Two Viewpoints on Politics and Economics
Frequent contributor MarcoPolo who comments on my post about Annie Leonard (pictured) and her concern about our “robo-consumer” society:
The “consume less,” ”back to nature”, reductionist philosophy, is usually accompanied by a covert loathing of mankind, disingenuously presented as a love for mankind…..All human endevour has upsides and downsides….
Modern economies are based on promoting the widest variety of consumer goods imaginable…..Our modern Western democracies are based on the principle of choice. The freedom to create and offer for sale any product of human imagination…..The list of the sages of doom, and their tirade of prophecies, none of which has ever occurred, is endless…..Annie Leonard and her fellow travelers would be pretty harmless except they detract attention from real environmental action. It’s only possible to sing Kumbaya in Oregon, because the rest of the nation deals with real economic problems affecting a complex modern industrial society.
First, I don’t understand your observation about the “covert loathing of mankind, disingenuously presented as a love for mankind.” I know a peck of political activists, and, though I can’t see into their souls, they seem like fine human beings to me. Most of them have made huge sacrifices so as to improve conditions on the planet for everyone; to me that’s a character asset rather than a fault.
I don’t really understand the rest of this either. Do you find the notion that we can have a robust economy without destroying our planet to be absurd? Why? Personally, I believe that true prosperity will come from evolving a new economy that takes care of people, rather than killing them. Why is that so hard to accept?
What if we change the focus of our efforts and investments from fossil fuels and war, and directed them to education and cleantech? Is there some reason that this simply won’t work? I sure don’t see it.
Of course, I am imposing moral value judgements here. But how controversial are they? Health is better than disease, education is better than ignorance, and peace is better than war. That’s not exactly going out on a limb.
It’s not a sin to try to make good things happen in the world, and the concept is perfectly compatible with a healthy economy.
All your goals are noble but demanding that the government be the enforcer of nobility is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Only when you can convince a majority that the problems are beyond the scope of local control can you ever hope to usher in the faux utopia of which you speak.
Thanks, but please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/06/26/u-s-constitution-protects-us-from-public-opinion/.
I agree it would be good to have an ethical and caring society. However in many areas of the world, it is the 1% and their immediate “helpers” who rule both rule making and their operation, and the aim of the corporation to make money by whatever means is the key issue. This will of course be rectified soon with several limits coming to change things dramatically in the next few years. this included climate change, resource depletion, limits of debt unravelling the fractional reserve banking system and a major unspoken limit- that of diminishing Energy Return on Energy Invested. If you would like to see a stark evaluation of this then go to
http://www.tullettprebon.com/…/tpsi_009_perfect_storm_009.pdf
This should encourage us all to go local. When our main food and energy supplies are produced locally it is feasible to have a more caring society as the links between producer and consumer are much greater and more immediate. If the producer does things badly/wrong you can get at them to change their ways when they are locally based. Local publicly owned banks would also help by being able to invest in a vision evolved locally for the sustainable local economic development.
There is no reason Capitalism cannot be used for good such as the US B corporations for benefit or CCC community contribution corporations in other countries.
More and more corporations are embracing sustainability as good business practice good for the bottom line.
As the divestment movement takes the capital away from fossil fuel and directs it towards renewables things will improve. Like all major societal changes this will take time.
I agree. We really are headed in the right direction in so many ways.
Although I agree with the article, one could question whether it belongs in a green energy site. Some people who agree with the concept of green energy could object to the article.
freggersjr – regrettably, renewables have become politicized – so the subject of politics is appropriate – as is philosophy. Indeed, politics determines how the legal structures and economy are organized, so there could hardly be a more appropriate topic.
why is it so hard to get the world to do what is good for it?
Barry, by the ‘world’, I presume you mean the people in the world ? In that case, the answer is easy. There’s no common definition as to what is good for all the peoples of the world.
Much of what you consider virtue, is not necessarily virtue to others, in different circumstances.
Well said Craig…I agree 100%. There’s nothing wrong with foresightful people try to look after our planet whilst the herd is distracted by the bells& whistles of consumerism. Keep it up 🙂
Dicko,
Your comment serves as an excellent example of the philosophy of Anne Lennox.
Without intending, and probably with the best of intentions, you have placed yourself in among an elite, who have a right to sneer and belittle the hopes and aspirations of the majority of your fellow citizens (the herd).
What is their crime ? Why do you think them inferior ? Why simply because the don’t subscribe to your philosophy !
Like Anne Lennox, I’ll bet you don’t think of yourself as an elitist, secretly displaying contempt for your fellow man, but re-read your comment, and think of its implications.
Craig,
It’s an old truism that we each take from a speaker, ” that which we want to hear “.
Reductionists like Annie Leonard wrap their message in moralistic platitudes, appealing to well meaning, well intentioned, listeners. This is a skill common to the rhetoric of all charismatic advocates
The most extreme example of this technique, can be found by listening to Hitler’s mesmeric ‘Pawn Broker speech. Many listeners to this speech, were inspired by the message of hope and justice contained in his words. Yet, with the benefit hindsight, the malevolence and dangerous hidden motive is revealed .
Not all listeners, were inspired and impressed, a few, (sadly too few) came away doubters, mistrusting the generalized, and emotional platitudes.
As I say, it’s an extreme example, and not meant to be interpreted as comparing Anne Leonard to the dictator.
You ask :
A) ” Do you find the notion that we can have a robust economy without destroying our planet to be absurd? Why?
B) Personally, I believe that true prosperity will come from evolving a new economy that takes care of people, rather than killing them. Why is that so hard to accept? ”
Both questions contain assumptions, I never asserted . Both contain assumptions wrapped in emotional, but illogical conclusions.
To question (A) I reply ;-
Of course it’s possible to have a robust economy without destroying our planet ! In fact, on many occasions I emphasized the need for a strong, prosperous economy if good environmentalist practices are to be implemented.
To question (B) I reply ;-
All successful economies exist for the benefit of “people”. Killing people, is a negative.
Your last question assumes that our present economy is somehow dependent, or designed to “kill” people !
Human society will always be subject to the quarrelsome, complex , competitive and ambitious nature of the Human species. Yet, as a species we produce more positives than negatives. (Although the negatives tend to be more spectacular!)
But positive or negative, whether you like to admit it or not, the planet exists for the benefit for the human species. This is not ” selfish “. It’s reality. Humans define reality. There’s no entity called “Mother Earth “, no wise “Earth Mother”, These are simply products of wishful human imagination.
Anne Leonard and her fellow travelers, preach a flawed and hypocritical philosophy as, delusional as the pride of the ancient citizens of Athens in their “democratic ” society.
We in the Western nations, stand on the shoulders, of past and future, giants of human achievement. Our greatest achievements were, and will always be, created by the same complex and often contrary, nature that has driven our species since man learned to control fire.
Utopia, doesn’t, and will never exist ! ( it’d be a very boring place anyway :). But it’s hard to argue with moral platitudes, I mean they all sound so,..well ..nice !
Economies are about surplus ! Surplus promotes diversity and challenge. Diversity and challenge, promotes freedom of creative thought, trade and tolerance. Each of the products Anne Leonard and her followers sneers at, are the product of some humans creative imagination, aspiration, and ambition. Another human, appreciated the product sufficiently to purchase it, and drew pleasure from the purchase.
Who is Anne Leonard to sneer at the aspirations of her fellow human.
That’s whatt, Anne Leonard and reductionists secretly hate. They hate the successful diversity of mankind. They fear and despise the vast complexity of human taste and achievement , because it makes them feel insecure.
The puritan strain runs deep in American society. It re-emerges in different disguises, Anne Leonard is no different. She is simply, a modern day puritan, trying to impose her vision of morals and social values upon society.
Free economies quickly adapt to accommodate change. In fact, free economies require change ! But stable economies require viable change.
Craig, you say ;-
“change the focus of our efforts and investments from fossil fuels and war, and directed them to education and cleantech? Is there some reason that this simply won’t work? I sure don’t see it. ”
Great sentiment’s, but what do they mean ?
Should the US and her allies disarm ? Do you really believe the world will be safer place if the West disarmed, and met the forces of violence with a rousing chorus of Kumbaya, and a pottery demonstration ? Perhaps a crystal reading of the enemy’s aura ?
Should we cease investment and production on the single largest component of the Western worlds economy, (the hugely complex fossil fuel industry( , thereby condemning the entire world economy to massive, unprecedented economic depression. With the ensuing political and social instability all investment would disappear ! Certainly investment in clean tech and education. How would that work ? ( I sure don’t see it.:)
Isn’t it preferable, to forget the reductionist principles of those who wish to constrict and constrain the spirit of human endevour, and invest our “surplus ” wealth, and energy into adding viable cleantech, to the cornucopia of new technologies being produced by a vibrant, creative, diverse and competitive economy.
At the present time, the world depends on existing sources of energy, and will for decades to come. Fossil fuel’s ensure the necessary economic stability and ability to develop newer alternatives energy technologies.
Considerable investment is being made to develop less environmentally harmful methods of discovering, extracting, refining and using fossil fuels. (including waste disposal). At this stage just as important, as developing alternatives.
Sneering at our consumerist economy, and “opting out ” by living in the illusion of a comfortable eco-habitat in Oregon etc, while pretending to be self-sufficient, is about as real as a kid declaring his independence by setting up a tent in the safety of his parents back yard !
Over the last twenty years, I have encouraged 20% of the funds entrusted to me to be invested in assisting clean tech. I have also invested a considerable part of my own worth in “green’ projects.
While I do subscribe to a religious faith, I have also always believed in unconquerable spirit of mankind. I celebrate the ingenuity, and erratic progress of our quarrelsome species, as it triumphs over all obstacles. (many of it’s own making !).
An evolution, not revolution.
I hear you. I agree with a great deal of this.
Not to pick nits, but I wouldn’t say that our present economy is designed to kill people (outside of the military-industrial complex, that is). I was referring to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, which I think is an unfortunate accident. They happened to be there in the ground, we happened to find them, and we built the largest and most politically powerful force in the history of humankind around them. Now we’ve realized that this is killing millions of people a year, which is the tip of the iceberg, but it’s a tough challenge to get it to stop.
Craig,
Mankind didn’t just ” find ”, anything ! It took intelligence, perseverance, curiosity and sacrifice to take raw materials, figure out the composition, refine and harness their use.
It takes a huge support structure to make use of any discovery.
Industrialization, has saved more lives than it costs, or the species wouldn’t be so numerous, or have extended the average lifespan so dramatically. You must add the many advantages, as well as the disadvantages.
The invention of motorized transport, has saved far more lives, than it’s horse drawn predecessor.
Even the extreme threat, MAD, nuclear holocaust has successfully prevented a war on the scale of WW2. It could be said that the fear of such a war, has made the peoples of the world armed with such weapons more cautious of such a catastrophe.
It’s allowed even the craziest, to exercise sufficient restraint until, economic or generational change, dissipates the fanaticism.
While the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and “Lasers in the Jungle” , are unfortunate consequences human progress, the species does seem to posses the ability to learn, and eventually cope with living on the brink.
The human species is hard wired to live on the brink, to meet every challenge, and to survive its own folly.
A friend of my daughters, is looking forward to joining the Australian Army. She expecting high marks at school and attending University while serving in the military as a cadet officer.
Her idea of modern military life and philosophy, is a bit startling to older soldiers like me. She seems to feel it’s a sort of sporting club, with uniforms, and a great social life.
In truth, the Australian military does not exist to defend Australia, but to kill perceived foreign enemies as defined by the will of the ministry of the elected government. In reality, the military, is just an insurance policy, against the time when diplomacy needs to be carried out by different means !
That’s reality, and any soldier who doesn’t believe that, is delusional. It’s a brutal reality, that the function of the military is to ensure it’s better armed, trained, equipped and organized, so it can kill more of the poor schnooks wearing a different uniform.
This is the downside of human competitiveness, not nice maybe, but integral to our nature.
Quite rightfully, we invent philosophies to restrain, and contain that aspect of human nature, but it can’t be denied it exists, and at times is necessary for our survival.
Marcopolo, you seem to be an advocate for a “free market.” I personally think this could be a good thing but with all the avarice you also note I wonder if such an thing could ever exist outside of a village. It is the definition of a market (economics 101) that all players should have equal bargaining status. This is a fiction that almost never exists. It is the nature of players in a complex market to grow larger and attempt to capture an increasing amount of market share. Effectively they become monopolies and thereby destroy the market for lack of competition.
Players growing to monopolies is a pattern that has been repeated many times, yet we constantly hear the cries for a “free market.” I wonder if you have a solution that does not include market regulation?
Such a no longer “free” market continues to consume resources in the pursuit of wealth for the few while diminishing the distribution of wealth for the many. This then seems to describe a wealth distribution system that is failing at its basic goal to distribute wealth.
==
While economies may attempt to develop a surplus through economies of scale, efficiency or encouraging innovation and technological improvements they are not necessarily defined by a surplus. This is a modern business spin the incorporates the growth model of economics. We have many examples of “failing economies.” that are not only not growing but failing to meet demands. I think it may be important to note that the word “economy” is modified by these “growth” or “failing” terms and does not inherently include the term or the concept.
Once we begin to reorient ourselves to a truly neutral position, I have to begin to wonder at some other assumptions that seem to be at the foundation of your position. You say that the Earth exists for the benefit of the human species. The argument that you offer is that humans define reality. This is a bit of a circular argument. I suspect that this principal is more at home with some western medieval religious doctrine that also advocated that the Earth was the center of the universe. There is another perspective that suggests that we are a species that exists on the planet that is just as much subject to the possibility of extinction as any other species. This perspective may contain somewhat less hubris than the position you seem to advocate.
Thank you for your reply, and observations, Breath on the Wind.
Considering the points you make, I think you have misinterpreted my meaning. The planet doesn’t care about the human species, or any other species. Humans are no more immune from extinction than any other species, except by their own ingenuity and ability to survive.
My concept of the human species role on earth is not based on any religious or philosophic concept, simply logic. To ourselves, we are the center of our universe.
We define everything we do, including our relationship with our environment, by how it effects us as humans. The existence and continuance of the human species, is our prime business. If we practice conservation, it’s because we believe it to be good for ourselves. Our morality, ethics etc, is all about us. Even altruism, is about us satisfying a need in ourselves.
Once the human species learned to control fire, we changed reality. We gained the ability to change the environment for ourselves, through technology. From then on, we adapted everything, both flora and fauna. No one will judge us on how we manage our planet, except ourselves.
Obsession about our own species preservation and advancement, is right and proper, anything else would be suicidal.
You are correct when you say there is no such thing as a “free” market. (and there never was),
“Markets” are a product of civilization. Civilization needs organization. Those inhabiting civilized societies must surrender a certain degree of individual freedom, for the benefits of a co-operative, collective society.
If you are a socialist you call call this a moral duty, if you are a capitalist you just call this a joining fee, and members dues.
The type, and degree of collective control, is what differentiates the success or failure of civilizations. The more individual freedom among citizens, the greater and more diverse the cultural and economic output. But, every civilized society, no matter how tolerant and respectful of it’s members individual rights, must have some regulatory mechanisms.
Civilizations are governed by compromise. Tyrannical, extreme despotic regimes that can’t compromise, are deposed, not just because they are unpleasant, but because they’re inefficient.
Economies don’t exist to “distribute wealth, or any other ideological political philosophy. Economies are simply the product of surplus. How that surplus is created and distributed to create more surplus, is the basis of economic organization.
It’s not in the nature of economies,to always operate consistently, or smoothly. Economies reflect the nature of human endeavors. Booms, busts, ecstasy and agony, that’s the nature of economic progress. At the best, regulatory mechanisms can help avoid the most extreme consequences, but too much regulation produces disaster.
Monopolies, like empires, rise and fall. from their ruins, grow thousands of small enterprises and the process begins again. In the words of Paul Simon, ” every generation throws its heroes up the pop charts “.
Unlike land based wealth, industrialized wealth is naturally redistributed. The very nature of technology and fashion, means that giant corporations become dinosaurs, and unable to compete with new and more innovative enterprises. The wealth of individuals, is no longer locked up in finite resources like land, but employed creating wealth for the entire economic system.
The “consumer society” creates democratic redistribution by insisting through social pressure, that the elite also invest in consumption or risk loss through stagnation.
There will always be people who find this sort of organized chaos, frightening and bewildering. They yearn for simplicity and security. They want a strong regulatory authority to protect them from the consequences of human creativity. That’s understandable.
Fear and insecurity are powerful factors in the psyche of the humans species. The problem begins when that fear and insecurity is transformed into political, ideological or religious dogma. The concept that economic activity can be controlled by “moral’ or ideological authorities, and organized accordingly, is very alluring to those who are afraid, or insecure.
This inevitably leads to repression.
So a ” free “, market really just means, a “freer” market, and a world of economic compromises.
Your comments, Craig, remind me a bit of Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute. Lovins has advised corporations that their bottom line is improved by embracing conservation and renewable energy. But there seem to be many wedded to an old way of thinking that seems to advocate the only method of rising in the world is on the backs and over the heads of others.
A profit that only exists in a world of externalities is also part of that old way of thinking. Unfortunately there are many who are not just ignorant but actually want to steal from the public trust. They want to feel power over others by profiting from the suffering of others and they enjoy a sense of power with every resource that they waste.
For some then a stronger government oversight represents a limitation to harm others while seeking personal power, advantage and fortune.
Marcopolo, I am sorry if my restatements of your comments caused you to say, “I think you have misinterpreted my meaning.” The flow of your writing style is very interesting. You seem to give credit to every perspective which leaves me so mystified that I am unable to respond to specifics.
Rather I am reminded of several rises and falls in the American economy. Some say it is do to too much money chasing after places to invest. Some also say it is only a matter of time before our fiat currency will be the final bubble before an ultimate collapse. Perhaps these same people say that the only true wealth is something physical and everything else is speculation and that not only our currency but our economy is based far too much on speculation. Those who advocate a consumer based economy may embrace this speculation. I mostly listen and try to stretch my economic understanding to understand the complexities inherent in these things.
I once spent almost two months in Australia and remember it fondly. I wish you and the economy there the very best.
Most economic practices have positives and negatives, depending on time and circumstance. For those reasons, all economic theories based rigid ideology (especially centrally planned economies) are doomed to failure.
Economics is fundamentally all about creating surplus. Physical wealth is an inaccurate measure of the wealth of civilized societies. All products of human imagination, and creativity will always be more valuable than simple physical assets.
Thus a painting can be worth as much as $179m.
Paper money, is just a cheque, or credit note drawn on a bank or similar financial institution. It’s only value is the reputation and perception of the issuer. The growth of complex speculative financial instruments, reflects the ability of societies to increase the gross national perception of wealth.
The worlds economic system relies upon confidence and the continual creation of credit. As long as the population keeps increasing and the perception of surplus keeps increasing, national wealth and prosperity abounds.
Loss of confidence, or disruption of any of the supporting pillars, can produce disastrous consequences. The system needs constant minor reform and restructure, to deal with changing circumstance and conditions.
That’s evolution.
Large scale disruption creates havoc, and revolution. As history has taught, revolution is always creates devastation, repression, and human misery. It seldom produces any benefits, and only sets back progress.
That’s revolution.
Thank you for your kind remarks about Australia. Australian society is a similar to many American States, and Canada. I’m glad you enjoyed your time in the “wide brown land”.
In investing, a fundamental question we always ask is about value. All the physical gold supplies around the world, that have been sold 5 times over, have a physical aspect and a speculative aspect. Both may have a certain reality to them. The speculative aspect might be compared to a child’s story about “The Emperor’s new clothes” http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type1620.html As long as everyone agrees on the value it has value. When people start to “disbelieve” in the value those “clothed” in such speculation find that they are parading around economically naked.
And so as suggested to me by a well connected banker: “we know a collapse is coming but we can’t get out too soon because there is too much money to be made until the collapse does come.” Perhaps such a collapse will never come. Can we simply believe ourselves to increased wealth. Some may call this a “bubble.” But you offer, not alone by any means, that to believe in our modern forms of economic wealth we have to accept a bit of fantasy. The “optimist” and your writing suggests the Emperor may never realize the nature of the “cloth.”
And so maintaining the “confidence” (fantasy) in our economy becomes an important job that requires energy, effort and lies within lies. I can understand this. And like watching a magician’s stage performance, I can be entertained. But at some point however, I may want to search for something that offers more value.
Disillusioned, some may find value is supporting causes that promote human health, energy or environmental issues. Such people may put their time effort and even money into supporting such things that are valuable to them. This is not to say that such things do not also contain a bit of fiction. “Saving the environment” can very well be a euphemism for trying to keep a place suitable for us to live. The late George Carlin said “… the planet is not going anywhere … we are…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4 Even the literature of fiction often seems to forget the roles of evolution and extinction when visiting our future.
Our view of the world often seems to contain a bit of illusion no matter what our beliefs or interests. Perhaps it is a part of our nature. But it does seem somewhat inconsistent to complain about human, environment or energy perspectives as “disingenuously presented as a love for mankind” when also promoting an economic perspective that is equally fictional.
You are correct when you say all civilized economics relies on perception of value.
It’s equally difficult to differentiate between the underlying motives of human utterances. One advocate may make a statement in great sincerity, while another says the same words, but with a totally different motive and agenda.
Human society is very complex. Sometimes, we may think we are watching a show, but that too can be an illusion. In reality, we the audience, are an integral, inter-reactive participant in the show, as in the words of Eagles, “You can check out any time you like, but you just can never leave!”. 🙂
Reblogged this on Energy post.