Re: Sustainablity Plan B
Tom, May I post excerpts of this wonderful post to the NEA site for the NYTimes? I will list your name or not. It's up to you. Or I will not post it if you wish. But I would find it very useful in channeling that discussion away from the nonsense posed by the radical conservatives. They call themselves Libertarians down here and they are grabbing 50% of the media commentary on the "blow job" even though their platform is 100% in support of total privacy which speaks tons for their integrity. As a party they have dropped behind the greens but they control some of the biggest names in the news media. Their platform is at http://www.lp.org/lp-docs.html and I would highly recommend that the list read it. That platform has more than a little to do with the future of work in the American world anyway. As Ronald Reagan pointed out, he who controls the media, will ultimately control the population. Clothed in the cliches of their platform are some very un-democratic notions. Also there has been little said about the educational/cultural/religious background of the prosecutor Ken Starr. What I do not understand is how members of other religious groups whose sexual practices do not conform to the hyper-fundamentalist views of the Special Prosecutor's camp do not realize how dangerous that mentality is for the survival of their groups.The President, VP, Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House are all fundamentalists. If they will treat their own in the fashion they are treating the President, as a result of an alleged indiscretion, how will look upon the sexual proclivities of people that the U.S. is sending a billion dollars in foriegn aid to? And once it is looked at in that light. What are the possibilities of schism in the U.S. itself. It scares me to death. regards REH Tom Walker wrote: > Jay Hanson wrote, > > >Robert L. Hickerson wrote an interesting piece about M. King Hubbert. > > Thanks to Jay for bringing up Robert Hickerson's essay on King Hubbert. In > connection with my own cause celebre, the reduction of work time, I would be > remiss if I failed to point out Hickerson's penultimate paragraph, before > his personal conclusions and recommendations: > > "Hubbert goes on to state that following a transition, the work required of > each individual, need be no longer than about 4 hours per day, 164 days per > year, from the ages of 25 to 45. Income will continue until death. > 'Insecurity of old age is abolished and both saving and insurance become > unnecessary and impossible.'" > > It's also worth noting that Hubbert's analysis comes from his 1936 article > "Man Hours -- A Declining Quantity". For those who are familiar with > Hubbert's prescient estimates of oil extraction peaks -- obviously a major > influence on Jay -- it's interesting to find a very similar analysis applied > in the 1936 article on hours as work. > > In 1948, Hubbert made his first public prediction that U.S. domestic oil > production would peak in the late 1960s/early 1970s. But, as quoted by > Robert Clark in 1983 interview, "I first worked this out in the middle 1930s > but the first time I really wrote it down was for the AAAS convention in 1948." > > That "middle 1930s" sounds remarkably close to the 1936 publication date of > the Man Hours article. I suspect that what Hubbert did was apply the same > concept to two facets of the economy -- hours of work and energy supply. I > don't want to take anything away from Hubbert's scientific achievements, but > it is my contention that Hubbert essentially confirmed ancient traditional > wisdom about the perniciousness of compound interest. > > Hubbert's arc of petroleum depletion is, after all, constructed to > illustrate the interaction of two principles: the boundless exponential > growth of compound interest and the finite quantity of extractable resources. > > But, as Hickerson notes in one of his personal conclusions: "Increasingly > desperate means will be used by those who think we can continue to have > business as usual." > > An odd thought occurred to me about the 1970 peak of U.S. domestic > production. The oil crisis didn't register on the political map and prices > of oil didn't go up relatively until the OPEC embargo in October 1973, a > full three years after the peak. Meanwhile what emerged as a major political > scandal was a "third rate burglary" at the Watergate. Once again, as we > approach an even more auspicious global peak, the energy crisis is not on > the political map. This time, the headline issue is a blow job. Talk about > Nero fiddling while Rome burned. > > I hear they just named the CIA headquarters after George Bush. > > Regards, > > Tom Walker > ^^^ > #408 1035 Pacific St. > Vancouver, B.C. > V6E 4G7 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (604) 669-3286 > ^^^ > The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Sustainablity Plan B (and -- perhaps -- meta-plan C)
>Always finding ways to do more with less. If I have >one gallon of gasoline and I figure out a way to >double the gas mileage of my car, all other things equal, >I have doubled my energy reserves. This is true, but "all other things" are never equal -- people are consuming all they can, and more-than-reproducing themselves. Nevertheless, you still haven't solved the fundamental problem. Even though you have "doubled" you energy reserves, you are still going to run out.* The net effect of evading responsibility is to dump the responsibility onto the children -- and make the ultimate body count that much higher. This is a really excellent example of innate deception and self-deception at work. If we stopped lying to ourselves, we could no longer live as we do -- neither one of us. Jay --- * Brad's argument was used by Julian Simon and is known as Zeno's Paradox.
Re: Sustainablity Plan B
Jay Hanson wrote, >Robert L. Hickerson wrote an interesting piece about M. King Hubbert. Thanks to Jay for bringing up Robert Hickerson's essay on King Hubbert. In connection with my own cause celebre, the reduction of work time, I would be remiss if I failed to point out Hickerson's penultimate paragraph, before his personal conclusions and recommendations: "Hubbert goes on to state that following a transition, the work required of each individual, need be no longer than about 4 hours per day, 164 days per year, from the ages of 25 to 45. Income will continue until death. 'Insecurity of old age is abolished and both saving and insurance become unnecessary and impossible.'" It's also worth noting that Hubbert's analysis comes from his 1936 article "Man Hours -- A Declining Quantity". For those who are familiar with Hubbert's prescient estimates of oil extraction peaks -- obviously a major influence on Jay -- it's interesting to find a very similar analysis applied in the 1936 article on hours as work. In 1948, Hubbert made his first public prediction that U.S. domestic oil production would peak in the late 1960s/early 1970s. But, as quoted by Robert Clark in 1983 interview, "I first worked this out in the middle 1930s but the first time I really wrote it down was for the AAAS convention in 1948." That "middle 1930s" sounds remarkably close to the 1936 publication date of the Man Hours article. I suspect that what Hubbert did was apply the same concept to two facets of the economy -- hours of work and energy supply. I don't want to take anything away from Hubbert's scientific achievements, but it is my contention that Hubbert essentially confirmed ancient traditional wisdom about the perniciousness of compound interest. Hubbert's arc of petroleum depletion is, after all, constructed to illustrate the interaction of two principles: the boundless exponential growth of compound interest and the finite quantity of extractable resources. But, as Hickerson notes in one of his personal conclusions: "Increasingly desperate means will be used by those who think we can continue to have business as usual." An odd thought occurred to me about the 1970 peak of U.S. domestic production. The oil crisis didn't register on the political map and prices of oil didn't go up relatively until the OPEC embargo in October 1973, a full three years after the peak. Meanwhile what emerged as a major political scandal was a "third rate burglary" at the Watergate. Once again, as we approach an even more auspicious global peak, the energy crisis is not on the political map. This time, the headline issue is a blow job. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burned. I hear they just named the CIA headquarters after George Bush. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Sustainablity Plan B (and -- perhaps -- meta-plan C)
From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >A given quantity of stuff is not a constant. That's the >point I was trying to make. Technological advance >(advance in knowledge in general...) There is no creation of matter/energy Brad. Technology can not repeal the laws of thermodynamics. As a special treat, I just archived a paper by one of our most original thinkers: Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. See selections from ENERGY AND ECONOMIC MYTHS: Myths about Mankind's Entropic Problem at http://dieoff.com/page148.htm . Here are the first two paragraphs: "Hardly anyone would nowadays openly profess a belief in the immortality of mankind. Yet many of us prefer not to exclude this possibility; to this end, we endeavor to impugn any factor that could limit mankind's life. The most natural rallying idea is that mankind's entropic dowry is virtually inexhaustible, primarily because of man's inherent power to defeat the Entropy Law in some way or another." "To begin with, there is the simple argument that, just as has happened with many natural laws, the laws on which the finiteness of accessible resources rests will be refuted in turn. The difficulty of this historical argument is that history proves with even greater force, first, that in a finite space there can be only a finite amount of low entropy and, second, that low entropy continuously and irrevocably dwindles away. The impossibility of perpetual motion (of both kinds) is as firmly anchored in history as the law of gravitation." It's quite good. Give it a read at http://dieoff.com/page148.htm Jay
Re: Sustainablity Plan B (and -- perhaps -- meta-plan C)
>>Jay Hanson wrote: >> >> > Is there not confusion within the ranks of our allegedly erudite >> > economic scholars who see only increased production as solution to >> > Social Problems? >> >> Obviously, if one can not "grow", then one must "redistribute". That is why >> it will be opposed to the very bloody end. >Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >There is a third option: to reconceptualize, reconfigure, >reconstellate, rethink, renew, re-etceteraandsoforth. In a finite world, there is a finite amount of "stuff". I assume that you are suggesting that we talk people out of wanting more stuff? How? Jay
Sustainablity Plan B
> Is there not confusion within the ranks of our allegedly erudite > economic scholars who see only increased production as solution to > Social Problems? Obviously, if one can not "grow", then one must "redistribute". That is why it will be opposed to the very bloody end. The problem of human "rationality" stands as one real barrier to "sustainability", but problems in the monetary system and wealth accumulation must be addressed too. When banks "create new money" by making loans, they "create new demands" on our finite biosphere. If wealth keeps accumulating, at some point wealthy people can afford to chop down the last tree, cover the last meadow with asphalt, catch the last fish, bribe the last honest politician, and so on. It's just a matter of time. Robert L. Hickerson wrote an interesting piece about M. King Hubbert. Hubbert noticed the fundamental difference between the properties of money and those of matter and energy upon which the operation of the physical world depends. Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Hubbert suggested we do away with money and distribute "energy certificates" instead: "On this basis our distribution then becomes foolproof and incredibly simple. We keep our records of the physical costs of production in terms of the amount of extraneous energy degraded. We set industrial production arbitrarily at a rate equal to the saturation of the physical capacity of our public to consume. We distribute purchasing power in the form of energy certificates to the public, the amount issued to each being equivalent to his pro rata share of the energy-cost of the consumer goods and services to be produced during the balanced-load period for which the certificates are issued. These certificates bear the identification of the person to whom issued and are non negotiable. They resemble a bank check in that they bear no face denomination, this being entered at the time of spending. They are surrendered upon the purchase of goods or services at any center of distribution and are permanently canceled, becoming entries in a uniform accounting system. Being nonnegotiable they cannot be lost, stolen, gambled, or given away because they are invalid in the hands of any person other than the one to whom issued. If lost, like a bank checkbook, new ones may be had for the asking. Neither can they be saved because they become void at the termination of the two-year period for which they are issued. They can only be spent." [ For more, see http://www.ganesa.com/ecotopia/hubbert/hubecon.htm ] Hubberts proposal is extremely radical, but the explosive disintegration of civilization is extremely radical too. Jay -- www.dieoff.com
