Comments on: Are We at Risk of Collapse? http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:22:06 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1587 Anonymous Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:35:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1587 Diamond speaks of 'core beliefs' but, as apparent from the 'solutions' proferred, fails to understand that such beliefs are the internalization and taking for granted of historically specific sets of social relations of production and reproduction until in truly ahistoric fashion these are presumed and, in the case of capitalism, advertisted to be the only which have ever been, will - through 'reforms' - ever be.<br/><br/>Core beliefs within a social system based on commoditization, profit and accumulation are distinct from those within a social system of reciprocity producing for use. Both types of systems fail but for quite different reasons, e.g. pre-capitalist crises were of scarcity whereas those within capitalism have resulted from abundance on one hand and created scarcity on the other. Overproduction of means of production, overaccumulation of capital, is <i>inherent</i> to an 'expand or die' system, overaccumulation/overproduction which through the mediations of falling rate of profit, unemployment, etc, manifest as scarcity for the greater number, as limits and limits which the selfsame system must - in its attempt to perpetuate itself - constantly struggle to overcome.<br/>A famous 19th c. political economist noted that the limit to capital is capital itself. He did not though expect this system to realize its final form through demolition of nature but to have passed into history before then. In this sense, yes, the great depression might be seen as a warning just as more modern notions of a 'green capitalism' are no more than attempts to perpetuate, to profit from increasingly destructive creation...no more than generally unconscious, ultimately unrealizable, attempts to save that which generates what must be overcome.<br/><br/>Unless we, as a world social formation, are able to move beyond "the Moses and prophets" of "accumulate, accumulate, accumulate", Diamond will be correct in his assesment of the future, and this will happen even as the tools to mitigate then correct already exist. Diamond speaks of ‘core beliefs’ but, as apparent from the ’solutions’ proferred, fails to understand that such beliefs are the internalization and taking for granted of historically specific sets of social relations of production and reproduction until in truly ahistoric fashion these are presumed and, in the case of capitalism, advertisted to be the only which have ever been, will – through ‘reforms’ – ever be.

Core beliefs within a social system based on commoditization, profit and accumulation are distinct from those within a social system of reciprocity producing for use. Both types of systems fail but for quite different reasons, e.g. pre-capitalist crises were of scarcity whereas those within capitalism have resulted from abundance on one hand and created scarcity on the other. Overproduction of means of production, overaccumulation of capital, is inherent to an ‘expand or die’ system, overaccumulation/overproduction which through the mediations of falling rate of profit, unemployment, etc, manifest as scarcity for the greater number, as limits and limits which the selfsame system must – in its attempt to perpetuate itself – constantly struggle to overcome.
A famous 19th c. political economist noted that the limit to capital is capital itself. He did not though expect this system to realize its final form through demolition of nature but to have passed into history before then. In this sense, yes, the great depression might be seen as a warning just as more modern notions of a ‘green capitalism’ are no more than attempts to perpetuate, to profit from increasingly destructive creation…no more than generally unconscious, ultimately unrealizable, attempts to save that which generates what must be overcome.

Unless we, as a world social formation, are able to move beyond “the Moses and prophets” of “accumulate, accumulate, accumulate”, Diamond will be correct in his assesment of the future, and this will happen even as the tools to mitigate then correct already exist.

]]> By: Minh-Poland http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1585 Minh-Poland Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:32:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1585 There is another possibility that I fear more probable to apply to the USA right now. <br/><br/>Do you remember Cambodia ? Polpot, a Sorbonne educated Cambodian together with a communist group, abolished money and killed/torture intellectuals, send the population of big cities to work in the country. Cambodia,you see, is a country of plenty agricultural resources, but the destruction of money and the quick changing social role of people has lead to dramatic drop of productivities. In a windows of just 3 years, Polpot and his regime has managed to starve to death few million of Cambodian.<br/><br/><br/>1. Society divisive in term of perceived wealth creates animosities. But the real danger is the less well-off see the banking system as enemy (like Polpot saw paper money)<br/><br/>2. When a "revolutionary" group of less "educated" people took power, they tend to over-estimate their ability to change the current system for the better (Bush&Co vs World Oil distribution system is a good example)<br/><br/>This reminds me of math's catastrophe theory ie "sudden shifts in behavior arising from small changes in circumstances". There is another possibility that I fear more probable to apply to the USA right now.

Do you remember Cambodia ? Polpot, a Sorbonne educated Cambodian together with a communist group, abolished money and killed/torture intellectuals, send the population of big cities to work in the country. Cambodia,you see, is a country of plenty agricultural resources, but the destruction of money and the quick changing social role of people has lead to dramatic drop of productivities. In a windows of just 3 years, Polpot and his regime has managed to starve to death few million of Cambodian.

1. Society divisive in term of perceived wealth creates animosities. But the real danger is the less well-off see the banking system as enemy (like Polpot saw paper money)

2. When a “revolutionary” group of less “educated” people took power, they tend to over-estimate their ability to change the current system for the better (Bush&Co vs World Oil distribution system is a good example)

This reminds me of math’s catastrophe theory ie “sudden shifts in behavior arising from small changes in circumstances”.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1583 Anonymous Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:12:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1583 To follow up on newsman's comments: The key point that I took away from Diamond's "Collapse" is that civilizations can fail, even when solutions to their problems were possible, and even when those solutions were (or should have been) evident. Some people--especially free-market enthusiasts and technophiles--seem to believe that we will solve any problem once it becomes severe enough to solve. Maybe we will, but Diamond demonstrates that it ain't necessarily so. To follow up on newsman’s comments: The key point that I took away from Diamond’s “Collapse” is that civilizations can fail, even when solutions to their problems were possible, and even when those solutions were (or should have been) evident. Some people–especially free-market enthusiasts and technophiles–seem to believe that we will solve any problem once it becomes severe enough to solve. Maybe we will, but Diamond demonstrates that it ain’t necessarily so.

]]> By: newsman http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1580 newsman Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:55:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1580 At the risk of belaboring the obvious--the point of Diamond's book is the title: Collapse. He didn't entitle it "Long slow decline that we're not obligated to worry about because our grandkids and great grandkids will be smart enough to fix the problems we bequeath to them." We have never experienced a collapse. Catastrophes, yes. Depressions, plagues, world wars. But not a collapse. So some people seem to think collapse can't happen or is highly unlikely. But just imagine shortages of energy leading to shortages of food, which in turn are exacerbated by loss of farmland, drought, and the depletion of underground water supplies. Meanwhile, sea levels rise and millions of people in major coastal cities become refugees. There is a limit to how many such impacts our system can stand. Our economic life support system is intricate and vulnerable. At the risk of belaboring the obvious–the point of Diamond’s book is the title: Collapse. He didn’t entitle it “Long slow decline that we’re not obligated to worry about because our grandkids and great grandkids will be smart enough to fix the problems we bequeath to them.” We have never experienced a collapse. Catastrophes, yes. Depressions, plagues, world wars. But not a collapse. So some people seem to think collapse can’t happen or is highly unlikely. But just imagine shortages of energy leading to shortages of food, which in turn are exacerbated by loss of farmland, drought, and the depletion of underground water supplies. Meanwhile, sea levels rise and millions of people in major coastal cities become refugees. There is a limit to how many such impacts our system can stand. Our economic life support system is intricate and vulnerable.

]]> By: newsman http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1571 newsman Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:45:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1571 Also, I think we often let the surface causes of world turmoil obscure the underlying competition for resources. In "The Prize," Daniel Yergin notes that the two main aggressor nations of World War II, Germany and Japan, were hungry for oil, and that goes a long way (not all the way, but a long way) toward explaining their actions. Germany wanted the Caspian; Japan wanted the area that is now Indonesia, to provide themselves with the oil resources they lacked.<br/>Would the Rwandans have slaughtered one another if there was plenty of idle farmland for people to move into? Would we be in Iraq if there was no oil there? (Alan Greenspan doesn't think so.) Also, I think we often let the surface causes of world turmoil obscure the underlying competition for resources. In “The Prize,” Daniel Yergin notes that the two main aggressor nations of World War II, Germany and Japan, were hungry for oil, and that goes a long way (not all the way, but a long way) toward explaining their actions. Germany wanted the Caspian; Japan wanted the area that is now Indonesia, to provide themselves with the oil resources they lacked.
Would the Rwandans have slaughtered one another if there was plenty of idle farmland for people to move into? Would we be in Iraq if there was no oil there? (Alan Greenspan doesn’t think so.)

]]> By: newsman http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1570 newsman Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:40:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1570 People who discount Diamond's insights seem to take comfort from the fact that improved technologies have staved off collapse in the past. It was Hobbes, I believe, (or was it Malthus...forgive me) who did the math and predicted imminent famine in England. But then, steam engines replaced animal power for transport, and more farmland and grain was available to feed people instead of draft animals. <br/>But I think it's horrific foolishness to assume that technofixes will always come to our rescue without any planning on our part. Is there any cheap water substitute now in development? On global warming, we are only now reaching a grudging concensus that there is probably a problem--the massive effort we will need to undertake in response is still on the drawing board.<br/>Diamond's book points out that civilizations DO collapse, and ours could too, if we don't start behaving in a rational way that recognizes limits to consumption. No real sign of that yet, unfortunately. Ethanol is not the answer. People who discount Diamond’s insights seem to take comfort from the fact that improved technologies have staved off collapse in the past. It was Hobbes, I believe, (or was it Malthus…forgive me) who did the math and predicted imminent famine in England. But then, steam engines replaced animal power for transport, and more farmland and grain was available to feed people instead of draft animals.
But I think it’s horrific foolishness to assume that technofixes will always come to our rescue without any planning on our part. Is there any cheap water substitute now in development? On global warming, we are only now reaching a grudging concensus that there is probably a problem–the massive effort we will need to undertake in response is still on the drawing board.
Diamond’s book points out that civilizations DO collapse, and ours could too, if we don’t start behaving in a rational way that recognizes limits to consumption. No real sign of that yet, unfortunately. Ethanol is not the answer.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1567 Anonymous Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:06:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1567 Is world growth increasing costs faster than it is increasing benefits? Is growth making us poorer rather than richer?<br/><br/>[ The text for my homily this evening is taken from John Ruskin: 'That which seems to be wealth may in verity be only the gilded index of far-reaching ruin'. That's my theme and I want to develop it in the following way: first I'll discuss the issue of uneconomic growth in theory. Does it make sense theoretically? Does it flow out of standard economics? I will argue that it is highly consistent with micro economic theory but that it conflicts with macro economic theory as currently done...I've put a dotted curve in the bottom which is the cost of GNP growth - in other words, the social and environmental sacrifices made necessary by that growing encroachment on the eco-system. I've named that a Jevonian view in honour of William Stanley Jevons, a great economist of around 1870 or so, who used that kind of diagram for a different problem but the logic is very much the same. In this diagram what is uneconomic growth? Well, economic growth is out to point B on the horizontal axis. At point B, line AB is equal to BC. The marginal benefits of further growth are just equal to the marginal costs. Growth beyond point B is uneconomic growth. It is growth for which the distance from the horizontal down to the dotted curve is greater than the distance up to the continuous curve, growth which makes you poorer than richer. And so there's the definition of uneconomic growth, growth beyond point B.]<br/>"Uneconomic Growth in Theory and in Fact"<br/><br/>Herman E. Daly<br/><br/>The First Annual Feasta Lecture<br/>Trinity College,Dublin<br/>April 26th, 1999<br/>http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/daly.htm Is world growth increasing costs faster than it is increasing benefits? Is growth making us poorer rather than richer?

[ The text for my homily this evening is taken from John Ruskin: 'That which seems to be wealth may in verity be only the gilded index of far-reaching ruin'. That's my theme and I want to develop it in the following way: first I'll discuss the issue of uneconomic growth in theory. Does it make sense theoretically? Does it flow out of standard economics? I will argue that it is highly consistent with micro economic theory but that it conflicts with macro economic theory as currently done...I've put a dotted curve in the bottom which is the cost of GNP growth - in other words, the social and environmental sacrifices made necessary by that growing encroachment on the eco-system. I've named that a Jevonian view in honour of William Stanley Jevons, a great economist of around 1870 or so, who used that kind of diagram for a different problem but the logic is very much the same. In this diagram what is uneconomic growth? Well, economic growth is out to point B on the horizontal axis. At point B, line AB is equal to BC. The marginal benefits of further growth are just equal to the marginal costs. Growth beyond point B is uneconomic growth. It is growth for which the distance from the horizontal down to the dotted curve is greater than the distance up to the continuous curve, growth which makes you poorer than richer. And so there's the definition of uneconomic growth, growth beyond point B.]
“Uneconomic Growth in Theory and in Fact”

Herman E. Daly

The First Annual Feasta Lecture
Trinity College,Dublin
April 26th, 1999
http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/daly.htm

]]> By: ron http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1565 ron Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:40:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1565 does it really matter if diamond is right or wrong about rwanda?<br/><br/>what about the consuming 30% more resources than can be regenerated? global warming is nothing compared to that. does it really matter if diamond is right or wrong about rwanda?

what about the consuming 30% more resources than can be regenerated? global warming is nothing compared to that.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1564 Anonymous Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:23:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1564 Diamond is very clear in 'Collapse' that the variants at work combine social, economic and ecological/biological factors. It is a mistake to assume that 'ecocide' is simply a matter of cause (ecological decline) and effect: the collapse of society. Instead, all these factors play out together, as was the case in Rawanda.<br/><br/>However, Diamond's approach, when looking at solutions, falls far short in addressing the depth of change needed in the political and economic spheres. Here change must be of equal depth to the problems. Consequently, radical change requires that the very political and economic systems be thrown in doubt, including the existing construct of democratic liberalism and capitalism. Diamond is very clear in ‘Collapse’ that the variants at work combine social, economic and ecological/biological factors. It is a mistake to assume that ‘ecocide’ is simply a matter of cause (ecological decline) and effect: the collapse of society. Instead, all these factors play out together, as was the case in Rawanda.

However, Diamond’s approach, when looking at solutions, falls far short in addressing the depth of change needed in the political and economic spheres. Here change must be of equal depth to the problems. Consequently, radical change requires that the very political and economic systems be thrown in doubt, including the existing construct of democratic liberalism and capitalism.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse.html#comment-1563 Anonymous Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:14:00 +0000 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/11/are-we-at-risk-of-collapse/#comment-1563 I often find articles and books by Jared (and Tainter) beguiling until they touch upon historical events such as the decline of the Roman Empire where I have some modicum of expert knowledge. Then their arguments suddenly seem jejeune and simplistic. I often find articles and books by Jared (and Tainter) beguiling until they touch upon historical events such as the decline of the Roman Empire where I have some modicum of expert knowledge. Then their arguments suddenly seem jejeune and simplistic.

]]>