found a system which works for me today, whereas the "default" did not work for me at all, and itself resulted in health issues. Sure, I had "support" for them, but I learned that modern medicine is often over-confident, and the best medicine for most ailments is still adequate sleep and rest and not getting hurt in the first place, which is difficult to come by when you're doing the full-time-job thing.
What I CAN tell you that I've seen many play the game by the rules and still lose, not getting the support they need when they're older, getting crap medical care after grinding themselves down for decades, and often ending up on the street when they're most vulnerable, because once the money runs out, so does the relationship with "the system".
I am much more confident in the relationships I am forming today with actual humans and non-money organizations than I ever was in the corporations I worked for.
Perhaps if I was better at paperwork and figuring out all the best ways to whittle down the taxes I pay and filing the 401k properly and investing in the right things it would bring me more comfort. But I detest and abhor that stuff, and I've never been competent at it. It was one of my primary motivators to quit initially.
I spent five years working for a business which received close to 100K every year just for reselling my labor to another business, but if I approached them the next day and asked them for a spot to sleep in the office for a night, the best case scenario I can imagine is them laughing me out the door. Where is the safety and comfort in that?
I find much more comfort in serving the Highest Power, the goodness which permeates the very fabric of our reality, the one who answers prayers. It's not a popular path in the compsci world, but I have found it to be very effective. We tend to think of past generations as idiots, but if you look at their writing, they're ALL SAYING ALMOST THE SAME THING:
Consciously find the time and make the effort to be grateful for what you have;
Think about what you've done and seek forgiveness for any wrongdoing;
Ask and you shall receive; Do good and good will be done to you.
If only the same people who spend hours figuring out how a computer works spent a few minutes figuring out the computer that they live inside of...
I've found a system which works for me today, whereas the "default" did not work for me at all, and itself resulted in health issues. Sure, I had "support" for them, but I learned that modern medicine is often over-confident, and the best medicine for most ailments is still adequate sleep and rest and not getting hurt in the first place, which is difficult to come by when you're doing the full-time-job thing.
What I CAN tell you that I've seen many play the game by the rules and still lose, not getting the support they need when they're older, getting crap medical care after grinding themselves down for decades, and often ending up on the street when they're most vulnerable, because once the money runs out, so does the relationship with "the system".
I am much more confident in the relationships I am forming today with actual humans and non-money organizations than I ever was in the corporations I worked for.
Perhaps if I was better at paperwork and figuring out all the best ways to whittle down the taxes I pay and filing the 401k properly and investing in the right things it would bring me more comfort. But I detest and abhor that stuff, and I've never been competent at it. It was one of my primary motivators to quit initially.
I spent five years working for a business which received close to 100K every year just for reselling my labor to another business, but if I approached them the next day and asked them for a spot to sleep in the office for a night, the best case scenario I can imagine is them laughing me out the door. Where is the safety and comfort in that?
I find much more comfort in serving the Highest Power, the goodness which permeates the very fabric of our reality, the one who answers prayers. It's not a popular path in the compsci world, but I have found it to be very effective. We tend to think of past generations as idiots, but if you look at their writing, they're ALL SAYING ALMOST THE SAME THING:
Consciously find the time and make the effort to be grateful for what you have;
Think about what you've done and seek forgiveness for any wrongdoing;
Ask and you shall receive; Do good and good will be done to you.
If only the same people who spend hours figuring out how a computer works spent a few minutes figuring out the computer that they live inside of...
“I bet with no freedom of press we will stop cutting trees for newspapers, books etc.”
This is how The Guardian sounds.
I honestly don't see how you get there. To me it seems much more like an argument that newspapers should not be printed on parchment, or in 128pt font. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Having travelled it seems the places without capitalism have the most environmental destruction
You probably mean democracy.
Having had a chance to reflect. I mean subsistence living.
Essentially what monbiot is advocating a return to.
Where ever you see subsistence you see all sorts of environmental catastrophes. Poverty is the cause of most of these problems not the solution as Monbiot thinks.
Essentially what monbiot is advocating a return to.
Where ever you see subsistence you see all sorts of environmental catastrophes. Poverty is the cause of most of these problems not the solution as Monbiot thinks.
It is a shame that there is a law of economic nature which states that all billionaires must be dead-eyed psychopaths. Imagine if Rupert Murdoch or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg really wanted to do good. Any one of them could choose to buy up all the media in the USA and pump out 'good' propaganda, aimed squarely removing its utterly corrupt ruling class, and they might succeed. Instead the existing media/political ecosystem is supported and reinforced by the only people who have the resources to change it.
(Yes, yes, I believe in democracy and everything but it's too late for all that now).
(Yes, yes, I believe in democracy and everything but it's too late for all that now).
Why is plastic vilified. Surely compared to fuel, it is an excellent, justified use for hydrocarbons. And as for disposal, isn’t it a simple matter of not doing ridiculous stuff like dumping it into rivers or oceans.
He says a wealth tax will be more effective than a carbon tax at stopping climate change. What planet is he living on? Is reducing the wealth of billionaires supposed to stop Big Plastic from lobbying?
He mentions Bill Gates' personal carbon output without mentioning his investments in nuclear power research and other initiatives?
Also does anyone really think that if North Korea were more prosperous, they would be polluting less than capitalist countries? The problem isn't inherent and unique to capitalism, the problem is reckless selfishness and disregard for externalities that can emerge from cronyism (lobbying under a capitalist system), but also from nationalism and corruption which are not unique to capitalist systems. A system that is socialist internally but with high levels of nationalism will be prone to pollute because they don't care about the global commons.
He mentions Bill Gates' personal carbon output without mentioning his investments in nuclear power research and other initiatives?
Also does anyone really think that if North Korea were more prosperous, they would be polluting less than capitalist countries? The problem isn't inherent and unique to capitalism, the problem is reckless selfishness and disregard for externalities that can emerge from cronyism (lobbying under a capitalist system), but also from nationalism and corruption which are not unique to capitalist systems. A system that is socialist internally but with high levels of nationalism will be prone to pollute because they don't care about the global commons.
Capitalism is such an overused term. I like to say I prefer a system where prices are fully reflective of realities (health and safety, pollution, working conditions), and people can more or less transact as they please. This still leaves a lot of room for debate of course.
But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost, rather than people being too free to deal. My guess is that a lot of people actually feel the same way, regardless of whether they identify as a leftie or a rightie.
One thing about the world as it is now is that you see nearly nothing of how the sausage is made. We know what we're consuming, but it's rare to understand how it go to your house. Were pesticides used to grow your food? Did the cow suffer when it was slaughtered? Did the guy who drove your stuff across the country have to shit in a bag? What about the white collar guy who flies around to meetings all the time, does he see his kids during the week? The sports star who makes millions, does he suffer from relentless pressure?
Some of the most rewarding experiences involve relationships with other people. We have this transactional economy where you walk into a shop and someone gives you food and you leave, but one of my favourite things to do is actually talking to shopkeeper. How is business, how does it work, what are your thoughts on things? I'm friends with a number of people whose shops I wandered into and have since kept in touch with. That could be called capitalism too, but we tend to associate the term with an uncaring sort of brutal dystopia if we're a leftie, or a kind of necessary evil if we're a rightie. YMMV of course, as I mentioned the term means a lot of things to a lot of people.
But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost, rather than people being too free to deal. My guess is that a lot of people actually feel the same way, regardless of whether they identify as a leftie or a rightie.
One thing about the world as it is now is that you see nearly nothing of how the sausage is made. We know what we're consuming, but it's rare to understand how it go to your house. Were pesticides used to grow your food? Did the cow suffer when it was slaughtered? Did the guy who drove your stuff across the country have to shit in a bag? What about the white collar guy who flies around to meetings all the time, does he see his kids during the week? The sports star who makes millions, does he suffer from relentless pressure?
Some of the most rewarding experiences involve relationships with other people. We have this transactional economy where you walk into a shop and someone gives you food and you leave, but one of my favourite things to do is actually talking to shopkeeper. How is business, how does it work, what are your thoughts on things? I'm friends with a number of people whose shops I wandered into and have since kept in touch with. That could be called capitalism too, but we tend to associate the term with an uncaring sort of brutal dystopia if we're a leftie, or a kind of necessary evil if we're a rightie. YMMV of course, as I mentioned the term means a lot of things to a lot of people.
> and people can more or less transact as they please
Capitalism and free market are not the same thing. In capitalism, the labor is a commodity sold on a free market and significant amount of capital is privately owned. Either of these can be considered morally wrong even if we otherwise accept the premise of the free markets.
Can people transact "as they please" if huge chunks of economy are already owned by a very small minority? I don't think so. It seems to me (which is also pretty much basic Marx) that there is a contradiction between "transact as you please" and large scale private ownership.
> But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost
Yeah, economic externalities. But isn't that, again, the consequence of people "transacting as they please"? Some people will simply think in the short term. What time horizon is gonna win in pricing, if people "transact as they please"?
Capitalism and free market are not the same thing. In capitalism, the labor is a commodity sold on a free market and significant amount of capital is privately owned. Either of these can be considered morally wrong even if we otherwise accept the premise of the free markets.
Can people transact "as they please" if huge chunks of economy are already owned by a very small minority? I don't think so. It seems to me (which is also pretty much basic Marx) that there is a contradiction between "transact as you please" and large scale private ownership.
> But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost
Yeah, economic externalities. But isn't that, again, the consequence of people "transacting as they please"? Some people will simply think in the short term. What time horizon is gonna win in pricing, if people "transact as they please"?
All fair questions, answer is that there's no answer. We have to have a system of looking at things as they come up and deciding what we think makes sense.
This is my argument against cryptocurrency - it's capitalism taken to the extreme and we're already struggling to mitigate the downsides of capitalism.
Don't get me wrong, capitalism is a great thing and has brought us to where we are today but it has downsides. In the 21st century a government's primary purpose is simply to mitigate those downsides. However, governments are increasingly losing this power struggle. Democracy is being manipulated by capitalist-driven propaganda machines. And now, with the rise of cryptocurrencies, we're mitigating governments of their ability to control money too.
If you read that last sentence and thought that that's a good thing then maybe you've fallen prey to those propaganda machines. Government's provide citizens with everything from healthcare, roads and infrastructure, education, welfare and much more. Inflation is high at the moment because government's bailed out their most vulnerable citizens with massive welfare payments. Stripping government's of such abilities is societal suicide.
It's no coincidence that the country that is most money-hungry and capitalistic is also the worst at providing these things (relatively).
For when the measure of a man is the depth of his pockets, then the world shall be ran by clowns.
Don't get me wrong, capitalism is a great thing and has brought us to where we are today but it has downsides. In the 21st century a government's primary purpose is simply to mitigate those downsides. However, governments are increasingly losing this power struggle. Democracy is being manipulated by capitalist-driven propaganda machines. And now, with the rise of cryptocurrencies, we're mitigating governments of their ability to control money too.
If you read that last sentence and thought that that's a good thing then maybe you've fallen prey to those propaganda machines. Government's provide citizens with everything from healthcare, roads and infrastructure, education, welfare and much more. Inflation is high at the moment because government's bailed out their most vulnerable citizens with massive welfare payments. Stripping government's of such abilities is societal suicide.
It's no coincidence that the country that is most money-hungry and capitalistic is also the worst at providing these things (relatively).
For when the measure of a man is the depth of his pockets, then the world shall be ran by clowns.
That’s also why everyone loves crypto. The idea of sovereignty. Vote for whatever you want every 4 years, the market votes with every purchase.
Vote for stimulus, that stimulus just drives crypto higher. Everyone knows that one day all of it is going to be paid for by the people holding USD
Vote for stimulus, that stimulus just drives crypto higher. Everyone knows that one day all of it is going to be paid for by the people holding USD
> the shift of power away from the democratic sphere
The "democratic sphere" is where anti-vaxxers and climate deniers roam. It seems doubtful democracy will help with a solution. Other systems are worse, of course. Hence, no solution.
The "democratic sphere" is where anti-vaxxers and climate deniers roam. It seems doubtful democracy will help with a solution. Other systems are worse, of course. Hence, no solution.
> The ocean current that brings heat from the tropics is weakening. Without it, the UK would have a climate like Siberia’s
This part's actually not quite right, there was a Science paper a few months ago that simulated various events and proposed that it's more likely that the ocean itself only contributes a few degrees to the temperatures, and that it's the atmosphere movements that cause the bulk of actual heating.
Still it's impossible to say what the gulf stream's dissipation will lead to and the results could still be rather catastrophic, but that statement is pretty far off reality. Some estimate that ironically, its shutdown may help with the reduction of heat waves in the summer, and Europe is a lot more infrastructurally prepared for extreme cold than extreme heat.
Aside from that, it's good to see that the unsaid thing is being said out loud more and more in recent months. I have serious doubts anything can be done in this regard though, capitalism or not. All major economic/political systems seem to hinge on an ever growing economy and as such cannot go on perpetually in a closed system. The "economic growth at all costs" mindset is so ingrained in our society that there's no stopping it at this point, even if it means our extinction.
This part's actually not quite right, there was a Science paper a few months ago that simulated various events and proposed that it's more likely that the ocean itself only contributes a few degrees to the temperatures, and that it's the atmosphere movements that cause the bulk of actual heating.
Still it's impossible to say what the gulf stream's dissipation will lead to and the results could still be rather catastrophic, but that statement is pretty far off reality. Some estimate that ironically, its shutdown may help with the reduction of heat waves in the summer, and Europe is a lot more infrastructurally prepared for extreme cold than extreme heat.
Aside from that, it's good to see that the unsaid thing is being said out loud more and more in recent months. I have serious doubts anything can be done in this regard though, capitalism or not. All major economic/political systems seem to hinge on an ever growing economy and as such cannot go on perpetually in a closed system. The "economic growth at all costs" mindset is so ingrained in our society that there's no stopping it at this point, even if it means our extinction.
> All major economic/political systems seem to hinge on an ever growing economy
Um, the Soviet style economies didn't (ideologically) hinge on ever growing economy, but rather on the idea of improvements to human society. Of course the practice was less then stellar, for various reasons. But they actually attempted things like providing education and care for all members of society.
There are parts of the world where this worked out better than in capitalist counterparts. Cuba vs Haiti comes to mind.
Um, the Soviet style economies didn't (ideologically) hinge on ever growing economy, but rather on the idea of improvements to human society. Of course the practice was less then stellar, for various reasons. But they actually attempted things like providing education and care for all members of society.
There are parts of the world where this worked out better than in capitalist counterparts. Cuba vs Haiti comes to mind.
There is the issue that any state that had an even slight communist alignment was either completely blockaded by the west or did not qualify for loans or trade so none of them are a good case study of how it would work normally.
As for the USSR + satelites they were doing 5 year plans to boost the economy as much as possible to counter the US, so no sustainable growthless economy there either.
It's possible that it could be done so in theory, but then again so it is for capitalism. Both are plans that don't survive contact with reality.
As for the USSR + satelites they were doing 5 year plans to boost the economy as much as possible to counter the US, so no sustainable growthless economy there either.
It's possible that it could be done so in theory, but then again so it is for capitalism. Both are plans that don't survive contact with reality.
Anyone who does serious research in STEM knows that articles from Scientific Reports [1] are to be taken with a pinch (or even a lump) of salt. And yet, here we have a so-called environmental-science reporter using such an article to make doomsday predictions:
> People who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules.
This has as much scientific content as Ian Malcolm's prediction (using "chaos" theory) about the collapse of Jurassic Park. So much nonsense has been written about the complexity of natural systems and the collapse of the environment that it's very hard to take any article that starts with such claims seriously. And saying things like "it follows certain mathematical rules" as if that gives your claims some sort of credibility is just one of the many examples of the misuse of mathematics [2] in the "softer" sciences.
The real reason for the majority of environmental problems is overpopulation, not capitalism. Capitalism and globalization has had an important role in bringing people out of poverty, especially in large countries like India and China. If you think this is not true, look at the poverty levels of India before economic liberalization. Less poverty means more education and better family management. Much of this is obvious to anyone who has had an objective look at capitalism, but not to the Guardianistas who come up with such low-effort pseudo-scientific tripe.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports
[2]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.70...
> People who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules.
This has as much scientific content as Ian Malcolm's prediction (using "chaos" theory) about the collapse of Jurassic Park. So much nonsense has been written about the complexity of natural systems and the collapse of the environment that it's very hard to take any article that starts with such claims seriously. And saying things like "it follows certain mathematical rules" as if that gives your claims some sort of credibility is just one of the many examples of the misuse of mathematics [2] in the "softer" sciences.
The real reason for the majority of environmental problems is overpopulation, not capitalism. Capitalism and globalization has had an important role in bringing people out of poverty, especially in large countries like India and China. If you think this is not true, look at the poverty levels of India before economic liberalization. Less poverty means more education and better family management. Much of this is obvious to anyone who has had an objective look at capitalism, but not to the Guardianistas who come up with such low-effort pseudo-scientific tripe.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports
[2]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.70...
> Capitalism is killing the planet
Humans are killing the planet. Every single political or economical system tried over last 100 thousands of years, resulted k in humans destroying environment for short-term benefits.
Hunter-gatherers destroyed most of megafauna. Ancient Greeks destroyed forests of Greece. Medieval Germans destroyed forests of Germany. French and English did it too. Aurochs were destroyed in modernity. Soviets destroyed Aral Sea.
This isn't even limited to our species - algae almost destroyed life on Earth, because they found that funny photosynthetic pathway and started emitting O2 to atmosphere.
The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals.
Humans are killing the planet. Every single political or economical system tried over last 100 thousands of years, resulted k in humans destroying environment for short-term benefits.
Hunter-gatherers destroyed most of megafauna. Ancient Greeks destroyed forests of Greece. Medieval Germans destroyed forests of Germany. French and English did it too. Aurochs were destroyed in modernity. Soviets destroyed Aral Sea.
This isn't even limited to our species - algae almost destroyed life on Earth, because they found that funny photosynthetic pathway and started emitting O2 to atmosphere.
The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals.
Hmm. I agree that the problem is larger than capitalism and is closer to human nature, but saying
> The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals.
seems a bit pseudo-scientific to me. Life dies out if it over-consumes from its environment, so "by evolution" the life that survives _does_ "restrain itself for the next generation" in a sense.
> The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals.
seems a bit pseudo-scientific to me. Life dies out if it over-consumes from its environment, so "by evolution" the life that survives _does_ "restrain itself for the next generation" in a sense.
> Life dies out if it over-consumes from its environment, so "by evolution" the life that survives _does_ "restrain itself for the next generation" in a sense.
Dawkins deconstructs this argument in The Selfish Gene. Basically, if you restrain yourself, you put your competitors in advantageous position to consume these resources. They will have more children and their non-restraining genes will win.
We have seen ecosystems destroyed by unchecked invasive species - this is especially visible for islands due to their limited biodiversity. Even reindeers introduced on island without natural predators ate everything until they died out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island
Dawkins deconstructs this argument in The Selfish Gene. Basically, if you restrain yourself, you put your competitors in advantageous position to consume these resources. They will have more children and their non-restraining genes will win.
We have seen ecosystems destroyed by unchecked invasive species - this is especially visible for islands due to their limited biodiversity. Even reindeers introduced on island without natural predators ate everything until they died out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island
dandanua(1)