It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both

[IrateCitizen]

The following article addresses some fundamental issues that I have been playing with in my head for some time now. IMHO, a society based upon individualism and the pursuit of profit is ill-suited to the ecological demands of our planet -- we are entrenched in a system based upon MORE while the realities of nature and natural resources are currently screaming LESS. In any event, read it for yourself and make up your own mind....

Published on 2 Feb 2006 by Guardian. Archived on 2 Feb 2006.

It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both
by Robert Newman

There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.

Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with.

Much discussion of energy, with never a word about power, leads to the fallacy of a low-impact, green capitalism somehow put at the service of environmentalism. In reality, power concentrates around wealth. Private ownership of trade and industry means that the decisive political force in the world is private power. The corporation will outflank every puny law and regulation that seeks to constrain its profitability. It therefore stands in the way of the functioning democracy needed to tackle climate change. Only by breaking up corporate power and bringing it under social control will we be able to overcome the global environmental crisis.

On these pages we have been called on to admire capital's ability to take robust action while governments dither. All hail Wal-Mart for imposing a 20% reduction in its own carbon emissions. But the point is that supermarkets are over. We cannot have such long supply lines between us and our food. Not any more. The very model of the supermarket is unsustainable, what with the packaging, food miles and destruction of British farming. Small, independent suppliers, processors and retailers or community-owned shops selling locally produced food provide a social glue and reduce carbon emissions. The same is true of food co-ops such as Manchester's bulk-distribution scheme serving former "food deserts".

READ THE REST HERE: http://www.energybulletin.net/12563.html

[ronatchig]

1. Indeed,

The idea that capitalism is the problem, how radical is that?
We exist to serve the "ree market state"- do what your told-consume- or the invisible hand is a gonna spank your ass.

A solution is divorce ones self from the "free market " Buy nothing "Corporate". A very difficult project, I can assure you. But it is good practice for your future.

[IrateCitizen]

3. That's a superficial solution, actually....

Modern capitalism is, IMHO, a result of the abrupt cessation of the Enlightenment. While the Enlightenment helped push mercantilism into capitalism, the end of the Enlightenment spawned the birth of Positivism, the belief that there was only one trajectory toward some kind of ultimate future. It is that positivism that is behind the excesses of modern-day capitalism.

One of the legacies of the Enlightenement that inhibits us from making change right now is the primacy of the individual. Capitalism is based upon the idea of profit, which is an individual value. Especially when that profit comes at the result of creating hardship or the like for others. My personal opinion is that we will never find our way out of the vast problems facing us -- environmental degradation and looming energy declines -- without a shift away from gross individualism and toward a form of enlightened collectivism.

Of course, such a radical shift in thought would also require something on the level of the old Enlightenment and a willingness to question everything in order to arrive at different conclusions and develop different values constructs by which to organize our living arrangements. Sadly, I think that such a project is pretty much improbable in current circumstances, and won't really happen until we've significantly entered the decline and the distractions of modern commercial culture are forcibly removed.

Ultimately, these things come down to the values around which we organize ourselves. When the primary values are individual profit and comfort, then everything else becomes subordinate to those -- including the common good.

[tecelote]

2. Never forget that your dollar is your real vote.

Now that we no know our electoral vote doesn't count it is even more important to realize that your dollar counts a lot.

OK - it's true that the current administration is trying to take that power away as well, but while we still have it, use it wisely. Buy with a conscience.

[IrateCitizen]

4. See my post #3, above.

[phantom power]

5. I don't think economic system is the problem, it's about regulation.

Capitalism can operate just fine in a highly regulated environment. In fact, it functions best that way, over the long haul. Americans suffer from the tragic misconception that the only kind of capitalism possible is utterly lasseiz-faire capitalism, with roid-rage. That kind of capitalism is certainly like a malignant tumor.

[IrateCitizen]

6. It's neither -- it's about the basic values of society

The natural path of capitalism is to seek profit first and foremost, and to attempt consolidation of markets in search of greater efficiency and neverending growth.

The problem is that we live in a finite world, with finite resources. And we've already taxed a large portion of the resources needed for future generations -- between 60% and 65% according to the UN Millenial Report on the World's Ecosystems -- in the hopes of satisfying our rapacious greed.

Regulation won't matter a whit so long as profit remains the number one priority. It still amazes me how people can look at what we have done to the planet thus far and expect that we will somehow change course while retaining the same values system. When you embrace capitalism, your number one goal is making a profit. Everything else is subordinate to it -- including preserving the planet for future generations.

Then again, it's typical of the kind of subjective rationality that is the hallmark of western societies.

[phantom power]

7. I don't exactly agree.

All corporations operate inside a fitness landscape. In this way, they are much like organisms operating inside the fitness landscape defined by an ecology.

Any corporation will seek to maximize it's profit subject to the constraints of it's fitness landscape. That landscape includes things like the price of raw materials it uses, the price of labor, the market for it's product, the existence of copetitors, and government regulations.

For instance, consider the auto industry. They will always operate to maximize profit, but they still have to do it subject to any constrains put on them by law. When the CAFE standards were introduced, the auto industries complied. They maximized their profits under a new contraint: fleet mileage. Of course, they also evolved a new strategy: exploit the light-truck loophole.

You have to treat economies like ecologies. Manage the fitness landscape. And allow for the fact that agents will always "try" to evolve various end-runs around your defenses.

[IrateCitizen]

9. The problem is that the "fitness landscape" for business...

... is much, much different than the "fitness landscape" of ecological realities.

And so long as individual wants combined with profit remain at the top of our societal hierarchy of values, the two will remain radically different. At least so long as nature allows things to remain that way before a serious correction takes place.

Look, I reserve the right to be wrong about this. However, there is nothing that I see in recent human history (the last 500 years or so) that causes me to have any sort of optimism that a continuation of models founded upon classical economics will provide any sort of relief. Classical economics is a growth model, something that is fine so long as you live on a growth planet.

The problem is, we DON'T live on a growth planet. Ours is quite finite.

[phantom power]

10. I agree, we need better theories of economics under limited systems.

As a species, we are capable of useful activities like planning, cooperation, cost/benefit analysis and delaying gratification. Those seem like sufficient intellectual tools for managing an economy under something like a steady state.

Another avenue is to push the "growth" into areas that don't require additional resources (the old "information economy" theory). Or, areas that actively reduce resource usage. Make recycling a growth industry. Or wind power. It is possible to make a living at activities which improve the environment.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Improve the environment???

I don't know that any of these activities you've mentioned necessarily "improve the environment". Maybe they lessen our impact on the environment as compared to our current industrial activity, in some instances significantly, but I seriously doubt they really "improve" the environment.

And please excuse me here, but I have to scoff at your notion that we are capable of delaying gratification. Well, maybe we ARE capable, but it's flying in the face of what we know. Everywhere I look around me here in the good ol' U-S-of-A all I see is a demand for IMMEDIATE gratification. Getting people to change that habit is going to be a colossal task all to itself.

Finally, the values you've described here as being worthwhile, "planning, cooperation, cost/benefit analysis and delaying gratification," you categorize them as being beneficial to a steady-state economy. By its very nature, a steady-state economy is NOT capitalism, because it does not provide avenues for growth of capital. But I also happen to believe that it's what we have to arrive at if we want to survive as a species in any form recognizably close to what we know.

[phantom power]

12. The secret is that capital and resources are not the same thing.

If I've got a large pile of lumber, concrete, sheetrock, etc, these are resources, and they do represent some amount of capital. If I turn all that into a house, I now have more capital. I haven't acquired any new resources, so where did that new capital come from? I got it by adding energy (to run my body, and equipment, etc) and information (an architecture plan, carpentry skills, etc.)

So, if the game is played in the correct way, it is possible to grow capital, without consuming ever-more resources. What is required to do that is energy and information. Energy can come from the sun, and so we can treat it as unlimited for the forseable future. Where "information" comes from, is a subject of great scientific curiosity. However, it can apparently continue to increase indefinitely, as long as there is available energy. Which we also have.

However, I'm unconvinced about a larger issue: I don't see why there cannot be capitalism without total growth in capital. It would be a zero-sum system, in terms of total available capital.

[RethugAssKicker]

8. Indeed... The mindset must change...

I think Capitalism can survive and maintain.... but it must be heavily regulated in order to preserve the planet and resources...

We must instill in the American(and Western) countries the importance of the environment and somehow tone down the greed and persistent search for high profits at any means...

Especially in America, this sounds almost impossible to attain. The never-ending lust for power, and money seems insatiable... Especially with the current neo-con grip on this country... I wouldn't hold my breath...

But if we could change the way we view the world (in more ways than one).. I believe capitalism can succeed, but the way things are going now, I agree that it seems hopeless.