The end of consumerism: Our way of life is 'not viable' (we must embrace a basic future to survive)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-end-of-consumerism-our-way-of-life-is-not-viable-1863278.html

The end of consumerism: Our way of life is 'not viable'

New report says we must embrace a basic future to survive

By Jonathan Owen
Sunday, 10 January 2010

Ditch the dog; throw away (sorry, recycle) those takeaway menus; bin bottled water; get rid of that gas-guzzling car and forget flying to far-flung places. These are just some of the sacrifices we in the West will need to make if we are to survive climate change.

The stark warning comes from the renowned Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based organisation regarded as the world's pre-eminent environmental think tank.

Its State of the World 2010 report published this week outlines a blueprint for changing our entire way of life. "Preventing the collapse of human civilisation requires nothing less than a wholesale transformation of dominant cultural patterns. This transformation would reject consumerism... and establish in its place a new cultural framework centred on sustainability," states the report.

"Habits that are firmly set – from where people live to what they eat – will all need to be altered and in many cases simplified or minimised... From Earth's perspective, the American or even the European way of life is simply not viable."

…

http://www.worldwatch.org/sow10

[dhpgetsit]

1. Capitalism won't allow that.

You might as well ask a river to hold itself back and not run to the sea.

[TxRider]

14. I think capitalism could drive it

[Delphinus]

22. Would you be

able to expound on that?

[TxRider]

65. Capitalism

Is already providing us wind and solar power.

Capitalism is providing hybrid and electric cars.

Capitalism is providing new green technology housing and appliances.


Capitalism only provides what consumers want to buy.

It's us consumers who need to decide we want to change our demands and start consuming sustainably. Capitalism will then flock to that demand and compete to fill the sustainable market better.

[iamjoy]

2. And That's The Problem

Americans don't want to give up their way of life. It is easier to believe global climate change or peak oil isn't real (Conservatives) or that ingenuity can help us adapt without sacrifice (Liberal). We're both right and both wrong, aren't we? Liberals are right that global climate change is real and is a threat. Conservatives are right that addressing the "apocryphal" threat of climate change would mean giving up our way of life.

I really object to ditch the dog. I hope that just means stop or slow down breeding dogs not abandon the ones we have. Or I hope it means to stop spending more on toys and clothes for your pet than some people spend on food.

[dhpgetsit]

4. If we return to tribal society there will be no ditching dogs.

Dogs were useful to out tribal ancestors in many ways.

[GliderGuider]

9. Useful, yes.

And tasty, too.

[wuvuj]

92. Americans are fascists....

The U.S. population makes up only 5% of the population of the world.

The U.S. population uses 25% of the world's energy.

The U.S. population produces 25% of the world's pollution.

If the other 95% of the world's population wants to live like the U.S. has, we'll need about five planets to support us.


Americans will destroy the planet and other countries trying to maintain their way of life.

The American Dream becomes the world's nightmare....coming to a theater near you...SOON.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. I've been preaching a similar message for years

while at the same time embracing certain facets of consumer culture. Well, economic conditions dictate that the time for renouncing my hypocrisy in nigh at hand. I hope I'm able to adjust without TOO much kicking & screaming, but adjust I must.

[Goldstein1984]

5. My grandparents just called it being frugal

At the request of another DUer, I'm working on a more detailed analysis and presentation, but the obvious facts are these:

The U.S. population makes up only 5% of the population of the world.
The U.S. population uses 25% of the world's energy.
The U.S. population produces 25% of the world's pollution.
If the other 95% of the world's population wants to live like the U.S. has, we'll need about five planets to support us.

The key word is "sustainability." We don't have it. We don't seem to have the collective will to achieve it.

Overpopulation and an unsustainable culture of exploitation--the root causes of the challenges faced by life on Earth.

[Gregorian]

6. The real answer is reducing numbers of human beings.

If one starts looking at what we can reduce, they'll see that we can't reduce enough to make a real difference. Try living without a refrigerator, or hot water.

The bottom line is, if we are to live within the equilibrium of planet earth we most likely need to live off of the land. How many people can live off of the land? The ducks and geese and fish are gone from every property I've ever lived on. The elk, gone. And that's in rural areas. How would everyone in New York city alone live off of the land. Eat cockroaches?

I do not have absolute answers. I don't know if there is some magical science that we have not discovered yet. But the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of nature appear to not be willing to allow this lifestyle IN THESE NUMBERS. We can live a great modern existence. Just not 6 billion of us all doing it.

And we are not changing. No one is going to abandon their refrigerator without disaster or a fight. This discussion is 100 years too late. Now the suffering is going to happen until things slowly smolder to a slowdown. It may increase for a while, as it already is. Which will make the smoldering even more dramatic. But the end result is there will be a decrease in population, only a very ugly one.

The only seismic shift that is needed is in awareness of population.

[GliderGuider]

8. I expect that living without refrigerators will lead to some reduction in population.

As always, we are faced with the voluntary/involuntary dilemma. That which must be done to avert the crisis will be done only as its consequence.

[Gregorian]

12. Right. Being vigilant can avoid much suffering.

There has always been suffering, but we should try and minimize it. I thought that is what we were doing on this planet. Trying to enjoy it.

Population is sneaky business. My grandmother never lived long enough to see what her 11 offspring turned into. Sick.

I believe we can live a relatively modern lifestyle. Look at the exponential curve. Up to a point it is relatively flat. Below a certain number of a billion or so people we can do pretty much whatever we want. And vice versa, as we get to the vertical portion. We can't do shit. Which is where we are now. No answers except to get horizontal again.



Edit- Modern. When I said modern I meant that we probably can't have ball and roller bearings, but we can have bushings. We can't have pressure washers and turbocharger impellers, but we can have the wheel. In fact, we can have some improvements that allow us to have manufacturing. Therefore we could have refrigeration, but not much more. Thoughts. Maybe wrong ones.

[Delphinus]

23. Said so well:

"That which must be done to avert the crisis will be done only as its consequence."

I must remember this - I *know* it, but your words are very eloquent and succinct. When I try and speak my thoughts on this, I tend to ramble.

[TxRider]

62. Why would that be?

Refrigeration of food is only one method of food preservation.

We will just get less fresh produce out of season, and preserved goods instead of refrigerated ones.

If we dehydrated all our foods it would be a godsend, not only would it last a lot longer, but most of what we actually transport in food is water.

[GliderGuider]

13. Urbanitemares...

There is no question in my mind that we are trapped by the living arrangements we have built for ourselves. Our velvet-lined trap seemed so seductively attractive when we had our expanding energetic future in front of us. Now we are all safely inside with the one-way door tightly closed against the cold drafts of the outside world. We're all comfy, warm and mobile, being nourished through this little hose that snakes in through the closed door bringing us our daily ration of food, heat, fuel and entertainment. We remember how cold and hard it was on the outside before the velvet lining and the little hose, and we are happy to pay the price for the easy comfort that comes out whenever we turn the little tap on the end of it.

Lately though, we've been noticing the price has been going up, and even when we pay it there's not always as much liquid comfort coming out as there used to be. Some of us in here are starting to have uncomfortable memories of a time without velvet linings or little hoses, and are getting a bit anxious. Some of us have even tried pushing the door open to venture outside, but they discovered it seemed to be stuck. The few who have squeezed outside have reported back that it's actually colder and harder out there than we remember. Some of us are starting to have nightmares about the little hose drying up, and are looking angrily at all the crowding others who insist on sharing the bounty from that little hose. We notice that even when we try to use a little less from the hose, they just seem to use a little more.

It's getting scary. I want my mommy.

[Gregorian]

15. My uncle grew up without hot water.

Somewhere in Turkey. No electricity, he'd venture out into the pitch black at night, to go to the bathroom.

My grandmother saw the first horseless carriage.

It's amazing how quickly it all happened.


Your post does not fall on deaf ears. I understand it completely.


There is one thing I keep coming back to. And that is, we survived from the very beginning without the things we have now. Without the things that we are literally killing people to retain. That means very few people in the history of the human race ever took warm baths. Well, except Hawaiians. And another thing, we are unhealthy now. Nature is not just telling us, it's screaming at us that what we're doing is wrong.

You know, when one simply commutes by bicycle, they are doing something that hearkens back to a more natural time. Smells, sights, feelings, heart rate. It is then that one can get a very clear picture, especially when adjacent to the cars and noise and disturbances, of how things are wrong. And how and why we are not healthy.

We're actually very unhappy. But most people don't realize it.

There are many facets to what we're doing, where we've been going. Facets of feedback that are telling us it's wrong.

I'll say it again- smaller, slower, harder.

And one more thing. I actually think the war we are having with Republicans is very much related to retaining this ugly (and very lavish) lifestyle. It's more than politics. It's about comfort and ease.

Life was not meant to be easy. I don't know why. I could get biblical.

[GliderGuider]

31. My family has the same memories.

My grandfather saw the first horseless carriage in his part of Canada, and lived to see man land on the Moon and the first Space Shuttle fly.
My mother rode to school on the Prairies in a horse-drawn wagon in the summer and sleigh in the winter.
My grandfather's general store used ice cut from a local lake in winter and stored in an ice-house under sawdust for summertime refrigeration.

People who say, "Oh we can't possibly survive without this or that technological convenience," have no idea how close that past is.

[kestrel91316]

37. My own father, b 1932, spent most of his childhood and youth in a home without

indoor plumbing, and my grandmother didn't finally get it in her home until I was in junior high (1972). Though the traditional low-tech privy left a LOT to be desired (the odor was unacceptable), the basic principal is sound. I hope to someday have a humble retirement home with a sawdust bucket toilet. I'm not afraid of poop.

[susanna]

90. "I could get biblical."

I'm lurking, but my oh my, this one gets me. I understand. :)

[Kolesar]

30. Eat potatos, not bugs

Seriously, people can grow a huge amount of that basic staple with a modest amount of effort. Most varieties are 16% protein and the home grown ones have vitamins.

[Gregorian]

34. I know. I've been thinking about that.

I'm glad you reminded me. Not only do I live on potatoes, but I love them. It is one of those things that could sustain a large number of us if things get rough.

I'm going to do some potato research this week. :)

[Nederland]

60. We are already doing that

Birth rates in the first world are plummeting all over the world. It is only the Third World, the world that survives by "living off the land", that population growth is unsustainable. You have it completely backwards. You think the future will consist of people engaged in subsistence farming. The truth is that those are precisely the people that are going to die off.

[maryf]

80. Eat the Rich, nt.

[GliderGuider]

7. Given the success of the health care and climate change debates so far

I have every faith that the industrialized west (led by our role model the USA) will embrace voluntary non-consumerism with just as much far-sighted enthusiasm.

I don't want to get too grinchy about it though. This is precisely the behavioural change that is generated by the shift in consciousness that's driving the explosive growth of the Blessed Unrest groups. So at the grass roots it is in fact making some headway.

However, I don't expect voluntary simplicity to become a mainstream attitude until well after it becomes necessary. If I don't have the money for bottled water or dinners out or a new SUV it will soothe my soul to make a green virtue out of my straitened circumstances.

[pscot]

48. I once owned a 1965 Falcon

As I recall, a tuneup consisted of changing the points, plugs and transmission. Unfortunately, it biodegraded under me.

[GliderGuider]

51. Horrid little things they were.

Mine ended up with no floorboards under either the passenger or driver's seat and a radiator that needed refilling every 50 miles. The gearshift lever broke off in my hand at a stoplight, and the car finally caught fire and died in my bank's parking lot (much to the amusement of the loans manager). I will never forget that little brown pile of shit.

[TxRider]

63. I love old Falcons..

[susanna]

91. I love old Falcons. :) n/t

[CJCRANE]

10. Make everything recyclable

or biodegradable and run everything with renewable energy.

That way we can still continue to consume but everything we throw away gets reused or degrades naturally.

[GliderGuider]

11. I once owned a 1965 Ford Falcon that was biodegradable...

Not going there again :-(

Eventually everything will be recyclable, when we're mining landfill for the metals and plastics.

[Kolesar]

35. I used to entertain myself by pressing the paint bubbles on my uncle's 1963 Comet

He dumped that car on my father. We did not have it very long.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (in that order)

Unfortunately, people have hit upon recycling as being the answer to all of our ills. If we can recycle something, then it's as if there is no ecological impact to discarding it.

The fact of the matter is, while recycling glass (for example) takes much less energy than producing new glass, it still takes a great deal of energy.

[The2ndWheel]

16. So once again, the solution would cause the next problem

""Preventing the collapse of human civilisation requires nothing less than a wholesale transformation of dominant cultural patterns. This transformation would reject consumerism... and establish in its place a new cultural framework centred on sustainability,""

How can you prevent the collapse of civilization, if your solution requires undermining the foundation on which civilization is built?

Not to mention that this would have to be a global framework, from which no individual nation could extract itself, for any reason, especially one concerning their own private national interest. Because that's how we got to where we are today over the last few thousand years. Any civilization that didn't grow, grow consistently, and grow quick enough, was overrun by those civilizations that did do exactly that.

[GliderGuider]

18. Reality's a bitch, ain't it? nt

[Wilms]

32. Which, uncomfortably, is pretty much the point of the "Unabomber Manifesto".

I read it back in the day and the guy made a few good points.

:scared:

[GliderGuider]

33. More than a few, IMO.

The anarcho-primitivists have made some pretty sharp observations about the state we're in, how and why we got here, and what the implications are for the future. The fact that they can't come up with a believable plan about what to do about it isn't really their fault. After all, nobody else has come up with one either.

[joshcryer]

17. Prosumerism.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. lol. nt

[joshcryer]

24. It's real, and it's the wave of the future, here's the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumer

While that definition is somewhat generalized I go more by the definition in Third Wave.

You look at YouTube, and you see independent individuals making interesting things that get millions of views. Yes, most of it is garbage, and it's just a specticle, but if you go deeper you find people making million dollar blockbusters (Paranormal) for pennies, using new technology.

So what will happen, eventually, is that consumers will also be producers, and their waste will be recycled back into the system. Have a TV, want to upgrade, toss your TV into the recycling center and get a big credit toward that new TV (since both of them are going to have similar components and elemental makeups).

It's a basic equilibrium point, imo.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Oh, I agree with the sentiment....

...But my inner etymologist is weeping and banging his head against the desk. the 'Con' of consume is from the "cum-" intensive prefix, not the "contra-" negative, so Prosume ("pro sumere": there for the taking) means almost the same as Consume ("cum sumere": really, have some!)

I sometimes get accused of thinking too much.

[joshcryer]

27. Ahh, gotcha. Cute.

:)

[backwoodsbob]

21. but if I kill a few deer to put meet in the fridge

i'm an antidem.

How do you win?

[Kolesar]

29. that sounds frantic

You need not be frantic

[pscot]

49. Anyone who kills a few deer

is a public benefactor.

[crispini]

25. K&R

[bhikkhu]

28. Yes...and the smart learn to enjoy what must be done

That was my focus last year, and it was a very good year. I lived on a lot less than the year before, but had more fun and felt better than ever. This year I plan on getting rid of a last few big hard-to-let-go-of things - a couple of cars, a property, books, etc. A step down at a time, and its not bad at all.

[tinrobot]

36. This requires a huge shift in conciousness

People have to shed themselves of the notion that who they are is what they own.

Not an easy task.

[blindpig]

38. Consumerism is a result of capitalism

All of this crap is produced not to make our lives any better but to generate profits, any real benefit to us is secondary. Why would billions be spent on advertising otherwise? Planned obsolescence, year models, rampant accessorization and upgrades are also part of the sales generating machine.

This 'anarchy of the market' is consuming the planet and immiserizing the majority at breakneck pace. Only a rational system of production can get civilization out of this death spiral.

[The2ndWheel]

39. Or maybe production is the spiral

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

"In his classic, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes describes what he calls "the state of nature" as an anarchic situation in which all are compelled, for their very survival, to engage in a ceaseless struggle for power. About this "war of all against all," two important points should be made: that Hobbes's vision of the dangers of anarchy captured an important dimension of the human condition, and that to call that condition "the state of nature" is a remarkable misnomer.

In nature, all pursue survival for themselves and their kind. But they can do so only within biologically evolved limits. The living order of nature, though it has no ruler, is not in the least anarchic. Each pursues a kind of self- interest, each is a law unto itself, but the separate interests and laws have been formed over aeons of selection to form part of a tightly ordered harmonious system. Although the state of nature involves struggle, the struggle is part of an order. Each component of the living system has a defined place out of which no ambition can extricate it. Hunting- gathering societies were to a very great extent likewise contained by natural limits.

With the rise of civilization, the limits fall away. The natural self-interest and pursuit of survival remain, but they are no longer governed by any order. The new civilized forms of society, with more complex social and political structures, created the new possibility of indefinite social expansion: more and more people organized over more and more territory. All other forms of life had always found inevitable limits placed upon their growth by scarcity and consequent death. But civilized society was developing the unprecedented capacity for unlimited growth as an entity. (The limitlessness of this possibility does not emerge fully at the outset, but rather becomes progressively more realized over the course of history as people invent methods of transportation, communication, and governance which extend the range within which coherence and order can be maintained.) Out of the living order there emerged a living entity with no defined place."

[blindpig]

40. 'war of all against all'

That incorrect assumption collapses the argument. Humans were(and are) a species for which an egalitarian mode of social organization has been the norm and premium. Though capable of a wide range of behaviors our prediliction for egalitarianism is in our genome. The production of commodities has been a necessary but painful step in our social evolution. It not only desirable but necessary for survival that we change the social organization of production to a system that is rational, both for the betterment of all people and for the survival of the biosphere itself.

[The2ndWheel]

42. Right, the linked piece calls it an incorrect assumption

What would a globally(betterment of all people and the survival of the biosphere) rational system of production look like?

[TxRider]

41. Who decides?

"Only a rational system of production can get civilization out of this death spiral."

Who decides what is a rational system?

Anything that is produced is sensibly produced to make a profit, or at least break even. In doing so the people producing it get to live as well, and consume a bit of what you or I produce.

If people did not believe the things they consume made their lives "better" they would not consume them.

What you see as crap someone else obviously doesn't.

"Why would billions be spent on advertising otherwise?"

I could make a pill that would cure any ill mankind ever had or ever will have. Unless I advertise nobody would ever know, nobody could even know to go look for my product, that it even exists.

"Planned obsolescence, year models, rampant accessorization and upgrades are also part of the sales generating machine."

Of course they are, but products also advance with technology, they advance due to consumer feedback, they have base models for people who want a cheaper option, accessories for those that want every bell and whistle. Consumers demand this of producers.

Simply blaming all ills of our society on a nebulous concept of evil profiteers is pitifully simplistic and blind.

[blindpig]

43. Far from a 'nebulous concept of evil profiteers....'

Rather it is the demand of the economic system of continued, necessary profits. The system will collapse without growth, which is why they make such a big deal about GDP. The capitalist is merely responding to the environment of capitalism, which rewards greed.

Who decides? Society as a whole will decide, not just one tiny fraction thereof. Let's say that what people want is universal health care but that the capitalists who dominate society do not as there's no profit in it for them, guess what happens?

[TxRider]

44. What will collapse without growth

Is our federal government.

And it's reliance on economic growth to deal with deficit spending.

It doesn't require growth to maintain a profit.

Industry can survive with no growth, even with some negative growth, but the shareholders might not be happy with that.

That includes union pension funds, universities, 401k's, and other investors who want the biggest return on their investment they can get. Regular old run of the mill people, society.

The government's income rising though is dependent on economic growth to stay ahead of the spending the government does of money it does not have.

I am a capitalist, I run a corporation, I founded it.

I guess I am an evil profiteer for trying to ensure the people who had faith in me enough to invest millions get their money back with a little profit for risking it with me. There are more good corporations than bad ones.

Capitalism simply rewards successful execution of producing value in a product or service. It does not reward greed.

Greed is enabled and rewarded more through corruption of the system, which can be endemic to any economic system. Capitalism, communism, socialism, none are free from the lure and poison of corruption.

[blindpig]

45. As though you are doing the work....

The investors have faith in you to extract as much labor as possible from your worker in order to maximize their investment. Proud of that, huh? So glad it works for ya.

If there is nothing profitable to invest in the investors will sit on their money, buy gold, and the whole system breaks down.

Your POV is very libertarian, pro-business and anti-government. That suits because libertarianism is an ideology made up specifically to support capitalism.

Greed is the smallest thing, the icing on the cake. It is the mechanism of capitalism which is the driver of exploitation and environmental destruction. That the system rewards greedy behavior is a result of the system.

The thing about you capitalist is that you think that you are more important than your workers, and nothing could be further from the case.

[TxRider]

46. I do as much work as anyone

And when times got tight I did two years on minimum wage, not my employees.

My investors have faith that people will want to buy our product, that I am capable of getting the product produced and sold.

The the plan they invested in, that provides above average wages, full health care, and part company ownership to employees was invested in because they believed it could produce a product I can sell for a little more that it costs to produce. A profit that would sustain the company and return the money to them with a little profit over time.

Greed is simply greed. It is endemic to humans and to any system capitalistic or not.

I don't think I am more important than than my employees, without them I fail, I was a worker most of my life. I had an idea, a dream, and had the fortitude to pursue it is all. I worked 365 days a year without even a week off for well over a decade to chase it down. I invested every penny of my life savings to start the dream. Risking it all as they say.

You really have very little idea of what your talking about.

Having worked from my first job cleaning toilets and polishing floors, to where I am now 35 years later, I have seen the system from every position in it.

If your so right, show me any civilization with and economic system in the whole of human history of the world that many at the top didn't profit from greed and corruption.

If there was nothing profitable to invest in, it would go into a bank or such that the bank would then loan against.

Capitalism provides incentive for people like me, if I can build a batter mouse trap I can profit from it. That's all.

Sure greed and corruption exist in a capitalist system, but it also exists in every other type of system.

By far most corporations are small business like mine, good people trying to do good for them as well as their employees.


I'll ask you, what economic system can you point to, real world example from human history, where those at the top didn't profit from greed or corruption. What is your "perfect system"?

[pscot]

50. People tend to conflate capitalism with corporatism

As long as capitalism retains the human dimension it has the potential to make life better for everyone. Corporatism has no human dimension. People are just a means to an end. That end is profit. As practiced now days, the profit motive reigns supreme. The courts have given it the vote, and it brooks no constraint. That kind of thing gives capitalism a bad name.

[TxRider]

52. Well said.

I sometimes struggle to grasp a means of communicating that difference.

Corporatism is a separate concept from capitalism, and I'm not sure I have explored the concept fully enough to have a basis for a strongly held view of it in general.

I formed a corporation as most do for legal reasons and for it's structure within the laws of the state. I don't know that I practice corporatism though. Corporations in my view have as much human element and dimension as the people running them, or their shareholders demand or allow.

The larger they get, the less human element or dimension they seem to have.

We have far too many corporations of far too large a size in my opinion. Something that I feel will self destruct under it's own weight in time, and something we will eventually learn to control.

[GliderGuider]

53. I once asked the CEO of a small high-tech company I worked for

what social and ethical factors he considered in running the company. He replied, "None whatsoever. A corporation has only legal responsibilities, and that's what we uphold." I knew right then I didn't want to work for that man. The company at the time had about 50 employees...

[blindpig]

54. Well and good.

But do you pay your employees the full value of their labor? I doubt it, for then there would be no profits, because that's what profits are, the labor of workers that the capitalist appropriates for themselves.

You have worked and sacrificed Oh so hard, in order that you might become an exploiter. This is no reflection on you personally, it is how he system works. I am a cog in the machine as well as you, it is the machine which needs be smashed.

It is enough to know that humans are naturally egalitarian, once the impediment of capitalism is out of the way the people there and then will know what to do. There ain't no perfection outside of Plato's cave but whatever people come up with will undoubtedly be better than the current system which keeps the majority in bondage and is destroying the biosphere.

[Nederland]

57. Spoken like someone who has never run a company

In the eyes of people like you, the people that sit at the top of a company do nothing but sit on their asses and collect the money. Your conception of what counts as "work" is hopelessly naive. If it were possible to create an entity that could create products using only employees that are actually engaged in creating the product, such an entity would be able to produce their products at a lower cost and crush it's higher priced competitors that have greedy capitalists sucking excess profits off the top. Why doesn't this happen? Because you are wrong. The "greedy capitalists" that run the company don't just sit on their asses collecting money, they actually provide something of value.

You confuse Capitalism with Corporatism. Learn the difference.

[blindpig]

61. There is no difference

except in the minds of those who would cling to capitalism.

Yes, the boss might work, but does he/she work so much more as to deserve the great pay differential? And forget about the investors, they do no work at all.

All work is of equal value just as any persons time is of equal value, it's all we got.

[TxRider]

72. Sure there is

Who says there even is a great pay differential. I have never been the best paid person, and I have gone for years as the lowest paid person at the company.

The investors did their work. Money is simply labor in trade.

Work and time are not all we have. We have intelligence. We have thought.

An hour of daydreaming is not equal to hour of ditch digging.

A foot of laid stone sidewalk is not equal to ten feet of laid stone sidewalk.

Since we use what we call a currency to trade labor with each other, payment for laying one foot of laid stone does not equal payment for ten feet of laid stone.

[Nederland]

76. Stunningly ignorant

All work is of equal value just as any persons time is of equal value, it's all we got.

This is so obviously untrue I debated whether it was worth responding. The value of an hour of Stephen Hawkings time is worth way more than an hour of my time, because I am no where near as smart as he is. The whole idea that everyone's time is of equal value is ridiculous on it's face. The value of any given person's time is determined by the average value all the individuals in society assign to it, period end of story. People are willing to give a doctor a lot more money for an hour of her/his time than an hour of time from the kid that cuts their lawn. The reasons are apparently obvious to everyone except you.

[TBF]

85. Subjective and Arrogant

The whole idea that anyone's time is worth more than anyone else's is ridiculous, subjective, arrogant, and designed to subjugate others. I'm sure you feel you are very important. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather spend my hour talking to the kid (or adult) who cuts the lawn and has some idea what work really is.

[TxRider]

89. Agreed

Better stated as the product of someone's time/effort can be worth more then the product of someone elses.

Two kids mow lawns. One can mow 5 lawns in a day, the other only two. The product of the first kids day(time/effort) is worth more.

[TxRider]

58. Wow

I worked hard to get ahead.

There is more work required to produce the product than one person can do or I would do it all myself. I need people, that means an organized effort of many to succeed.

Say it takes 20 people to produce the product I have sweated to invent and develop. I have to hire 19 people.

I advertise, they come talk to me, we negotiate a wage and conditions, and now the 20 of us produce a product, and hopefully sell it so we all can have a productive job.

There is no exploitation involved.

Show me any place on earth where the common worker has a higher standard of living than in capitalist countries.

[blindpig]

66. Of course there is exploitation

If there are profits there must be exploitation, they gotta come from somewhere.

The wages and conditions which you negotiate are conditioned by what is current in the capitalist society as a whole and has little to do with the actual value of the work people do. Why should you make more money than one of your employees if you both put in the same hours?

[GliderGuider]

67. I've always wanted to ask a dyed-in-the-wool socialist this.

Say there are two software developers working for the same enterprise. They put in the same hours, but one is five times as productive as the other (i.e. she writes both more code and more bug-free code -- I've worked as such, so I know it happens). Should the more productive one be paid more? If not, why not?

[blindpig]

69. No, they should not.

Like I said, one person's time is every bit as good as another's.

From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.

Perhaps that less productive worker might find something they are more adept at. Or perhaps it doesn't matter so much, if they are producing enough to be socially useful.

[TxRider]

71. Ok

So say you need a new fence built around your house, hire me and charge the same daily rate as every other fence builder.

But I take 2 months to build what they would build in a week, costing you 5x as much in labor for your new fence.

After all, my time is every bit as good as another's is it not?

If not as my employer you are exploiting me!!

[TxRider]

68. Of course they come from somewhere.

I produce a product, the cost of that is the cost of materials plus the cost of labor of the employees including me.

The product is traded for money to a customer. If the customer is happy to pay the cost of production (materials + labor) then there is profit. Who is being exploited?

Let me make it simpler for you.

Say I have one employee, me. I fix cars. I fix a guys car, it costs me $20 in parts, and one days hard labor.

I charge him $80.. As if I calculate my rent, bills, cost of tools past and future, food for a day, taxes, etc. a day costs me $50.

Did I exploit him? Did he exploit me? Did I exploit myself?

[Nederland]

56. Exactly

Lack of growth isn't a problem for Capitalism, it is a problem for any person or any institution that finances present consumption with future work. Unfortunately, that's a huge percentage of our society today.

[Nederland]

55. Fill in the details here

Who decides? Society as a whole will decide, not just one tiny fraction thereof.

How exactly would that work? Would everbody vote on everything? What if only a small minority of people want something, and they are willing to spend their own time to acquire it? Are they just shit out of luck? Sounds like tyrrany of the majority to me...

[blindpig]

64. Which beats the hell out of the tyranny of the minority

which is what we have now.

As long as that minority contribute their part to the community I don't see why they couldn't seek to acquire that which they wish, as long as that isn't anything detrimental to the community.

[TxRider]

70. So again,

Point me to any civilization where a minority at the top didn't make the decisions.

Then point me to any civilization where the common worker has a better standard of living than a capitalist society.

[blindpig]

73. Not civilization

but pre-civilization, which accounts for 90% of our species existance.

Your scope is too narrow, consider the entire world, which has been incorporated into the capitalist system. Billions in abject poverty, billions hungry, this is the work of capitalism, their labor and natural resources transferred to the capitalist owners in the North.

[TxRider]

77. Sorry

My scope is plenty wide, yours a narrower than a soda straw.


I am considering the entire world, and every civilization that we know from history.

Anything lager than a familial tribe needs a hierarchy. Even small tribes need a chief.

Larger the society, the more levels of hierarchy are required for organization.

Pre civilization eh? You think we should live like cavemen? Before civilization? seriously? Fire and stone tools wearing animal skins? ROFL...

[maryf]

79. Look at the governmental structure of the Iroquois...

It was what was used to form the democratic republic form of our country...sadly the social structure didn't follow suit, nor the economic structure. The Iroquois had a very strong organization. Technologically they weren't that far behind the Euro people who came here in the 1600's. Who's to say that form of wholistic society couldn't work with modern technology? (On an aside, the one huge mistake that the Euros forgot when adopting this, was the wisewomen, they always had the last say, though they said little... :) )

[Nederland]

82. Why have tyranny at all?

Why not embrace a system that says that people should be free to negotiate the prices of goods and service amongst themselves without interference from government, and that individuals own the fruit of their own labor? Is there anything wrong with that?

[TBF]

86. "Without interference from Government"

I think I've walked into the libertarian party of the day at DU.

[tinrobot]

75. We each decide

Right now, the majority of people decide to spend the majority of their time and resources chasing material profits. This is why we're in this situation. Many people in the west consume far more than they really need, and the rest of the world is following our lead.

Only when the majority of people decide against that practice will the system change.

[maryf]

78. Anything that is produced is SENSIBLY produced to make a profit ???

???Wow, this is news to me!! I thought anything that is produced is produced to be of some use? Does this mean that shoemakers are only making shoes to make a profit? and not to shod some bare feet?? Why does there have to be a profit, if all are shod? The "sensibility" of production is to improve the quality of people's lives (like protect their feet), not the quantity of money made...

[TxRider]

81. Yes

It's obvious a shoemaker makes shoes to shod some bare feet.

The shoemaker also ostensibly has a wife, kids, a mortgage, maybe a dog. He may want to retire with a little money to feed himself when he's too old to work. Maybe send a kid or three to college.

If he only makes shoes for exactly what it directly costs him or less, he won't be fixing or making shoes for long as he won't be able to buy materials to make them from.

He has to charge enough to pay for the materials and the time it takes to do the work. He has to charge enough above that, enough "profit" to pay the taxes on his shop, on his home, on his income, feed his kids, his dog, and to save some for retirement or educating his kids or pay back the bank loan he took out to set up his shop or all the above.

So yes, anything that is produced is sensibly produced to make a profit. Doing it at a loss means not doing it at all, doing it at cost likely does as well, as it leaves no margin or cushion for riding out any slow times in business.

If that's news to you then you have my sympathy.

[maryf]

83. That is not profit that you talk about...

That is compensated labor...everyone should be secure and taken care of...Profit is making over and above this...

[TxRider]

84. Is it?

Sure there is compensation for labor.

There is also over and above compensation for labor such as compensation for cost of goods, the shoemaker must buy leather beforehand, needles, thread, tools, a shop.

Then there are taxes on the shop.

Those are not compensation of labor. The selling price of his shoes is compensation for total cost of goods, which includes cost of labor.

Webster defines profit.

2 : the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost

The shoemaker spends money to buy and maintain a shop, tools, etc, and if he makes a profit he makes enough to pay for that expenditure with excess money left over. Money to be used to stock up supplies, to raise a family, to save money for a rainy day etc.

Every person or company must have some "excess of the selling price of goods over their cost" in order to exist.

[cprise]

87. Why yes, as long as they don't

...include the senses of an ecologist. Sensing / measuring in this system is reserved primarily for the BANKER, who has become capitalism's analogue to the out of touch politburo apparatchik.

[One_Life_To_Give]

47. How much food can be harvested in a post oil world?

Forget the trinkets. Doesn't much matter if the shelves at Walmart sit mostly empty. Nor will it matter who we blame for the current consumerism. We will probably revert to the historical normalcy of having to spend most waking hours trying to find/grow/gather something to eat. Our decendants long bones will once again have the 40% mass ours have lost and their heights will likely shrink.

But getting to that new equilibrium will test our collective metal. Perhaps 9 Billion starving people and an inability to harvest food for more than a minority of them. But rest assured most of the deaths will occur in the third world and places where the population density is highest.

[Nederland]

59. Enough to feed those that can afford it

That has always been the case, though, hasn't it? I don't understand why people think that some new reality is about to overtake us. It's not. Oil will not run out at some point in the future in the middle of the night. It will slowly get more and more scarce, and its price will increase. This is already happening. Since the price of oil makes up a significant portion of the price of food, food will get more expensive. When this happens, the poorest people in the world, unable to afford the new higher price, will starve. This will continue until the size of the population shrinks to where it consists only of people that can afford the new price. What people don't seem to understand is that the above description has always been true. The world is made up of people, some who can produce enough food (or things that can be traded for food) to feed themselves, and some who cannot. Those who cannot starve. It is system that is inherently in equilibrium. It's been that way for millions of years, and will never change.

The third world has always been unable to feed itself, and you are correct that they will be hardest hit. However, you seem to think that at some point in the future oil will become so scarce and expensive that the first world will also suffer from lack of food. I don't understand how that could possibly happen. Oil is not required to produce food, energy is. Once the price of energy from oil exceeds the price of energy from solar (or some other renewable), we will produce food using that energy source. Given that renew-ables are already close to being competitive with oil, the idea that at some point food will become too expensive for people in the first world to afford simply doesn't make sense. Granted, people in the first world may soon be unable to afford global travel, or 3000 sq ft homes, eating out, or two cars per family, or a dozen other examples of our excessive consumption. However, food is way way down that list. In fact, it will be the last thing to go.

[cprise]

88. What hurbris

The loaded pendulum of runaway climate change will not slow down just because the capitalists anticipated die off of have-nots comes to pass. They think they can just buy into whatever environmental "high ground" presents itself and not get "wet", though there may be no ground high enough for any human to avoid what happens as said pendulum rushes back toward its nadir.

The world is made up of people, some who can produce enough food (or things that can be traded for food) to feed themselves, and some who cannot. Those who cannot starve. It is system that is inherently in equilibrium. It's been that way for millions of years, and will never change.

The world has natural systems that operate with huge energy budgets, and we are artificially spiking at least one of them at an unprecedented rate. The destabilization that is occurring now may be too quick and too energetic for many species to adapt in time to beat the added pressures and the chaos. It has not been this way, ever.

Oil is not required to produce food, energy is. Once the price of energy from oil exceeds the price of energy from solar (or some other renewable), we will produce food using that energy source.

A bizarre statement.

Solar is already the primary input of food production. If more solar energy were needed for food production, we would simply shift more agriculture closer to the equator.

[joshcryer]

74. That's easy, 10% less than we use now. The real question is how much can be *distributed*.

It only takes 10% of an agricultural plot to make the fuel necessary to harvest that same plot (and plant another one).

Once it's harvested however it must be distributed. If you live near the plots then you're OK.

If you live 3000 miles away and depend on weekly food shipments, then, well, you're pretty much fucked.