>THE ONE-AND-ONLY SOLUTION: Global coercion.
>
>NEW SOCIETY
>". The sine qua non of Capitalism is the conversion of our
>life-support system into commodities. Thus, Capitalism WILL end -- one way
>or another
>Step one is to break out of the money/market/advertising/consumption death
>grip. A new society would NOT be based on money because it's inherently
>unsustainable
>
>The key to the new society is to find meaning and happiness in
>non-consumptive activities such as religion and the arts. With modern
>technology, probably less than 5% of the population could produce all the
>goods we really "need".
This is an appealing, return to Eden, type of vision. If only we could!!
Jay mentions that the three million or so people of 35,000 years ago used a
fraction of the energy that we do. This is true. But then they did not
have to sustain six billion people, many of whom live in huge cities, none
of whom could now live independently, all of whom rely on the many man-made
life support systems which we have fashioned from the natural world.
Is it sustainable? Not likely. Is there a crash coming? Probably, though
perhaps not really a crash. More of a coming apart here and there -- little
pieces tearing off the edges, then a big piece out of the center, then
.....?
Jay is right. Economists are politicians -- or, at least, they tend to
think politically. How on Earth do you prevent or forestall human tragedy
except through politics? There is no question but that we do know what to
do. We need to reduce population growth and perhaps reduce population,
greatly reduce consumption of energy resources, stop abusing the commons
etc., etc. But how to get agreement on these things -- witness the
problems of implementing the Kyoto accord, or indeed any of the
environmental agreements that have been signed in recent decades. Instead
of being rational in our approach to global problems, we remain politicians.
Instead of thinking globally and acting locally, we think locally and act
globally. But as politicians, we cannot help doing that. We must respond
to our constituents, not people 10,000 miles away. Establish a
supergovernment that would force us to act globally? I cannot think of a
singe country that would be willing to give up any of its powers. The UN
has now been foundering in virtual irrelevance for about fifty years.
I agree with Jay's dismal prognosis, but I see little hope of getting out of
it by rational thought and behaviour. At some point we will wind down,
whether cataclymically (Hurrican Mitch) or bit by bit remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, there is work to be done in the mess we are in.
Ed Weick
