Re: Bye bye, Communism
Must say Bye bye (not to any ism) temporarily as am leaving soon for a vacation family US Thanksgiving. Of course I'm thankful that I'm living legally in Canada. Always fun to visit this fine group. Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: I would be angry with fundamentalists ( was RE: Missed educationalgoals
Frankly I'm angry with all institutionalized religions which hold that their way is the best way. Monotheistic ones are the lead offenders, since they hold a single pipeline to a skyhook with which they identify; and of course they are the 'chosen' people. Pantheistic or animistic religions are less chauvinistic, as are some Eastern religions like some Buddhist sects. (I think some Taoists too). Most major religions have supported wars, and worse. Wouldn't it be great if a mutating radiation would blast the Spirit in the Gene down to a soulful appreciation of music, art, ideas, nature... Now I better unsub cause I'm likely gonna get blasted with some of your rays! Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: NYTimes.com Article: Indian Languages: Tending the Flame
Ray, There was a short letter in todays Ottawa Citizen which (rather perversely) asked why the list of potential key terrorist targets in Canada didn't include The National Archives. It is several hundred meters from The Peace Tower and Parliament Buildings. The writer stated (papaphrase): what better way to destroy a country than to destroy its historical record. I was furious at the paper for printing it, as conspirators shouldn't get the benefit of hearing about underbellies they might have ignored to date.. Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
A Moral Code for a Finite World
Ed all, While the developed world benefited greatly during the 20th C from Sci-tech in medicine, nutrition, sanitation, etc., there are billions alive today who have been largely untouched by those developments. Lomborg has been thoroughly countered. Best Summary link: http://www.wri.org/press/mk_lomborg.html Note particularly that Peter Raven, head of Amer Asoc for Adv of Sci (AAAS) is a strong critic. The world cannot be less finite at different times. There are wholesystem linkages touching EVERY occurrance/action on earth. We might not know all the impacts of our technology (actually impossible to know all), but there is no free lunch. A Moral Code for a Finite World By HERSCHEL ELLIOTT and RICHARD D. LAMM What if global warming is a reality, and expanding human activity is causing irreparable harm to the ecosystem? What if the demands of a growing human population and an expanding global economy are causing our oceans to warm up, our ice caps to melt, our supply of edible fish to decrease, our rain forests to disappear, our coral reefs to die, our soils to be eroded, our air and water to be polluted, and our weather to include a growing number of floods and droughts? What if it is sheer hubris to believe that our species can grow without limits? What if the finite nature of the earth's resources imposes limits on what human beings can morally do? What if our present moral code is ecologically unsustainable? Read the complete article at: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i12/12b00701.htm -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Missed educational goals
Bravo, Keith! One of the reasons I emmigrated from the US to Canada was to escape the dumbed down, fundamentalist rise. Recall that both Gore W are born-agains. Although I much prefer Gore's values on the environment, he too believes in absolute values of right and wrong based on human thoughts/writings supposedly from some pipeline to an allmighty. They know what is good and right for you, so listen up!! It is impossible to reason using probability of outcomes with people who don't care about collateral damage enroute to their vision of the ought. They define justice, fairness, the common good, etc., and are immovable. If the country civilization last long enough, the US may have another civil war; but this time it could be the Latinos (eventual majority?) and underclasses versus an elite and their supporters. Of course I think cheap oil breaks developed economies within 20 years, so it's a question of which happens first. Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Missed educational goals
Ray, Re: (REH 2) Interesting also. How much would you be willing to personally give up on such issues asinheritance rights and taxes on the very rich nations to bring the poorer nations up to parity? I recall posting within the last year the reasons why distribution of the savings of the wealthy to the needy only hastens the collapse of the biosphere as human habitat. Latent consumption becomes immediate consumption; resource extraction and waste production (toxification) increase proportionately. Only a steady state (population economic matter/energy throughput) halts the destruction; and best estimates are that for humans globally to average the lifestyle of the Portugese (maybe 1/3 per capita throughput of US) we would need 3 earths. In other words, 2 Billion is the estimated carrying capacity if all lived fairly simply. I would happily pay more taxes (I do so voluntarily in Canada) if the money went for the goals of a peaceful healthy future. Unfortunately, people in many societies think selfishly and attempt to consume as much as possible. Any voluntary slacking off of consumption is gobbled up by the 4 Billion living in INvoluntary simplicity. And 220,000 (approx) humans NET are added to us DAILY. Unless TOTAL consumption is reduced, any redistribution scheme is counterproductive. Make me the benevolent dictator of the planet (with total power/control elimination of all weaponry.) Then there would be 1 child families as the average. Second children would add to ones taxes (not reduce). Within 2 generations pop would be in decline. Consumption of energy/carbon would be taxed heavily, as would pollution. Water leaks, fuel leaks etc would be serious offenses (individual business). Unhealthful activities products (drinking, drugs, junk food, smoking, etc) would be taxed heavily, with proceeds targeted for healthcare which would be NOT for profit single payer system. (multiple insur. cos are a total waste) Also, education until age 18 would be mandatory, and youthful public service relating to one's chosen field for a year as well. Get the picture?- Common good and social cohesion. No politician can get elected anywhere on this kind of platform because individual liberty and consumption levels are reduced. That the average quality of life would increase is irrelevant. Issac Asimov said the more people there are, the less each individual matters and the less democracy there can be. I agree. Romantic idealism of any sort I see as an obstacle to solutions. But humans are largely irrational (hardwired so), and learn the hard way - via painful lessons. I guess the threshold is still a distance away. Best wishes, Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Catholics Family Planning
The news item referred to was broadcast widely; here is a short comment by the head of The Audubon Society Pop. Program. An institution is apparently ignoring systemic problems within itself as well as within the biosphere. Perhaps the result will be perversely counterintuitive, as the flocks that are growing fastest are non-catholic. Somebody should wake up the Vatican! Steve = Catholics Largely Ignore the Pope on Family Planning___ TORONTO STAR, Nov. 14, 2002 Have more babies, Pope urges Italians Pontiff makes historic visit to Italy's parliament ___ The above headline, in yeserday's paper, refers to Pope John Pauls "historic" speech to Italy's parliament which, among other things, talked of Italy's "crisis of the birth rate" and urged Italians to have more babies. Believe me when I say no one in Italy paid the slightest bit of attention. In fact most Catholics living in "first world" nations simply ignore the Pope when it comes to birth control. Principly Catholic countries routinely post the lowest birth rates in the world. A sampling of countries, their Total Fertility Rates (replacement level fertility is 2.1), and the percent of their population that is Catholic follows: Czech Republic 1.1 TFR (41% Catholic) Spain 1.2 TFR (94.2% Catholic) Austria 1.3 TFR (73% Catholic) Italy 1.3 TFR (97% Catholic) Lithuania1.3 TFR (74% Catholic) Slovenia 1.3 TFR (82% Catholic) Canada 1.4 TFR (46% Catholic) Poland 1.4 TFR (95% Catholic Switzerland1.5 TFR (45% Catholic) Belgium 1.6 TFR (79% Catholic Cuba 1.6 TFR (54% Catholic) France1.9 TFR (80% Catholic) Ireland 1.9 TFR (76% Catholic) Source: catholic-hierarchy.org While the Pope is not having much influence on family planning choices in a large number of predominantly Catholic countries, papal admonitions against birth control and abortion often invigorate anti-family planning proponents here in the U.S. (many of which are not Catholic). The principle legislative "victory" of these anti-family planning advocates is in their ability to cut funding and reduce access to contraception in many non-Catholic countries. In fact, predominantly non-Catholic countries have the highest birth rates in the world. A sampling: Afghanistan 6.0 (0% Catholic) Eritria 6.0 (3 % Catholic) Zambia 6.1 (25.2% Catholic) Sierra Leone 6.3 (1.6% Catholic) Benin 6.3 (23.2% Catholic) Malawi 6.4 (19.7% Catholic) Liberia6.6 (5.5% Catholic) Chad 6.6 (8.4% Catholic) Western Sahara 6.8 (0% Catholic) Burkina Faso 6.8 (11.38% Catholic) Mali7.0 (1.6% Catholic Somalia 7.0 (0% Catholic) Niger 7.5 (0.17 % Catholic) Patrick Burns, Director Population Habitat Program National Audubon Society [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Over Bloody Eighty (was Who's afraid of declining population?
Barry, I agree that waste and the growth addiction are self-destructive disfunctional. However, I doubt the 4 billion needy folks will mutate into voluntary simplicity seekers just as I doubt the 2B 'haves' will discover sufficient long term foresight to encourage a 7th generation mindset. Although I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that the changes will come the hard way if at all. (alternative is extinction, - which all species eventually reach) I'm at odds with you re loss of need for human caloric expenditure for required for survival productive activities. Note that I'm not discussing wages, which is a separate issue. Trends do change, but human nature seems fairly constant. The agricultural revolution was made possible by non-human caloric inputs technology advancements. The fungicides, pesticides, fertilizers...are mainly petroleum derived. The processing of them, transporting, application methods required device manufacturing transport operation: ditto. The pumping of water, manufacturing and operation of irrigation equipment, plastic row covers, etc. ditto. The manufacturing transport operation of harvesting equipment: ditto. The massive storage facilities, transport to them then to markets or procers: ditto. The processing of products into food for humans, animals, fish farms transport to distributors, wholesalers, retailers, ditto. The transport, storage ultimate usage of the stuff: ditto. Repeat the above for meat, fish farms, and the production and distribution of all goods, even those helping a delusion of dematerialization - like computers. Guess what? Within the next generation, the era of cheap oil is over. Pharmacuticals chemical producers will get the expensive oil. And don't respond that hydrogen will take over, for the manufacture of hydrogen is a net caloric LOSS. It is a carrier only; not a source of energy. Solar cell infrastructure requires an enormous caloric input; doable with cheap energy, but virtually impossible later. Better hope the nuke plants stay safe! Nobody has yet produced a tenable scenario for replacement of fossil fuel. Coal will be heavily used in my opinion, but demands on it will be globally HUGE, and it is dirty/polluting. Natural gas will last a bit longer than oil globally, but not in N. America, where it will crash ( suddenly) within 10 years. It produces at full rate until the end then zero. And it can't easily be transported over/under oceans. So, it is likely that hands on, local activities will be increasingly required during the next generations lifetimes. I'd happily make a "long bet" on it. See: http://www.longbets.org/ Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Missed educational goals
Ray, I don't understand your statement about me or anyone concerned with a healthy peaceful human future having it " both ways". As I see it, sickness and conflict are to be expected at an increasing rate until a sustainable steady state economy pop are achieved. And I'll bet on that! $1000 to charity of choice; 10 year minimum. I don't have an aversion to low energy prices per se. I have an aversion to the waste and pollution brought by economic throughput (driven largely by petroleum). Natural capitalism can occur in a steady state system; entrepreneurs can function. Debt (with-interest ) and pop growth are drivers for growth. Please understand that growth MUST be limited in any closed system (only solar energy, other radiation, and asteroids enter ours). Humans have impacted the biosphere (incl other life forms) more than any other specie. I know you revel in artistic beauty. I love music and art. But it doesn't trump biological necessity. And for the umpteenth time, any individuals subjective valuations of aesthetic, ethical, or metaphysical value is no more valid than anyone elses. The Al Quaeda care not one dinar about your (or my limited) operatic judgement (or my jazz taste). I know it's tough, but you should examine the motive for preaching about the highest forms of x.y.z...to others who might not like your taste in music, or care about music at all. I know a brilliant Frenchman who cares not for music or art, but loves food, wine, and nature, although living in Paris! RE population I'm not blaming the poor. If anyone, I blame the rich for not giving the specific family planning aid that the poor nations have requested since the 80s. I'm sure I posted 2 paragraphs from my paper in the past documenting the desire for pop stabilization by the POOR nations (1989). The rich have reneged on promised aid (only 25% delivered since Cairo Conference)here it is again: In 1989, as verified by The UN Population Fund, the following countries signed a statement urging early stabilization of human population. Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, China, Columbia, Cyprus, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Jordon, Kenya, Rep. of Korea, Liberia, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent the Grenadines, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe. Note the absence of most wealthy nations. It is ridiculous to claim that the rich are trying to coerce the poor nations to reduce population. In fact, they are not responding to the affirmed needs of the poor. The following countries are part of either the South Commission or Partners in Population and Development: Zimbabwe, Kenya, Mexico, Colombia, Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, China, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Guyana, Ivory Ciast, Jamaica, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia (former), and Western Samoa. The "Partners" share expertise with each other in reproductive health, appropriate technologies, and population policy. The Challenge to the South: Report of the South Commission, included this unequivocal statement: " In the long run the problem of overpopulation of the countries of the South can be fully resolved only through their development. But action to contain the rise of population cannot be postponed." (Nyerere, 1990) Sorry for being so ungracious. Best regards, Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Over Bloody Eighty (was Who's afraid of declining population?
Hi Keith, Your points are well taken. However, add in the alternative negative feedbacks from higher/rising (versus declining) fertility for a true comparison. Since per capita grain production fish harvests have been declining for over a decade, and fresh, clean water per capita is also bottlenecking, and waste sink overloads are increasing planetwide, I suggest that any remedy based upon growth is worse than the illness of decreased resources for elder care. In my view, involuntary simplicity will be forced on democratic, developed societies (since the aged are a growing % of voters) and this should redistribute resources moderate somewhat the burden on the elderly. The burden will likely be shared, with our progeny kicking and screaming perhaps. Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Missed educational goals
Hi Ray, My answers: 1. What do you think about the value of the UN?Is it important? Should the US withdraw into a stance advocated by the conservative areas of the this country? Although diminished in power, The UN (Annan has courage) has probably helped keep the US from wanton overt imperialism. They do it covertly to the extent possible, and only sometimes overtly. I'd prefer a real global federalism for stronger environmental as well as peace/conflict actions. 2. Where do you stand on abortion? (if this is too personal then ignore it but I believe that it is a crucial issue since it has completely stalled the non-right wing side of the political spectrum in America. It is the Right Wing's answer to their own immoral stance on Blacks and Civil Rights in the sixties.So if you are willing I would like to get a more international "take" on this.) If you believe that abortion is OK then what do you believe it to be? It is the woman's choice in my opinion. It is her body and her 'work'. Is it "Killing?" on the one hand or "cleaning up an accident or mistake that is not yet human" on the other? Is there another way of looking at this?Or maybe some mixture of the first two? Personally I don't consider human life any more 'sacred' (as an atheist!) than other life. Certainly a potential life is kept from reaching conscious free agency; but there are no guarantees the life would be healthy, pleasant, supported until self-sufficient, etc. Thus, I cannot judge the act a murder. I judge it as a relative act versus unknown alternatives; and an unhappy mother maybe or not active father in stressed environment is not a great countervailing position. I prefer vigilant contraception and the current 'morning after' pill. Early term is easy; late term gets tougher to respect. But no absolutes in my view. Keith you and Steve have brought up Euthenasia in relation to adults, why not seriously speak on abortion? On the one hand (abortion) people talk about potential while on the other hand (euthenasia) they speak of killing Einstein, is there another way of looking at it. Yeah, "potential" misery, disfunctional behavior, etc I talk about Gays for the same reason that my Father spoke of Jews and Blacks. He considered such prejudice intellectually indefensible and worse, a waste of human resources.People make the same argument for fetuses and for the cognizant elderly. The elderly who are not in severe pain and aren't vegetables should choose for themselves in my view. My wife wants out if she loses physical self-sufficiency (she dislikes being h'cared for' constantly; I don't object to the idea of a mental only existence versus none at all. Now I reiterate my subjective, relativist ethical position on aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics. There ain't no absolutes I'm aware of except what folks say is in their minds. Infinite reality is more tenable than any spacio-temporal boundary arbitrarily posited by humans. Uncertainty is tough, eh? Steve -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Who's afraid of declining population?
Hello again folks, As I've received little support for my thesis regarding high level/ growth in numbers as a disadvantage for individual workers and for countries as a whole which I presented here several times between 5 years ago and this year, I thought you might be interested to see that other countries are coming to grips with the issue and are concluding that I might have been speaking some sense. Steve Kurtz Forgive possible duplicates. emphasis mine. A very good piece of journalism. Anthony Browne is environment editor of the Times == New Statesman , November 4, 2002 ___ Pop the Pill and think of England; Who's afraid of declining population? Only politicians, obsessed with power and prestige. The rest of us, particularly the workers, would be better off, argues Anthony Browne BY: Anthony Browne ___ It's been a part of the ebb and flow of human society since we raised ourselves up on our two hind legs. But now, after an almost total absence since the industrial revolution, it's threatening to come back with a vengeance across the western world. And we don't like it one little bit. After 200 years of continuous rapid population growth, there is little that inspires as much panic from political leaders, big business and right-wing populists as the prospect of population decline - which is imminent, according to the UN, in more than 60 countries. Some countries, such as Japan, Russia and the Baltic states, have already fallen into the abyss. Italy's population and Germany's are shored up only by immigration. The recent British census showed population decline in Scotland and parts of northern England. Across the UK as a whole, it could start as soon as 2020. In Scotland, as elsewhere, population decline prompted two predictable responses. On the one hand, the Scottish National Party MSP Alex Neil urged tax breaks to encourage couples to 'conceive for Scotland'. On the other, the Scottish Executive told people to prepare for more immigration. The First Minister, Jack McConnell, told the Institute of Directors: 'For a growing economy, we need a growing population, and I am determined to see us focus policy and promote Scotland to meet that objective.' Yet the rational response is the one you never hear publicly: 'Don't panic, let the numbers fall. It will be good for us.' Population decline drums up visions of collapsing markets, permanent recessions, devastated communities, bankrupt pension funds and decrepit wrinklies with no young to replenish and support them. All this might indeed come to pass if population decline were rapid. A gradual population decline would be a different matter. The environmental benefits are obvious - fewer cars, fewer houses, more wilderness. But population decline could also empower workers, raise the status of the socially marginalised, reduce inequalities and eradicate poverty. It will not make Britain poorer, as the politicians fear, but wealthier. From British universities to Japanese think-tanks, the benefits of slow population decline are being increasingly studied and promoted. But this new thinking has yet to reach the echelons of elected politicians. Population decline is usually associated with economic decline, political turmoil, famine and disease - but that is not because it causes them, rather because it is caused by them. Declining economies lead people to leave in search of opportunities elsewhere - a quarter of the population of Europe's poorest country, Moldova, have emigrated since the collapse of communism. HIV in some African countries may throw previously prodigious population growth rates into reverse, just as the Black Death wiped out a third of the population of Britain. Devastating climate change eliminated the medieval Greenland colonies. Potato blight shrunk the population of Ireland from eight million to four million through famine and emigration. For millennia, when humanity was not the author of its own destiny, population went up and down with the rise and fall of human fortunes. Good times led to a growing population, bad times to a declining one. Now, for the first time in history, we are faced with a decline caused not by bad times but by good times. Now it is affluence, not poverty, that leads to falling numbers. [SK: only some places, sometimes] But if the causes are benign, what about the consequences? If the decline in the number of people is slower than the natural growth in productivity (or output per person), then the economy will still grow. For example, a modest population decline of 0.25 per cent a year would reduce Britain's trend economic growth rate of 2.25 per cent to just 2 per cent a year. That's hardly a recession. The number of consumers may decline, but the growth in incomes - and export markets - will ensure that demand stays buoyant. Nor will there be a demographic crisis, with huge
Re: FW: Economic possibilities for our grandchildren
Greetings all, Time for me to check in again on this most enjoyable list. Arthur fwd me the subject post, and I can't resist a comment. In the 100 years Keynes is referring to, the demise of one of the prerequisites quickly nullified his scenario: stabilization of population. In 1930 there were around 2 B humans. (UN) In 2030 estimates are for 8B (UN) This currently compromises the supposedly easy access to basics of life by/for maybe 20% of humans.And the UN and many other orgs (scientific) believe water and sanitation will become more problematic, as will reliable food and energy. Voluntary simplicity by a small % in the rich areas will continue to be dwarfed by involuntary simplicity elsewhere. Of course the population might quickly revert to 2B, but not in a pleasant way. Good luck grandchildren. And shame on those offering false hopes based on techno-optimistic sci-fi. It was technology (agricultural medical mostly) that boosted the overshoot. The simple condom (along with newer devices and drugs) - with sufficient womens empowerment and education for all - is the best bet to minimize the pain of reverting to what is widely agreed as a possible sustainable number: the 2 billion Keynes proposed. And shame on those religions which overtly and covertly engage in competitive flock enlargement. Steve Kurtz Ottawa -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Or poorer -- clarification please!
Hello Ray, Your theory is just that - a theory. If the sum totals of (each) money and goods and services and people on earth were static, perhaps there could be a 'zero-sum-game' as you describe. However, that hasn't been the state of reality since money was invented. Second point: monies (credits/tokens) that are saved do not consume anything while in 'storage'. The total of goods/services available to others isn't reduced until the spending of the money occurs. Third: ultimately, with more people (220,000+ net daily) and shrinking natural wealth upon which all economies depend, the average slice gets smaller - modified only by technological efficiency which temporarily increases average slice size. Yes, some of us who choose to try (compete) are lucky, powerful, or clever enough to amass the power (tokens/credits) to access larger slices. That doesn't mean that the consumption rises to the max; nor does it mean that someone else's slice necessarily shrinks. It does probably mean, though, that more resources and enerrgy will be used (and waste created) sometime. Whenever that is, depending on many variables, it is likely that the pie will shrink accordingly. Your characterization of winners in this game as evil or base in character is a prejudice which is not new. Scapegoats have been sought throughout history when times got tough. The Jews in particular were targeted. Meanwhile there are billions ready to consume every morsel that others don't. Water and oil wars are current, as are famine and epidemic. Dogmas/creeds are merely a convenient excuse for war in many cases. Face it, there ain't enough to go around, and the self-cull is natural, although highly unpleasant. Best, Steve I believe that for every advancement by one person another person loses. That the amounts of money and property are roughly equivelent at all times and that most increases in wealth are based upon luck, theft or the cultivation of a venal attitude that reduces most human sensitivities. -- http://populationinstitute.ca http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Short term protectionism ( was -- Myth that free trade is best for all)
For the record, I agree with Keith's analysis. One additional point which I'm sure I've made in the past is that there has been little free trade (without any subsidies, tax benefits...) since economies developed beyond the barter stage. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Tony Blair rebuffed
Bruce hates national borders. Well, if 'your' tribe/society believes in subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, infanticide, slavery in any form, virtually unlimited rights to pollute, 12 children to be 'godly' (Mormons), or any of countless cultural values that 'my' society/tribe doesn't agree with, then open borders between our societies can prove highly volatile. A society choosing to have low density and fertility will soon disappear if it invites/permits unlimited immigration. Cultural heritage is an anthropogenic value; and I challenge anyone to demonstrate sources of value other than anthropogenic choice combined with experience/environment and 'hard wiring'. Thus, no other values/rights necessarily take precedence over cultural heritage and societal choices. So called 'human rights' are anthropogenic, as are human responsibilities. Since it is unlikely that all humans will agree on all these, "one world" doesn't seem to be in the cards at this stage of evolution, globalisation and development. Perhaps in an unforseen future...After crash??... Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Tony Blair rebuffed
Bravo, Dennis. You are acknowledging both the subjectivity of values and the physical constraints of the planetary habitat available for humans. Should you ever get to Ottawa, please let us (Arthur, Ed W, Gail Stewart me (maybe more?) know. The drinks are on me. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Tony Blair rebuffed
Ray, Our discussions/points of view are not mutually exclusive. I care not about 'who' immigrants are; I care about 'how many' are jammed into areas that can't sustain the current population in a healthy ( 7th generational) way. Some societies in some areas react negatively to immigrants for cultural and economic reasons. Do you expect that to change for the better without a dramatic drop in human numbers? You do seem to villify certain cultures based primarily on their historical record. History doesn't run backwards. Some of your points are valid, but in no way do they justify rising populations in stressed areas. There are few 'unstressed' areas on earth. See this Audubon website: . http://www.audubonpopulation.org Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Tony Blair rebuffed
The immigration issue relates significantly to constraints and quality of life which may be affected by the density of human populations, scarcity of desired needed resources, and pollution (all kinds) of the areas involved. Noise, traffic, unhealthy sanitation-air-water, as well as food availability/cost are some examples. Remote sourcing of energy/food and technical expertise by wealthy dense nations (Netherlands, Japan) can alleviate many of the problems, but living space eventually gets pressured. Some cultures are more generous and welcoming than others; but when things get tough, the 'others' are the first to catch the heat. Things are substantially different now than before the green and industrial revolutions. The most desirable areas were populated for agriculture and river travel. Cities were developed for commerce at ports trade routes. Water power attracted industry. The 'best' locations for utility were fought over, and that only worsened as pop. quadrupled in the 20th C. Comparing colonization 200-1000 yrs ago to the current situation is not very helpful. Since 9-11 a shift in thinking has accelerated in the wealthy countries. I don't expect it to reverse. The pie shrinks daily, and (+250,000 net daily) more of us want a slice. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: More on the Future of whatever work will be possible.
Hi Ray, You surely know the stock replies to th probablistic scenarios: 1. there is no proof that the forecasts are correct 2. I'll be dead long before it happens - if it does. It ain't a pretty picture, but we're self-destructing as a species. Little if anything can be done about it in my view. Overshoot brings crash. If any are unfamiliar: http://dieoff.org Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: [issues] Homer-Dixon article in Vancouv. Sun
Harry, Thanks for the considered analysis. As I just re-subbed to FW, I'll post the original article and your reply in a separate post to that list. I don't disagree with the general historical analysis you've given here ( in similar forms several times prior). As with many other life forms, humans exhibit(ed) power, guile, and other abilities to acquire and feather their nests.Luck of time and place certainly played a significant role as well. I view nature as amoral, and as such do not judge this behavior in absolute terms, but rather subjective and relativistic ones. It has served adaptive fitness fairly well in the rest of nature. Humans, though, believe in ethics, usually derived from an absolute source or standard. Although there isn't any proof of any derivation other than anthropogenic. >From the perspective of a culture's (their values) desired social and environmental conditions, there have been variances in land ownership rules and practices over time/place. Systems that prove to be dis-functional ultimately breakdown, failing completely or changing. This relates to power imbalances as well as to usage and scale. As to your belief in the failure of population activism (past + - 30 years?), I suggest that you are examining the wrong numbers. The global TREND of population growth has been dropping steadily. Iran has a LOWER growth rate (at ZPG) than the US, largely due to pro-active government policies. Vietnam is fast approaching the US rate, and should pass it soon (going down). I have current data for some African countries ( Uganda, Zimbabwe...) which show voluntary drops in family size due to economic hardship despite cultural desire for larger families; so aid which does NOT include family planning incentives, devices, and education plus efforts at women's empowerment would (stated by experts in each country) cause family size/fertility to RISE. The demographic transition theory predicts the opposite outcome. In any case, if the optimal sustainable population is substantially lower than current level, then why not work to slow and reverse the trend as quickly and humanely as possible? (Rees Wackernagel estimate 2B) During these last 30 or so years, other global environmental trends have gotten worse. Fish stocks, healthy forests, potable water availability, water quality, air quality, biodiversity loss... have worsening trends . Population growth is slowing. Now, I believe that more human suffering would occur ( would have occurred) without pro-active efforts at reducing fertility. Mortality is rising in many areas (longevity has declined in Russia during the past decade at least), and I agree that pop growth will likely cease this century no matter what. It might be from nuclear winter, other weapons of mass destruction, disease, famine, drought... Also, the grain production per capita globally has fallen during the past decade (World Resources Inst others), so the petroleum driven green revolution has hit the wall. Petroleum is expected to peak (max production per day no matter what) this decade.WHO estimates that 40% of humans NOW have either TB, malaria, or aids. Add those with other serious diseases, and likely half of humans ar diseased. This is to be expected after a 400% rise in our numbers in one century; biologists call it plague phase. So, while I largely agree with your economic analysis, I find it pertains to a sub-system - that of the scale of our species in its finite habitat. Regards, Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: RANT Three basic realms
Harry, I'll not take your rotten bait. (it's been the same for years, hence too mouldy to entertain) I'll not bore the list with the more reams of scientific consensus re overpop. (I've given dozens of links already. If anyone has questions, email me offlist.)I DO defer to specialists just like Harry does when he gets advice on his health. Perhaps if he didn't place his verbosity above all other on the planet, one might be able to have a meaningful discussion with him. Re Harry's "exertion" sophistry, note that he makes claims for ALL humans, while using only HIS evaluation of laziness. When was the last time you worked out in a gym, Harry? Training involves extending oneself to improve strength, flexibilkity and stamina. You're missing a large chunk of life, I'm afraid. And note that runners ( cyclists, x-c skiers, etc) frequently run for an exertion HIGH. And note that you TOTALLY AVOIDED the ARTIST, MUSICIAN, ACTOR efforts. Nothing like one dimension thinking; but I shouldn't be surprised as thet seems to be the usual economist method. Go ahead and expound, Harry. Nobody cares. And I'll not reply again to your introspections on these matters. I wish that there was mandatory voting by listmembers to put pompous certitude in its place. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: RANT Three basic realms
Harry, I'll not take your rotten bait. (it's been the same for years, hence too mouldy to entertain) I'll not bore the list with the more reams of scientific consensus re overpop. (I've given dozens of links already. If anyone has questions, email me offlist.)I DO defer to specialists just like Harry does when he gets advice on his health. Perhaps if he didn't place his verbosity above all other on the planet, one might be able to have a meaningful discussion with him. Re Harry's "exertion" sophistry, note that he makes claims for ALL humans, while using only HIS evaluation of laziness. When was the last time you worked out in a gym, Harry? Training involves extending oneself to improve strength, flexibility and stamina. You're missing a large chunk of life, I'm afraid. And note that runners ( cyclists, x-c skiers, etc) frequently run for an exertion HIGH. And note that you TOTALLY AVOIDED the ARTIST, MUSICIAN, ACTOR efforts. Nothing like one dimension thinking; but I shouldn't be surprised as thet seems to be the usual economist method. Go ahead and expound, Harry. Nobody cares. And I'll not reply again to your introspections on these matters. I wish that there was mandatory voting by listmembers to put pompous certitude in its place. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
sorry for duplicate post
human error Steve
Re: Name Dropping (was RANT - and Greedy and Lazy)
Bravo, Selma. Homogeneity of values and manageable scale (pop for those in doubt) certainly seem likely abetters of this type of social arrangement. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Three basic realms (was RE: RANT - (was Greedy and Lazy)
Does this 'truism' hold despite the continuing declines of topsoil, aquifers, fisheries, etc, the tripling of every man/women since Ghandi's times? Will it hold forever? Can one live on spirituality? Faith is strange stuff. The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not enough for every man's greed. Arthur C: Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. (Morris Kline) -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So now we get the difference between economics and spirituality. REH - Original Message - From: Neunteufel Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] A word from Mahatma Gandhi: The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not enough for every man's greed. Robert Neunteufel AK-Stmk. Bildungsabteilung H. Resel G. 8-14 8020 Graz Austria -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: The Cult of Efficiency - the Radio Program
The book title is: The Efficient Society - Why Canada is as Close to Utopia As It Gets, by Joseph Heath Not sure about 'Cult of Efficiency' Just a little notice to anyone interested. The book "The Cult ofEfficiency" is the subject of a two hour - one hour tonight - don't know thenext hour on Ideas, a CBC radio program on Radio One. On the West Coast,we get it a 9pm but I don't know it's time slot anywhere else.There is some really original thinking in this book and Steve Kurtz hasquoted from it several times and I have read it as well and been veryimpressed.Thomas Lunde -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Terra Preta
Ray, This was new to me, so I did a google search. Main website http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/bodenkunde/terra_preta/ abstracts from conference: http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/bodenkunde/terra_preta/Agenda_ >From a quick look, there must be trees/bushes burnt to create the stuff. Certainly interesting, but may work only in specific conditions. Steve one abstract: The Terra Preta phenomenon a model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics Bruno Glaser, Ludwig Haumaier, Georg Guggenberger Wolfgang Zech Abstract Many soils of the lowland humid tropics are thought of being too infertile to support sustainable agriculture. However, in the Brazilian Amazon region, within the landscape of infertile soils, patches of sustainably fertile soils known as Terra Preta do Indio occur. These soils not only contain higher levels of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium, but also higher stocks of stable soil organic matter. Frequent charcoal findings and highly aromatic humic substances suggested that residues of incomplete combustion of organic material (black carbon) are a key factor for the persistence of soil organic matter in these soils. Our investigations showed that Terra Preta soils contained up to 70 times more black carbon than the surrounding soils. Due to its polycyclic aromatic structure black carbon is chemically and microbially stable and persists in the environment over centuries. Oxidation during this time produces carboxylic groups on the edges of the aromatic backbone, which increases the nutrient holding capacity. We conclude that black carbon could act as a significant carbon sink and is a key factor for sustainable and fertile soils especially in the humid tropics. There is strong evidence that permanent or semi-permanent agriculture itself created sustainably fertile Terra Preta soils known. -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Terra Preta
Ray, Re: As long as there is a lack of respectthe world will never get population under control because there can be no dialogue. It would make more sense to start from acceptance than from an obnoxious skepticism. Nature will take care of overpopulation whether humans kill each other more efficiently, other life forms infect us faster than we can invent drugs to kill them, or energy, or food, or water shortages do the deed. Or maybe fertility will continue to drop faster than demographers expect. Respect FOR WOMEN can have alot to do with it. Cultures won't respect each other sufficiently quickly to make any difference in my opinion. Is there a connection between birth rates and Terra Rreta? Who is being skeptical (I'll ignore the adjective) about Terra Preta? Me? The scientists who are trying to figure it out? To make the stuff, it appears from my brief look at the abstracts that alot of vegetation had to be burnt, and material worked deeply into the soil (see pictures on main webpage I linked) http://www.geo.uni-bayreuth.de/bodenkunde/terra_preta/ I wasn't denying that it was potentially useful IN CERTAIN PLACES. I was implying that it might not be the answer to dead soils on millions of acres that have been chemically sustained around the world. (petroleum products) An awful lot of vegetation would have to be burned, and the burning of the Rainforests has been a major loss of carbon sinks oxygen generators an emitter of greenhouse gas. Whatever stories and myths exist about this stuff doesn't change the known feedback loops and effects on the biosphere. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: my proposal (short)
If someone thinks they can better interpret/translate my ideas so that Ray gets them, please email him offlist with a cc to me. I'll have a brief go here, but I'm not confident we're on the same wave-length. RH: Could you give a little more explanation of"massive increases in the use of extra-human calories" and what you see as asolution? SK: Wood burning, sails, draught animals, watermills were examples of extra-human caloric aids before coal, oil gas electricity were harnessed. Then nuclear, solar, etc. joined in. Caloric use probably increased 100 fold in 1 century (a pure guess) Humans in the developed world are liable to freeze, roast, starve. Al Bartlett calls modern agriculture the use of land( sunwater) to convert petroleum to food. Transportation of food, refrigeration, cooking...pumping and treatment of water...all use huge amounts of energy. We are totally dependent on MASSIVE caloric expenditures, mostly fossil based. This wasn't the case 100 years ago, and there were 1/4 the humans. The solution is to undertake (NOW) efforts to wean ourselves off oil, then NG, then develop clean coal technologies and ramp up solar wind geothermal. In 10-20 years there could be economic chaos if this is not done. SK: These are not the only factors, of course. Valueschange (cultural - where you focus, I think). Feedback from human activities(agriculture, fuel harvesting, overfishing, industrial andtransport/heating pollution...) changes work opportunities. RH: This somehow feels like being out of human control, sort of like the weather, do you mean that? Or maybe I'm just notunderstanding. If humans aren't responsible for their value shifts, who or what is? Of course if one is a determinist, then either a grand design or deity is responsible; or one can believe that history and genetics mandate the present and future. The "feedback from human activities" results from our behavior (including fertility and mortality longevity polluting consumption of resources... Work economy is affected. I don't know how else to explain this. It is wholesystem analysis of what The Club of Rome Club of Budapest call "The Problematique" see: http://www.clubofrome.org/about/index.html The Club of Rome contributes to the solution of what it calls the world problematique , the complex set of the most crucial problems political, social, economic, technological, environmental, psychological and cultural - facing humanity. It does so taking a global, long term and interdisciplinary perspective aware of the increasing interdependence of nations and the globalisation of problems that pose predicaments beyond the capacity of individual countries. The rest of your post questions refer to specific elements of specific societies at specific times. Cause and effect for many human problems is far too complex for one to make linear claims for cause or solution. Fairness isn't a condition of nature. Neither is spirituality in my opinion. Belief in these things has had little positive effect as you've explained human history on this list. My point rephrased as questions: Which nations benefit in health and well-being from increasing populations? Any? Which human problems might be easier to deal with if populations were stable at a level that didn't tax resources and didn't overload waste sinks? I say most. Best, Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Assumptions 3 and 4.
The 'Spirit in the Gene' is alive and well. :-) We may be the most complex life form, but we are still mammals. There is no ontological difference between our instincts and those of other species. It is a matter of degree of brain nervous system development and complex language ability which together permit self-reflection and abstract thinking. Some humans are nearly zombies; some are highly aware and communicative. The continuim is like the bell curve, with most in the middle range. Enjoy the illusions of totally free thought free will. They are anthropogenic creations, and are our achillies heel as well as natures eventual way of culling us back from overshoot and biosphere destruction. Next post will be an analytic synopsisby another chap of the book The Spirit in the Gene which I had reviewed in a somewhat lighter way. My review is on the GPCO website linked in my signature file at end. === I would argue that animal "curiosity" is instinctive, whereas human curiosity is reasoned. One cannot "turn off" instinct, but Man can certainly cut back his curiosity if there is a possible adverse result. But, in my mind the issue is open. I think we can leave it as a subset of the first assumption - but curiosity is certainly something one cannot imagine being absent from human behavior. Or for that matter the second assumption. Does curiosity stimulate finding the better mousetrap? An animal pokes around his territory looking for anything of interest. Is that curiosity or instinctive behavior? A human wonders why the sky is blue. That is curiosity. While curiosity can kill you, maybe it's the way we have increased our chances of survival. Then there is Arthur's point about self-evident truths and the way we search for them. Certainly we have replaced instinctual responses with habits. We do things in a certain way because we know that we always get the desired result. Habits are better than instincts, because we can change them, if it becomes necessary. Habits based on "self-evident truths" are probably best and indeed we do try to find such truths. -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
book summary (long, but good!)
The following summary, with observations, was prepared by David Sussman, a member of the Board of New Hampshire Citizens for Sustainable Population. http://www.go.to/nhsuspop The Spirit in the Gene, Humanity's Proud Illusion and the Laws of Nature. Reg Morrison (with forward by Lynn Margulis); Cornell University Press, 1999 In his magnum opus, Australian photojournalist Reg Morrison probes the temporal panorama of life on earth. The focus is on Homo Sapiens - modern humans - and our indispensable links to all other forms of life. Eminent microbiologist Lynn Margulis, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts supports his analysis. Morrison first examines the carnage wrought by our species since we assumed the status of plague mammal at the onset of agriculture some 10-12 thousand years ago. The exponential rate of growth of human populations during this period is characteristic of species that undergo high rates of population expansion under conditions of stress. The typical pattern is boom and bust, with the human population moving inexorably toward that eventuality. Our encroachment upon and despoilment of habitats of other species not in a position to defend themselves, owing to our exponentially growing numbers and consumptive life style has precipitated the highest rate of species extinction since the Cretaceous era of 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared. The litany of degradation of the environment, placing all other life forms and us in peril, is recounted. The effects of global warming, with alarming possibilities for positive feedback as methane-laden polar ice caps melt, include the possibility that the most fertile lands along watercourses will be inundated as a result. A key indicator of the ultimate climax and crash that is typical of plague species is the diminishing per capita human grain supply, which peaked in the mid-1980's. Since that time there has been steady erosion that technology will not be able to fix. In fact, technology has given false promise. The Green Revolution that averted a crisis in the 60's, has provided the dangerous illusion that it can be replicated whenever the need arises. But high yields have high costs. Application of high rates of nitrogenous fertilizers and synthetic pesticides have resulted in other environmental problems - nutrients, pesticides, erosion, acidification of soils, salinization (from excessive irrigation) and soil imbalances in micronutrients and trace elements. Biotechnology poses another set of dangers: emasculated viruses used to immunize crops have somehow recovered missing genes from transgenic host plants; food crops have been inadvertently pollinated by sterilized varieties. Morrison places Homo Sapiens squarely within the animal kingdom, and disabuses us of the self-delusion of immunity from nature's imperatives. Self-delusion derives from our history of the past 2 million years, when the onset of the ice age precipitated the adoption of a survival strategy through evolutionary adaptations more attuned to the developing savanna that replaced our ancient rain forest abode, a strategy that incorporated bipedalism, brain enlargement and language. In providing such a strategy, nature dealt humanity a joker. The need for high social cohesion for a relatively weak and otherwise vulnerable animal required the development of a rational brain to supplement the primordial perceptive faculties that supported the survival of our primate ancestors. Language capacity was an early addition to the armor, perhaps 2 million years ago when our forebears were at the stage of Homo Erectus, adjusting to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Because the language faculty is located in Broca's area of the left, rational hemisphere, vocalized perceptions emanating from the right hemisphere of the brain are mediated by our rational and loquacious left brain, which ghostwrites the right brain narrative, filling in the gaps and its own propaganda. Here is the source of most primitive, mystical visions and spiritual fantasies that are within the human psyche, part of our evolutionary make-up that enabled us to survive over the millennia. In all events, our neuronal circuitry remains hot-wired to our genes. In fact, Morrison attributes virtually all human behavior to genetic response following Richard Dawkins, the Scottish biologist who proposed that the body is the vehicle of genetic survival (The Selfish Gene). This was necessary to assure that our forebears and we would not be handicapped by logic when genetic responses were demanded by the situation. That is why, under the spell of our carefully programmed spirituality, we cannot help falling in love, yearning for sexual gratification, nurturing our children, forging tribal bonds, suspecting strangers, uniting against common enemies and on occasion laying down our lives for family, friends or tribe. The current crop of human genetic material
Re: foolishness
I didn't respond to Ray's piece some days ago in which as a minor point he brushed aside my reporting of the overly optimistic World Resources Institute estimate (1997) of 40 yrs till zero oil production. They assumed "constant" demand. No think tanks, govts, or oil cos that I'm aware of expect "constant" demand, and indeed annual consumption has increased since 1997.. So, 35 yrs from 2002 till zero oil seems overly optimistic. The peak is likely this decade. As little is being done to change infrastructures and technologies, chaos is the most likely scenario in the near future. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
age restrictions, population, social contract
Reality seems to be kicking in. The need for more revenue payers (incl social security) in future is bumping up against the social contract costs of education, recreation, transport, etc. Local/state/national disputes should increase with court cases likely in my opinion. Steve = --Massachusetts Tries Slowing Population Growth with Age-Restricted Housing-- The Boston Globe reported last week that growing numbers of Massachusetts cities and towns are putting age restrictions on residential development or favoring projects where builders agree to sell only to those 55 and older, in an attempt to keep families from moving into fast-growing communities and overwhelming schools with new students. Twenty-eight communities are either imposing or encouraging age restrictions on new development. Non-senior housing has a tougher time getting approved, as towns and cities increasingly try to put the brakes on conventional growth, such as single-family homes. Reports the Globe: Many believe that age restrictions on housing, or restrictions on the number of bedrooms per housing unit, which tend to discourage buyers with children, are also the result of a simple calculation: A family with two kids moving into a town often does not pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of the expanded educational services the family requires. -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: age restrictions, population, social contract
Ray, Please explain who these people are. The ones with multiple young children? If so, then yes, there is a double bind. It would appear to be caused by too many people wanting to live in the same places, with those already there wanting to limit growth. Do you see a solution which doesn't involve a stoppage of pop growth? Democracy entitles people to decide on the governance of their territory. If the majority EVERYWHERE don't want more multi child families in their communities, the only answer obvious to me is to limit births by changing mindsets. Steve And many of these people are the very ones who complain about schools, taxes and demand vouchers for their kids. On the other hand, without decent affordable housing they are not likely to ever have the capital to pay decent taxes for Social Security. Sounds like a double bind to me. -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Future Energy (was Re: Cheyney's visit)
According to The World Resources Institute's Guide to the Global Environment (1997), ( http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-96-97/em_txt3.html ) If energy consumption were to remain constant at current levels, proved reserves (7) would supply world petroleum needs for 40 years, natural gas needs for 60 years, and coal needs for well over 200 years (8). 1. Global energy consumption is certainly ramping upwards continuously, so constant levels is pure fantasy. 2. Recoverable reserves and 'known reserves' are not equivalent. The latter being nearly irrelevant. 3. If more calories are expended in finding, procuring, transporting processing than are available at end use, the oil (or any other supposed energy source) has become an 'energy sink'. It will still be procured for vital non-energy purposes when that becomes the state of affairs. 4. Nat Gas production will peak within a few decades. (Peaking is not the same as running out.) 5. Coal is the likely fuel of the future. Just today in the business section of The Globe Mail is a short piece about seven corps pruposing a C$10Billion (6.3B $US)10 yr project to develop technology for virtually no greenhouse gas emissions processes to generate energy from coal. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Demise of Central Banks?
Perhaps Keith means the decline (in importance) of large scale commercial banks. (not Central or Nat'l Banks) This makes sense, as mergers continue with continuing staff cuts electronics replacing brick mortar. Brokers, banks insurance cos are (in US since laws changed last decade I think) permitted to merge as well. They provide mortgages other retail services. But the commercial lending areas are not expanding (last decade) as you would expect with economic expansion. The large corps get the attention of the large banks: to get their underwriting business they give them lines of credit. Perhaps the return of 'country banks' will be in the form of co-ops, which are thriving in middle america ( a few in Canada I think). Unions and farmers associations are examples of co-op founders. local bootstrappping becomes a necessity when large institutions walk away or charge prohibitive fees. I don't see this happening in large urban areas as easily as in smaller cities and towns. In the LDCs, Grameen type banks have proven successful. Globalization may be be working on a narrow high level, but also fostering local innovation by neglecting the vast middle. Now if people weren't so desperate in so many areas of the globe (envir., health, poverty, overcrowding...), I might even have a touch of optimism. A retired physicist friend (near 80 I think) Bill Ellis founded TRANET (alternative and transformational network) many years ago. He lives in rural Maine is involved in positive work along these lines: http://www.CreatingLearningCommunities.org Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: America's Superiority (was Gulf War II or World War III?)
Great article, Ray. My only quibble is the certainty the author and nearly all economists exhibit when predicting the US is home free from the hi-tech bubble and Sept 11 2001. Every month since 9-11 a US official has warned that we could be attacked any day by terrorists. It wasn't 'if', it was 'when'. Now the warnings seem to have stopped. Disinformation? Ignorance? Crying 'wolf'? Both investors and the security guys might be getting too smug. US is just as vulnerable to terrorist acts, and the economy is still as deep in debt (every level) as ever. There is no other country capable of driving (via consumption) a global recovery at present. China and Russia will grow rapidly, but that seems insufficient to me. Argentina is stuck, and affecting S.A.. Japan is stuck (despite a 20% bounce in the Nikki Dow - not unlike the US mkts). Europe UK are managing ok, but not powering up. The excesses need more time and bitter medicine (discipline savings, what US consumers are worst at) for the US to recover its health in my judgement. My advice, sell this rally before April 15. After the IRA monies are in, it should reverse. Steve
Re: aesthetics (end)
Ray, You know that I value your knowledge and respect your opinion That there are a bunch of 'experts' who agree with and inform your position on ART doesn't change it from opinion to truth After thinking a bit more about the discussion of professions, I realized that there of course are some pragmatic parameters that define each: if architects structures collapse, if fishermen catch few fish while there are plenty in the area, if most of a surgeons patients diethey are not doing their job well I don't know how you would equate that with ART To me, if a person enjoys her creative activity, that's fine If a performance (or crafting of a fine vase or table) pleases others as well, a consensus is valuing it A pedagogy is a passing forward of a valued heritage of methodologies, and techniques, and styles Perhaps that is the object you refer to As one who doesn't recognize or believe in spirits, that's the best I can do The reverance I have for the natural world, the pleasures of food, drink, flesh, sport, artare part of the positives in my life I dislike the dumbing down of NAmer (as I see it) and the 'dissing' of some of the heritage I recognize But I do not deify or reify ART as a thing in itself to be raised on a pedestal It is, by the way, the only *activity* that I regularly support monetarily besides environment/population balance (particularly via youth education and participation) Stay well, and good luck with the IRS Steve -- http://magmaca/~gpco/ http://wwwscientists4prorg/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist--Kenneth Boulding
Re: aesthetics
(SK) In short, my answer is no. ART isn't an object. It is anever-changing flux of values, creative skills, andtaste. All of life is theabove. Art's criteria in the West are no more erratic orflexible than the West's Science. Do not for get that Art is supported in the West by allgovernments. The Art of writing and literary thought. Very little has changed in the basic structuresalthough on a micro-level words change constantly. It alsois no more nor less Creative than is any theoretical section of anydiscipline. i.e. people are still writing 16 and 32 bar songforms that were invented thousands of years ago as the primary use of music inthe West. Theprimal duality of consonance and dissonancewasonly expanded beyond its base in the early 20th century and that has beenresisted by most of the forces inWestern society grounded in economicsand resistance to change. Sorry Steve, your statement isn't true. Ray, If All of life is theabove. and if ART is part of life, then you are being internally inconsistent when you say: Sorry Steve, your statement isn't true What you are doing, I believe, is using the longevity of some particulars to argue against the general. Reductionist analyses like water bones sound waves, frames for pictures (cave drawings and tapestries aren't framed) etc don't create an ontological definition either. "Truths of culture" is not an object either; it is at best consensus opinion at a point in time/place. We just have to agree to disagree. Priests of culture change with the wind. Best, Steve
Re: Loss of the middle class
This was in todays National Post. Sorry for the format. Steve February 25, 2002 Skilled immigrants overlooked in job market: study 'Racial discrimination more of an issue' Eric Beauchesne Southam News OTTAWA - Racism and failure to recognize the education and skills of recent immigrants help explain why they are not doing as well in the job market as in the past, a new federally funded study charges. Unfortunately, the situation of recent immigrants compared to other Canadians has worsened considerably, says the study released today by the Canadian Council on Social Development. In 1998, recent immigrants who had arrived between 1985 and 1998 earned on average $18,011, or 66% of the $27,305 earned by non-immigrants or those who had arrived prior to 1985. Census data for 1981 to 1996 on recent immigrants ... showed a progressive trend toward lower rates of labour force participation and lower levels of earnings among immigrants compared to the Canadian-born population, says the study by the social policy think-tank based in Ottawa. Part of the reason is that racial discrimination has, indeed, become more of an issue as new immigrants are increasingly drawn from visible minority groups who are more vulnerable to racism. For example, the labour participation rate of recent immigrants fell to 68.3% in 1996 from 86.3 in 1981. Immigration accounted for 70% of the growth in the labour force a decade ago and is expected to account for all of the growth within 10 years, notes the study, funded in part by the federal government. At least three of four recent immigrants are visible minorities who also make up 11% of the total population, virtually double the proportion in the mid-1980s. The large gaps in earnings between recent visible minority immigrants and other Canadians cannot be explained by inferior levels of formal education, it says. The point system used for selecting immigrants brings many highly educated people to Canada. In 1998, the proportion of university graduates among all immigrants, including refugees, was substantially higher than for Canadians, it notes. For immigrant men, the proportion was 36%, double the 18% for Canadian men, and for immigrant women it was 31% compared with 20% for Canadian women. Yet the proportion of immigrants living on low incomes was high at 52% among those who had arrived after 1991 and 35.1% among those who had arrived after 1986. The report calls for new policies to promote employment equity, the provision of language and skills training to new immigrants and the recognition of foreign credentials. -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
US already in Iraq?
Maybe... http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/02/20/26534.html
International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis
There is a wealth of information available from IIASA on thei nterconnections between population levels socio/economics-ecology-health-future. Steve http://www.iiasa.ac.at/docs/pop-soc.html Title: IIASA - Population and Society Population and Society Economic Transitions International Negotiation Population Risk, Modeling and Society Social Security Reform "A major theme of IIASA studies is the projection of population trends and understanding the strains that demographic changes place on resources and society, both globally and within nations. IIASA is continuing its pioneering work in population forecasting while extending its population-development-environment work into southern Southeast Asia. The Institute is expanding its research into economic issues related to the transition of centrally planned economies to market systems, to population movements between nations, and to global disparities in the age structures of populations. IIASA is also continuing its research into management of societal risks associated with global change and population aging.'' IIASA Enters the Twenty-First Century, page 1 Responsible for this page: IIASA Office of Information Last updated: 12 Apr 2001 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Phone: (+43 2236) 807 0 Fax: (+43 2236) 71 313 Web: www.iiasa.ac.at
WHY INVEST IN SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS?
Ray all, Perhaps this is a clearer way of explaining the connections I've been discussing. Scale, Ray, is the size of something or number of units of things. I was trying to connect numbers of under/un-employed distressed individuals, migration pressure, and the *doubling* of the number of humans in your lifetime. Combined with the leverage of automation and the concentration of capital in fewer hands, dis-empowerment and distress become rampant.There are many reasons why people migrate, both temporarily and permantly. However, part of the reason wages are so low in developing nations is that there is a massive supply of labor there due to large family size and declining mortality/incr longevity during the past century. The scale of urban centers can make community awareness and cooperation tough. How many of the thousands of people living in your square block do you know? How many meet to discuss neighborhood well-being options going forward? Less than 1%? What % vote? Representation (political) has been diluted to the point of meaninglessness, making money that much more potent. This just arrived from Action Canada for Population and Development. http://www.acpd.ca/acpd.php/General/101/ I've actually had a fued with them for 2 years because they didn't want to deal with the notion of overpopulation. They were stuck on womens rights, health, fighting poverty. Just this January they sent a Friday Facts which focussed on overpop envir as part of the wholesystem analysis. I sent a congratulatory email to the staff copying the 2 directors who have agreed with me all along. HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE BOTTOM LINE Jennifer Kitts, our senior advisor on sexual and reproductive rights has prepared an interesting report on human rights from an economic and social perspective. Here are some excerpts. The whole report is on our website. **** WHY INVEST IN SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS? (...) Achieving sexual and reproductive health and rights for all is an end in itself; it needs no further justification. But it also confers great benefits on the economic and social life of the community.(...) FIGHTING POVERTY Eliminating poverty is the single greatest challenge that the world faces. Empowering women and men to make key decisions about their lives - such as the decision about whether to have children, when and how often to do so - is essential to poverty eradication efforts. At the family level, high fertility can have a substantial impact on household income and can, in the extreme, makes the difference to a household being above the poverty line and being below it. If women have access to reproductive health information and services, they can take control of their fertility and break the cycle of repeated pregnancies, enabling them to seek employment or training and increase their family income. The burden of poor reproductive health affects women and men in their most productive years. Given the amount of disability and premature death caused by reproductive health problems in the poorest nations, it is difficult to imagine young adults - especially women - lifting themselves and their families from poverty without full access to basic reproductive health information and services. Reproductive illness and death help to perpetuate a vicious cycle of poverty among the poor. Poor and uneducated women are far more likely than other women to die or be disabled during pregnancy, or to bear the cost and consequences of clandestine abortions. Poverty is highly correlated with other variables, including early age at marriage and first birth, low contraceptive prevalence rates, short birth intervals, low birth weight, and relatively high risks of maternal and infant mortality. On a larger scale, there is new and more convincing evidence that high fertility at the economy-wide level makes poverty reduction more difficult and less likely. Rapid population growth exercises a negative impact on the pace of aggregate economic growth in developing countries. CRUCIAL TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Good reproductive health is crucial to national development. Half of the world's 6.1 billion people are under age 25; more than one billion are between the ages of 10 and 19. Within 15 years - less than one generation - all 3 billion will have reached reproductive age. Societies will need to make massive investments to prepare young people for economic and social participation, indeed, for all aspects of national development. Countries that fail to provide girls and boys with the means to remain healthy and in school will not benefit as fully from other investment they make in young people. What we do today will have far-reaching implications for the world in years to come. **** WEB SITES OF THE WEEK/SITES INTERNET DE LA SEMAINE : The official Web site for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: www.unhchr.ch Site Internet du
Re: pop. density (was Re: The Future of Work)
Ray, Your statement concerns a traditional economic analysis of efficiency. (time/value, convenience, relative $ costs, diversity of entertainment, existence of *some* high quality schools...) Remember, I lived in Manhattan for 27 years, so I'm not guessing here. The dependence on remote sourcing of energy, food, water, clothing...makes urban centers the most vulnerable of human settlements. Also, the waste generation and disposition is incredibly energy intensive. You are missing, in my opinion, total caloric consumption and waste production (matter/energy throughput, Entropy to physicists) calculated via cradle to grave analysis of production, transportation, packaging, removal of waste, toxic additions to biosphere... (excerpts)No one in the regions could touchwhat I have here on five times the salary. Subjective evaluation. Most in regions ( even in NYC)may not value what you value aesthetically. This is a non-sequitor re overpop)We don't use a lot ofenergy and we don't have gas guzzlers as required by living in cities on theplains or in the suburbs. I bet the busses, trucks, cabs running 24 hrs a day with one or two passengers amounts to the same (or greater) output of pollution per/sq.mile, if not per capita. And the electricity driving the subway isn't produced without pollution.We also have several million people within aten mile radius. All of them totally dependent upon remote d3elivery (from great distances) of their material needs.I don't think the problem is over-population but poor planning and issuesfreedom of mo vement that people are unwilling to give up.I don't go outof town much and I often don't get out of the apartment unless for fun. Itisn't required. Would you live that way?You are making normative judgements about how people should live. You are looking selectively at what you value, and dismissing or ignoring the physical constraints and dependencies involved. Another way of understanding my points is to look at ecological footprint analyses of cities and countries. One final point: just because currently available inventories may be plentiful and keep prices reasonable (for energy, water, food...), there is absolutely no necessary connection to the duration that these items may continue to be available. When a well runs dry, cost goes from nearly free to infinity if another well isn't immediately available. These are the kinds of future studies and whole-system analyses that support overpop/ overshoot as real.Best re gards,Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
This Hardly Matters Programme
I got this second hand. It is so clever and humorous, that I'm sharing it. I've no knowledge about the source or org. other than what is written below. Steve = THIS HARDLY MATTERS--20.02.02.20.2002, somewhere Friends, Sunil Sharma, the editor at Dissident Voice (see end of message), writes that the following questionnaire was posted very briefly on the McDonnell Douglas web site by an employee there and that others at Mc Donnells' made the web department take it down immediately. It is good to know that humour is still alive and well amongst underlings in the corporate states of America. Boudewijn Wegerif This Hardly Matters Programme Folkhogskola Vardingeby _ Thank you for purchasing a McDonnell Douglas military aircraft. In order to protect your new investment, please take a few moments to fill out the warranty registration card below. Answering the survey questions is not required, but the information will help us to develop new products that best meet your needs and desires. 1. [_] Mr. [_] Mrs. [_] Ms. [_] Miss [_] Lt. [_] Gen. [_] Comrade [_] Classified [_] Other First Name: ... Initial: Last Name. Password: .. (max. 8 char) Code Name: Latitude-Longitude-Altitude: ... 2. Which model aircraft did you purchase? [_] F-14 Tomcat [_] F-15 Eagle [_] F-16 Falcon [ ] F-117A Stealth [_] Classified 3. Date of purchase (Year/Month/Day): 19... / /. 4. Serial Number: ... 5. Please indicate where this product was purchased: [_] Received as gift / aid package [ ] Catalogue / showroom [_] Independent arms broker [_] Mail order [_] Discount store [_] Government surplus [_] Classified 6. Please indicate how you became aware of the McDonnell Douglas product you have just purchased: [_] Heard loud noise, looked up [_] Store display [_] Espionage [_] Recommended by friend / relative / ally [_] Political lobbying by manufacturer [_] Was attacked by one 7. Please indicate the three (3) factors that most influenced your decision to purchase this McDonnell Douglas product: [_] Style / appearance [_] Speed / maneuverability [_] Price / value [_] Comfort / convenience [_] Kickback / bribe [_] Recommended by salesperson [_] McDonnell Douglas reputation [_] Advanced Weapons Systems [_] Backroom politics [_] Negative experience opposing one in combat 8. Please indicate the location(s) where this product will be used: [_] North America [_] Iraq [_] Iraq [_] Aircraft carrier [_] Iraq [_] Europe [_] Iraq [_] Middle East (not Iraq) [_] Iraq [_] Africa [_] Iraq [_] Asia / Far East [_] Iraq [_] Misc. Third World countries [_] Iraq [_] Classified [_] Iraq 9. Please indicate the products that you currently own or intend to purchase in the near future: [_] Color TV [_] VCR [_] ICBM [_] Killer Satellite [_] CD Player [_] Air-to-Air Missiles [_] Space Shuttle [_] Home Computer [_] Nuclear Weapon 10. How would you describe yourself or your organization? (Indicate all that apply:) [_] Communist / Socialist [_] Terrorist [_] Crazed [_] Neutral [_] Democratic [_] Dictatorship [_] Corrupt [_] Primitive / Tribal 11. How did you pay for your McDonnell Douglas product? [_] Deficit spending [_] Cash [_] Suitcases of cocaine [_] Oil revenues [_] Personal check [_] Credit card [_] Ransom money [_] Traveler's check 12. Your occupation: [_] Homemaker [_] Sales / marketing [_] Revolutionary [_] Clerical [_] Mercenary [_] Tyrant [_] Middle management [_] Eccentric billionaire [_] Defense Minister / General [_] Retired [_] Student 13. To help us better understand our customers, please indicate the interests and activities in which you and your spouse enjoy participating on a regular basis: [_] Golf [_] Boating / sailing [_] Sabotage [_] Running / jogging [_] Propaganda / misinformation [_] Destabilization / overthrow [_] Default on loans [_] Gardening [_] Crafts [_] Black market / smuggling [_] Collectibles / collections [_] Watching sports on TV [_] Wines [_] Interrogation / torture [_] Household pets [_] Crushing rebellions [_] Espionage / reconnaissance [_] Fashion clothing [_] Border disputes [_] Mutually Assured Destruction Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your answers will be used in market studies that will help McDonnell Douglas serve you better in the future - as well as allowing you to receive mailings and special offers from other companies, governments, extremist groups, and mysterious consortia. As a bonus for responding to this survey, you will be registered to win a brand new F-117A in our Desert Thunder Sweepstakes! Comments or
Re: The Future of Work (2) very brief
I neglected to mention 2 facts: 1. The US is the 3rd most populated country in the world. 2. The US has the fastest growing population of all developed countries. (largely due to immigration the higher fertility of immigrants already in the country compared to birthrates for women born in the US). Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Why We Need to Stabilize U.S. Population
Harry, I could have edited the Google search to select the best corroborating links for my point of view. I chose to be honest. You, on the other hand, select one link to jump on, and have never proferred supporting evidence to counter the facts and opinions of many thousands of senior international scientists I've referred to. Why do you persist is disbelieving The UN, The World Health Org., many dozens of countries trying to stop pop growth. Most of all, why do you not believe the study done under Nixon by The Rockefeller Commission which said that population growth in the US the world was a threat to national security and global peace? Have a look at the resulting 1974 National Security Study Memorandum the one page on projected US pop growth I've pasted below. You are as dogmatic on this as you accuse leftists, right wing capitalists others on economic theory. Steve _The Life and Death of NSSM 200_ Search | Home | Back THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NSSM 200. How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a US Population Policy. by Stephen D. Mumford. INDEX TO CONTENTS. ... www.kzpg.com/Lib/Pages/Books/NSSM-200/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM200) - April ... National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) - April 1974. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Cover ... www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages THE NSSM200 DIRECTIVE AND THE STUDY REQUESTED - The Life ... THE NSSM200 DIRECTIVE AND THE STUDY REQUESTED. Chapter 3: ... www.population-security.org/11-CH3.html - 59k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.population-security.org ] NSSM 200 Archival Documents, National Security Council Memorandum (NSSM) 200 Table of Contents: Document Info. Executive Summary. ... www.pop.org/students/nssm200.html - 5k - Cached - Similar pages http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/whystabilize.html -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding Title: Why We Need to Stabilize U.S. Population Why we should address U.S. population growth Translate If the U.S population continues to grow like the last decade (13 percent every 10 years), mathematically the U.S. will have half of China's current population within the lifetimes of today's children. Why should we stabilize the U.S. population? The 2000 Census showed that as of April 1, 2000, the U.S. had 281.4 million people, an increase of 33 million people just in the last decade. If this U.S. population growth trend continues within the lifetimes of today's children this country will have half of China's current population! That is, if growth persists at a 13 percent rate per decade as it did from 1990 to 2000, the U.S. will have 666 million people in 2070 (China now has 1.3 billion). As of January 1, 2001, the U.S. population reached 283 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's estimates. Because the average U.S. resident consumes at least 25 times more than their counterpart abroad, the U.S. has done more damage to the world's environment than China and India combined! Paul Ehrlich has called the United States the most overpopulated country. In addition, the more people we have, the more pressure we put on the environment, infrastructure and social fabric: People drive, consume energy and need housing, education and many other social services. Due to a variety of factors, most recent immigrants have come from over 100 countries and are not assimilating. Do we really want to leave today's children an overpopulated, Divided States of America? Is it a real possibility that the U.S. could ever become as crowded as China? The U.S. population almost quadrupled its population in the past century: from 75 million in 1900 to 283 million in 2001. This despite a time-out from mass immigration between 1925 to 1965 during which the average immigration level was less than 200,000 per year. However, from 1990 to 2000, the average immigration rate was 1.2 million people annually. Even so, immigration advocates are continuously pushing legislation to increase immigration. If the U.S. quadruples its population one more time in this century, this country will have over one billion people (283 million x 4). In addition, the inconceivable just a few decades ago has become reality. For example, in the 1940's, when Los Angeles County was mostly farm land, few Californians could imagine that within less than 40 years that area could become so highly congested. Presently, large numbers of immigrants from many countries have settled in the Midwest. Detroit, for example, has one of the largest concentrations of Arabs outside the Middle East. Also, the Census
Re: Intellectual Property (was Re: Fish and Chips)
Ray, You may think me a Johnny One-note, but the only innovative, constructive idea I can see addressing the ills this list addresses weekly is population shrinkage. Redistribution of money creates not one iota of sustainable well-being; it would give an instantanious burst of consumption, and then slow depletion/burnout. Latent consumption (savings of the rich) would be converted to immediate consumption with its concomitant waste production. The growth paradigm is cancerous. If there were 1B instead of 6.2, everyone would, on average, have 6 times the natural wealth including waste sinks, clean air, pure water, fuel, timber, topsoil, and opportunity. And labor would be revalued upwards, as capital would still seek to be employed in enterprise. Values are most difficult to change. Pain is the normal route, as humans are stubborn hang on to old ways until the bitter end. Don't begrudge the active listmembers here. If anything, urge the lurkers to express themselves. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing a dozen at most express themselves, although I've learned alot from them, you included. Assertions of universal truths, though, we could do without. While I agree with your aesthetic judgements to a large degree, they are no more than taste and opinion as I see things. There are NO objective standards that aren't learned/taught anthropogenic evaluations, just like the dictates of the Ten Commandments. Stick around, Ray. We'd miss you. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Floating currencies (was Re: The Science of Fairness)
Since much of my career focused on relative valuations of currencies and the 'odds' the derivatives market placed on changes to them (put call option prices imply expected volatility), here's a brief comment on the current state of affairs. It is highly unlikely in my opinion that the major currencies will return to a gold or silver standard. The Central Banks have been selling off some of their gold holdings during the past several years, which is a bit surprising in that gold is cheap compared to the past 25 year constant dollar average price. The money supplies have grown massively, and the price of gold might have to be set at US$5000/oz or more if any attempt was made to back all outstanding credits/tokens with it. (currently US$300) Those holding currencies that depreciated drastically during the past few years would have had a huge relative gain if they had bought gold before the currency declines even in the face of a gradually declining $US/gold price; some smart ones did so, and some bought $US. A friend who lives in France is here in Canada for a year sabbatical. Compared to major US city prices for housing, food, entertainment, and now even cars, things are less expensive in Ottawa. I expected him to say that France was more expensive, but he said that was so only for gasoline, electricity, cars, and perhaps a few other things. Mostly things were cheaper in France! (Euro is now their currency) I am diversified in my investments, and now feel even more comfortable with my Euro position. I read today that Italy is getting testy about 'Italy first' rather than 'one Europe'. This kind of growing pain is to be expected. Perceptions of relative value, profit opportunities, 'real interest rates' (excl inflation) and safety are the main drivers of currency flows in the investment world. Right now it appears that safety is #1 in the minds of financial professionals. The $US is today like the Br. Pound was 50 years ago: the *standard* to which all else is compared. It might stay that way for a while longer, but it is a confidence game that can lose efficacy over time if the fundamentals erode. (like Enronitis) Huge national and corporate debt, trade, budget and current account deficits have been funded by huge foreign capital inflows. This flow MUST continue, or the game stops and a run on the dollar starts. It is that crazy! I have around 10% in gold as insurance. I still have maybe 33% in US Canadian dollars. The Australian and New Zealand dollars are undervalued in my opinion, so I have some along with some Br. Pounds and a few Asian currencies (not Yen). What else can a retiree do? Some borrow against their homes (home equity loans) for cash flow or investments. I think that unwise despite the tax writeoff in the US. If one needs money to live, a reverse mortgage will at least guarantee you will not be evicted. Perhaps I'm too conservative, but I sleep ok. The credit ratings of the bonds I own are AA average. If governments default, it's back to work I guess. I'll answer any questions off-list should anyone want my opinion on similiar matters. BTW, caveat emptor still applies. These are just my no cost opinions. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
30 yr old plot
This is not directly related to Futures topics, but I suggest that what we read and hear today is not what is decided behind closed doors. The more things change... Steve http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns1734 Plot to undermine global pollution controls revealed A secret group of developed nations conspired to limit the effectiveness of the UN's first conference on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. The existence of this cabal, known as the Brussels group, is revealed in 30-year-old British government records that were kept secret until this week. The Stockholm conference was set up in response to rising concern about damage to the environment. It ended with a ringing declaration of the need to protect the natural world, and the UN Environment Programme was set up as a result. But the ambitious aims of the conference organisers, who included Maurice Strong, the first director-general of UNEP, were held in check by the activities of the Brussels group, which included Britain, the US, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France. The group was "an unofficial policy-making body to concert the views of the principal governments concerned", according to a note of one of the group's first meetings written by a civil servant in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "It will have to remain informal and confidential." This meeting took place in July 1971, nearly a year before the Stockholm conference opened. Familiar arguments Many of the arguments the group employed would sound familiar to today's anti-globalisation protesters. The group was concerned that environmental regulations would restrict trade and also wanted to stop UNEP having a large budget to spend as it saw fit. Foreign Office papers say the group "made real progress on this difficult problem", though without specifying how this was done. The group seemed unconcerned about what its stance would mean for poorer countries. Its chief aim in the diplomatic jockeying during the run-up to Stockholm was for developed countries to get what they wanted "and perhaps be less worried about making it a success for developing countries". This unalloyed self-interest won it few friends, and the notes record that Strong had already been grumbling about the group's activities. "We may get some criticism from the Swedes and others [and] we must be careful when expanding the group not to include awkward bedfellows," the note adds. Sonic booms A more concrete idea of the group's aims can be gleaned from a note laying out Britain's position prior to a secret meeting in Geneva in December 1971, one of a number of such meetings in the run-up to Stockholm. Written by an official in what was then the Department of the Environment, it says that Britain wanted to restrict the scope of the Stockholm conference and reduce the number of proposals for action. In an indirect reference to what would later become UNEP, the paper says a "new and expensive international organisation must be avoided, but a small effective central coordinating mechanism ... would not be welcome but is probably inevitable". It then goes on to detail the subjects that Britain wanted left out of the Stockholm action plans. At the top of the list were controls on sonic booms from aircraft and pollution in the upper atmosphere. These measures would have seriously damaged the economics of the Anglo-French supersonic airliner, Concorde. Moral pressure At the time, Concorde was already in deep trouble, with only the British and French national airlines likely to buy it, and earlier in the year the British Cabinet had discussed axing the plane. Arguments raged about whether the noisy plane would be allowed to land in New York. Controls on sonic booms could have sounded its death knell. The British government was also firmly opposed to any international standards regulating environmental quality or polluting emissions. It feared that any international agreement might force it to clean up its act. "Universal guidelines ... could cause moral pressure for compliance with philosophies of doubtful validity or benefit," say the papers. Despite the efforts of the Brussels group, the Stockholm conference is widely recognised to have been a watershed. Though the group's lobbying ensured the conference focused on only a limited number of subjects, such as transboundary pollution, UNEP later tackled a wider range of topics such as the problems of deforestation and urbanisation. Mick Hamer 19:0002January02
Dawkins, Ornstein recent book on evolution
I agree with Keith, and so does this Harvard prof. My point about Dawkins was specifically about his position concerning the human brain and a uniquely human ability to 'transcend' evolution. Robert Ornstein coined the expression conscious evolution, with regard to humans molding behavior based on intellectual decisions that favour long term survival. Given our 'choice' to date (given the historical facts) to prefer the 4 horsemen rather than rational population reduction and pollution reduction, these theories are certainly just that - theories. Steve (there are more extensive reviews on the Sci Amer link to Amazon below) BOOKSTORE == WHAT EVOLUTION IS by Ernst Mayr What I have aimed for, Mayr writes, is an elementary volume that stresses principles and does not get lost in detail. What the reader gets from this giant in the field of evolutionary biology is a fine basic account of the developing understanding of evolution from ancient times to the present. Mayr presents a spirited defense of Darwinian explanations of biology as well as confronting the reductionist approach that tries to focus all evolutionary phenomena on the gene; he shows instead that evolution must consider two crucial units--the individual and populations. http://sciam.rsc03.net/servlet/cc?lJpDUWErNkmSlFMkLLgLmDJHksLmhgDJHE0EXVZ -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Into space (was Re: Hidden assumptions)
A recent Dawkins talk relevant to free will opportunities for humans to intentionally craft their future. I personally think he is confused philosophically, since this sounds a bit like disembodied brain/mind escaping evolutionary constraints. However, freedom at least seems real; and how else can we proceed to live our lives? As zombies or automatons? Steve === 12 February 2002 22:56 GMT Independent Richard Dawkins: Our big brains can overcome our selfish genes From a lecture by the Charles Simonyi professor of the understanding of science, given at the Royal Institution, in London 12 February 2002 What comes naturally is a topic which Darwinism might be expected to illuminate. Darwinian natural selection gives us just about everything else in our nature - our bones, our organs, our instincts. If there is a reason to exclude our values, it had better be a good one. The values of sustainability are important to all of us here, and I enthusiastically include myself. We therefore might hope that these too are built into us by natural selection. I shall tell you today that this is not so. On the contrary, there is something profoundly anti-Darwinian about the very idea of sustainability. But this is not as pessimistic as it sounds. Although we are products of Darwinism, we are not slaves to it. Using the large brains that Darwinian natural selection has given us, it is possible to fashion new values that contradict Darwinian values. From a Darwinian point of view, the problem with sustainability is this: sustainability is all about long-term benefits of the world at the expense of short-term benefits. Darwinism encourages precisely the opposite values. Short-term genetic benefit is all that matters in a Darwinian world. Superficially, the values that will have been built into us will have been short-term values, not long-term ones. But this is not a reason for despair, nor does it mean that we should cynically abandon the long-term future, gleefully scrap the Kyoto accords and similar agreements, and get our noses down in the trough of short-term greed. What it does mean is that we must work all the harder for the long-term future, in spite of getting no help from nature, precisely because nature is not on our side. Humans are no worse than the rest of the animal kingdom. We are no more selfish than any other animals, just rather more effective in our selfishness and therefore more devastating. All animals do what natural selection programmed their ancestors to do, which is to look after the short-term interest of themselves and their close family, cronies and allies. If any species in the history of life has the possibility of breaking away from short-term Darwinian selfishness and of planning for the distant future, it is our species. We are earth's last best hope, even if we are simultaneously the species most capable in practice of destroying life on the planet. When it comes to taking the long view we are literally unique. No other species is remotely capable of it. If we do not plan for the future, no other species will. There is a tension between short-term individual welfare and long term group welfare or world welfare. If it were left to Darwinism alone there would be no hope. Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies in the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our massive communal database and our forward simulating imaginations. Brains, although they are the products of natural selection, follow their own rules, which are different from the rules of natural selection. The brain exists originally as a device to aid gene survival. The ultimate rationale for the brain's existence, and for its large size in our own species, is like everything else in the natural world, gene survival. As part of this, the brain has been equipped by the natural selection of genes with the power to take its own decisions - decisions based not directly upon the ultimate Darwinian value of gene survival, but upon other more proximal values, such as hedonistic pleasure or something more noble. It is a manifest fact that the brain - especially the human brain - is well able to over-ride its ultimate programming; well able to dispense with the ultimate value of gene survival and substitute other values. I have used hedonistic pleasure as just an example, but I could also mention more noble values, like a love of poetry or music, and, of course, the long-term survival of the planet - and sustainability. === -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION (article in Science)
I'll really need to read the study as the article is unclear. One thingI noticed iupon my third read is that the corruption mentioned in the beginning refers to wealth condensing in the hands of ONE individual. At the end, he says "a few lucky..." So I'm confused a bit now. REH: I guess what Harry and the rest would say to this is that it is not truly a free market place. To what does the "it" above refer? Definition of a "free market" is the deciding factor as to whether or not they can be said to exist. Pressure groups for privelege as well as for the "common good" may be freely joined in 'open societies'. Restraints can come from peer pressures as well as from power elites (whether military, economic, religious..) But how is that different from the old fundamentalist and orthodox excuse that the nightmares being propagated in the name of religion is because it is the "wrong" religion? Or maybe a not pure enough version of that religion? In my view, all monotheistic religions are "pure". Pure imagination! Other religions are to greater lesser degrees connected to worldly and visible heavenly things. (ex SUN RA) I prefer the least pure if I must choose: pantheism/animism. You seem to want an explanation for human motivation, intention, action. As I read it, the theory is about systemic conditions under which wealth condenses/concentrates. Rationalizing it is a separate issue, and one that concerns social psychology power struggles. Corruption is a normative judgement about the condensation. How about showing me somewhere the theory has worked? In the art of economics we have whole companies, cities, nations and now the world being organized by theories that have never been proven to work anywhere near as long as the great civilizations like Egypt.Democratic Greece worked for a little over 100 years. Not too great a history if you ask me. So how does this fit with the science article? Must read the study; we are speculating here. I'm not picking on Steve. He was kind enough to post the article and didn't express anything but interest. There has been, however, a swing to "free markets" or is it Laissez Faire or both? Markets are NOT FREE NOW. They are subsidized, tarrifized, monopolized, taxed... Laissez Faire I think means without government interference. I don't know history well enough to comment further, but I would doubt that Egypt or Greece qualified as free or laissez faire. Perhaps Athens was nearly so for a period?? Someone interested should check the study referenced: References Burda, Z. et al. Wealth condensation in Pareto macroeconomies. Physical Review E , 65, 026102 (2002). Bouchard, J.-P., Mezard, M.. Physica A, 282, 536, (2000). I've got 2 books to read, one review to write, and an article request as well. Can't do more now. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION (article in Science)
Hi Ray, The definitions of key terms are to blame. (my understanding) When the article refer to "socialism", they are referring to the strong centrally mandated type, not the small community Israeli Kibbutz. Cuba might be one country that doesn't fit either definition, but they are short of the money necessary for condensation. In a controlled economy (Harry Keith have already helped explain that capitalism is ALSO a controlled economy), wealth can condense more easily than in a TRUE free trade economy which enables more competition, not monopoly. The article's mistake is assuming that these actually exist: Liberal economies that maintain free and unrestricted trade are less susceptible. The journalist /or the physicists are confused/unclear. From my readings there have been scarce few open economies like that beyond tribal or regional ones. (Inuit, native Amer., Aboriginal, Kibbutz, ..) Champions of unrestricted free-market trade, meanwhile, might bear in mind that this is the very condition that generates an unequal Pareto distribution in the first place. It places most of the wealth in the hands of a lucky few. There will probably always be gaps in well-being and power. The losers use the concept of "lucky"; the winners use the facts of smarts cleverness, and hard work. I'd lay 2:1 that the journalist writing this leans to the left! :-) The study surely is better written, and when I get time, I'll have a look at it. My guess is that central control is key, even if by consent of the governed. Hope this helps. Steve - Steve, I read the article and all the way through I thought that it was saying that socialism was the most likely to accrue the wealth in the hands of one individual i.e. corruption, when the last sentence said the opposite. Could you explain this a little less technically to me? Also when do models fail?When they fly in the face of common sense?Why do some societies like the Scandinavians seem to resist corruption so well while the old Spanish colonies seem to prone to Cronyism. Wasn't Texas and old Spanish colony?But I would appreciate the economics professionals on the list making this a little more clear to me. I'm familiar with Pareto-optimality which is what I have been saying about winners must have losers. But the science article didn't make sense to me. Help? -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Stocks hit
One day doesn't necessarily change a trend, but todays drop could be the first step in the down leg Keith I suspect is coming. By Denise Duclaux NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks sank in late afternoon trading on Tuesday as investors, shell-shocked by the implosion of energy trader Enron Corp. (ENRNQ.PK), worried over the soundness of Corporate America's financial statements. (snip) Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION (article in Science)
Interesting article. I've not studied this topic in any detail, but in a complex system, it seems speculative - except for the obvious fact that if no excess wealth then no saved wealth. Steve WEALTH SPAWNS CORRUPTION Physicists are explaining how politics can create the super-rich. http://www.nature.com/nsu/020121/020121-14.html -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Fwd: The Genius of Capitalism
My cafe time, too! Bruce L: Brad, -Original Message- Not being schooled in "Economics", I have come to see "capitalism" as just one form of human sociability: That is 1 way to look at it. However, I don't choose to socialize that way and those who do try to destroy those who choose other ways to socialize. That certainly isn't very sociable. All the "capitalists" "socialize" together, and the "medium" of their sociality is running what I consider to be the second, but more real government of the lands they live in. Insightful, but isn't there a need for consent of the governed?SK:This is both a values and scale question. What constitutes a need? Needed by the system? Needed for ethical values? The ought is different from the is. Massive system redesign would be required for the consent of the governed to be effectivly possible. And power doesn't give itself up willingly.Besides W. Eur N. Amer, Russia, India, even China, most of Central S.Am er., Au., NZ... indeed most of humanity is now following a capitalist model. Perhaps the SCALE is different in many areas, where TNCs don't run the show; but then small scale capitalism (incl farming, artisans, barters/traders,...)is the rule. Representative democracies are/have been run by $ since govts succumbed to borrowing from the future. They are like drug addicts except it is power and revenue that is the habit. Before this there were monarchies, warlords, dictators/czars...In representative democracies with fixed #s of reps, population growth has diluted individual voices to a tiny fraction since constitutional formation. Women and non-white voting rights diluted as well.(NOT JUDGING THESE RIGHTS except as to dilution) Strength in numbers is double edged! Besides voice dilution, oversupply of labor reduces bargaining power re wages and benefits ceteris paribus.System failure/breakdown yields the greatest fastest change potential. Each day one's voice is diluted further, internet notwithstanding.end of cafe time.Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: FW: [ffdngocaucus] Invitation to online discussion forum on FfD (The Bankruptcy of Nations)
Gee, except for our friendly disagreement about pop-envir balance (scale of humans on earth; 400% growth in 1 Century), I find I continue to agree with Harry. Privelege of the landed aristocracy, importance by birth..has had horrendous impacts on human well-being. But...continue dividing a fully owned family farm in slices for progeny, and eventually the plot becomes insufficient. Even if sustainable methods are used. Remember the handshake 'my word is my bond'. In the crazy world of currency derivatives trading, that used to be the case. Then they began taping the phones for records. In large (non-exchange traded) derivative deals, paper contracts were signed after the verbal trade. Now Enron document shredding. There will likely be more cases, as the auditors will be reluctant to sign the annual reports. When some unknown auditor signs, the investors will KNOW the gig is up. In the Govt Agency, Intergovt world, NGO world there is incredible redundancy. Careers are developed and protected with a vengence. The last consideration (in my opinion) is how to get the most benefit to the cause/need. I participated in a seminar to members of The World Bank (around 1991). Mediocre bunch of bureaucrats in my opinion. To expect solutions to come from these monoliths is a pipe dream. Unintended consequences are likely even IF the money gets put to work as intended, as unbiased scientific probability studies are not the norm. Enough. Steve -- Mike, Dealing in money is so confusing. If I lend you money to improve your circumstances, I would expect to see your circumstances improving. This because you would mend the hole in the roof, get the car running again so you can work, pay the mortgage, and so on. In fact, I would probably insist on seeing those things are done when I lend you the money. If you suggested a quick trip to Las Vegas first, I would say certainly not. This shows that if you get yourself into the hands of a moneylender, you give up your freedom - a terrible thing to happen to anyone. But, say I have to go to see my sick aunt and while I'm gone, you stop everything and head for Las Vegas. When you get back, I am there and say why haven't you repaired the roof. You start making excuses, and I foreclose on you. Should you have some kind of Chapter that gets you out from under the problem - but which means I lose the money I lent you? Doesn't seem fair does it? In any event, I won't lend you anything again. Now, this is what happens with IMF loans. They arrange help for a poor nation, and they work with black, brown, yellow, or white, Harvard, or Oxford, trained business suits, who are anxious to do good. As one CEO told me about negotiations with the union: "At least now they are people like you." And the multicolored business suits do very well - for a venal heart can beat under a suit, no matter the color of the wearer. Just as I want you to use my loan to improve your circumstance, so does the IMF want a recipient country to repair its roofs, get the transportation system working again, get rid of high interest debts - give the economy a jump-start so people have jobs. Argentina was a basket case long before the IMF became involved. The first thing the lender would want, for example, is to end the 5000% inflation. Seems fair enough, doesn't it? Then, they want the economy to return to the free market - a vastly better agent for controlling the economy than government servants. When the government is wrong, the best you can get from them is OOPS! - followed by excuses. When a private operator is wrong he goes broke. Who has a greater incentive to be right? However, what you get from a body like the IMG is a government instituted free market - perhaps the greatest oxymoron of them all. So, they trot out such nonsense as "privatization". This failed with Maggie Thatcher, but apparently they didn't notice. In Argentina, they seem to have privatized the roads - an unbelievable mistake. But they are all neo-classical economists now, and neo-classicism failed almost before it began. It now has a zombie like existence because there has grown around it a horde of politicians and economists who keep it alive because their jobs depend on it. Unfortunately, they infuse it with our blood. Add to this a corruption of politicians - hey, there is a new generic" - and you have a "one size fits all " disaster waiting to play out its grisly scenario. I have never supported the IMF and give only luke-warm support to the WTO. I hope the civil servants, who perhaps joined the WTO wanting to break down the barriers between people and peoples, still have their girlish laughter. But, I bet it's getting a little shrill. Stiglitz has become the darling of the anti-IMF crowd. Perhaps they don't realize he is free trader. But, what is his number one concern? Land reform - getting billions of peasants out from under the
M.L. King quote
This is in honor of M.L.King, whose birthday is being celebrated today in the US and perhaps other places. Note: since the time of his statement human population has risen by more than 2 Billion, an increase of 50% from the numbers King perceived as already constituting a plague. Steve Family planning, to relate populaton to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims. -Martin Luther King -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Herbert Schiller
Harry, It seems to me that humans invest more import into what is unknowable - the mystery - than into the mundane complex stuff about which we can know a bit. Makes social contracts in a globalized world nearly impossible to form and keep functional. Steve === (addressing Keith others incl me) Perhaps the major difference between the scientist and the philosopher is that the philosopher's imaginings are complete, whereas the scientist's hypotheses must be tested by observation and experiment. You know Classical Political Economy divides the universe into Land, Labor, and Products - which are natural resources, human exertion, and the material results of exertion. So, where does God - or a Supreme Being - come in these three categories? Harry -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
THE GLOBAL GOODFELLAS AT THE IMF
I don't believe that everyone at the IMF The World Bank conspire. However, some cases being made ( past tense) make these institutions look either highly incompetent or like they were following dictates from a high level power elite (or both??). Here's a recent piece from a major US Newspaper. Steve -- THE GLOBAL GOODFELLAS AT THE IMF by Conn Hallinan, The San Francisco Examiner - January 11, 2002 Here's a riddle: What is the difference between Tony Soprano and the International Monetary Fund? Answer: Nothing, except that Tony and his Mafia pals, who extort and impoverish a handful of people in New Jersey, are a television creation. The IMF, on the other hand, does this to hundreds of millions in the real world. The organization's latest victim is Argentina, where Latin America's third largest economy has been derailed by IMF policies that have devastated populations and economies from Moscow to Jakarta while stuffing the coffers of financial organizations and banks. And those policies were made right here in the USA. The prevailing myth about the IMF is that it is an international body. Indeed, it has lots of members, but the United States and its allies make all the decisions. The Netherlands, for instance, has more voting power than China and India. International is a handy fiction that allows the organization to avoid congressional oversight. And what the IMF does is to make an offer you can't refuse. When Argentina hit an economic rough patch back in the early '90s, President Bush (senior) and the fund offered a loan. But the money was contingent on Argentina pegging its peso to the dollar, privatizing everything from banking to utilities, removing all tariffs and allowing the free flow of capital. Argentina took the bait, and foreign capital surged in. For some -- the wealthy -- the economy took off. But tying the peso to the dollar made Argentina's exports prohibitively expensive, while the flood of cheap foreign imports blitzed the country's industrial base. Factories closed, unemployment spread and the debt exploded. The free flow of capital allowed foreign companies to bleed profits overseas and opened the gates for vulture funds, which bought up the debt to make a killing on higher interest rates. The Toronto Trust Argentina market fund made a 79.25 percent return on debts it purchased -- 30 times what it would have made holding U.S. Treasury bonds. Privatization drove up prices. A French company purchased the country's water system and hiked rates by 400 percent. The Mafia works with blackjacks and sawed-off shotguns. The IMF does its mayhem with opaque-sounding documents, like the Technical Memorandum of Understanding that Argentina signed in 2000. The agreement required Argentina to cut its budget, slice civil services salaries by 15 percent and cut pensions 13 percent. Not to worry, the IMF said. Do what we say, and production will jump 3.7 percent. Instead, it fell 2.1 percent (until it dropped off the charts four months ago). Hey, but we're here for you guys, said the IMF. We've got a $26 billion loan to help you out. Not exactly. You see, the Argentinians can only get the loan if they pay off their debts in dollars. But because of the meltdown, they have to pay a 16 percent premium to get the dollars. A year's payment on their $132 billion foreign debt, plus the added premium, comes to $27 billion. No Argentinian will even get a whiff of that IMF loan. It will go straight into the vaults of Citibank in New York and Fleet Bank in Boston. The IMF also insists that Argentina balance its budget by the end of 2002, which would require the government to cut $7 billion from the budget and raise taxes $4 billion -- the equivalent of the United States implementing spending cuts and tax increases of $400 billion in a single year, or $2,500 per family. No one should be surprised by any of this. The IMF's track record is one of unalloyed disaster. It was the IMF that help bankrupt Russia and turned the 1997 Asian monetary panic into a full-fledged economic disaster. When the Asian bank crisis started, the IMF arrived with loans, but only if everyone privatized and opened their markets. The result was a major meltdown in every Asian economy except Japan and Taiwan. In Indonesia 100 million people -- half the population - now live on less than $1 a day. When Argentinians asked the Bush administration for aid, you would think they'd have gotten it. After all, Argentina was one of the few Latin American countries to actively support the 1991 Gulf War, is a strong supporter of NATO, and is sending peacekeepers to Afghanistan at a cost of $20 million. But like Tony Soprano and the goodfellas, the administration doesn't let friendship and alliances get in the way of business. The Bush administration has washed its hands of any responsibility, in spite of the fact that Washington's fingerprints are all over the crisis. It was very clearly the
GDP value must reflect eco-wealth, report says
This is refreshing output for a subsidiary of NAFTA. It indicates, among many things, that overshoot in human impact is occurring. It also suggests that technology isn't sufficient as a fix. At least there is recognition that humanity has a problem. Steve Monday, January 7, 2002 - Page A1 The Globe and Mail GDP value must reflect eco-wealth, report says By ALANNA MITCHELL EARTH SCIENCES REPORTER North Americans must radically alter the way they calculate gross domestic product to take into account the use of each country's environmental wealth, says a hard-hitting new report from the international environmental watchdog set up under NAFTA. That's because North America's natural resources -- from soil and forests to water and fish, and even clean air -- are being consumed at a rate that simply cannot be sustained. The watchdog of the North American free-trade agreement is calling for a way to assess how long such use can continue before it's too late. The health of an environment that sustains 394 million people and an economy worth $9-trillion [U.S.] is at risk, concludes the first state-of-the-nations report from the North American Commission for Environmental Co-operation, to be published today. The report adds: North Americans are faced with the paradox that many activities on which the North American economy is based impoverish the environment on which our well-being ultimately depends. As it stands, the internationally accepted system of national accounts fails to predict how long a country's environmental capital can be used, and at what rate, before parts of it collapse, the report says. Unlike human or fabricated capital such as buildings and machines, the depreciation of natural capital is not written off against the value of its production, the 100-page report says. The planet's assets can be likened to a bank account, it says. By 'spending' natural capital without replenishing it, or by damaging processes and living systems that cannot be fixed by technology, we are living off our capital rather than the interest, the report says. That this urging should come from an environmental group set up by the NAFTA partners, Canada, the United States and Mexico, is a measure of how seriously the new economic research on this topic is being taken. Because of the research, we are becoming more fluent and aware of the part that ecosystems play, said Janine Ferretti, the CEC's executive director. They're the backbone of prosperity. Mexico has done a pilot study on calculating an ecological GDP. It showed, for example, that Mexico's GDP calculated the regular way logged an average annual increase of 2.2 per cent from 1985 to 1992. The ecological GDP showed an average of 1.3 per cent because it took into account the depletion of natural assets. Both Canada and the United States have examined integrating measures of economy and environment. The United States studied the costs and savings of the Clean Air Act over 20 years, for example. Implementing the act cost $524-billion (U.S.), but saved the economy more than $6-trillion (U.S.). The fate of the cod fishery on Canada's East Coast is a perfect example of what happens when natural capital is not taken into account. Past governments encouraged the use of large fleets to catch and process fish to build up Newfoundland's economy. Because too many cod were fished out of the ocean, and too little was understood about how that system worked, the fishery collapsed. In 1992, Canada banned cod fishing. Stocks have still not rebounded and many scientists say they never will. It's a similar story with haddock and pollock. Excessive fishing has destroyed a major piece of the environment, the report says. In turn, that has destroyed part of the economy. Not understanding how a natural system worked led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and a special unemployment program that cost Ottawa $1.9-billion in the first five years. It is expected to cost another $760-million over the next three years. The growing sense of urgency in understanding the continent's economy in this way is borne out by some of the report's other findings. While there is some good news, such as the increase in protected areas to about 15 per cent of North America from about 5 per cent in 1970, there is also bad news. Agricultural practices such as no-till planting are lessening the degree of soil erosion in parts of the agricultural belt, yet soil is still disappearing. Now it's because farmers rely heavily on chemical fertilizers that erode soil structure instead of the compost and manure that build it up, the report says. As well, high use of fossil fuels is polluting the air and helping to damage the planet's climate. In the United States, the number of kilometres travelled by passengers on transit, rail and intercity bus has dropped by half since 1970 even as the appetite for bigger cars and longer trips
NY Times: Immigration drives down wages
Note: I am NOT anti-immigrant or anti-immigration. In fact I am a recent immigrant to Canada. The reason I am posting this is to evidence the supply-demand claims re jobs wages that I have been making foraround 5 years on Futurework. Numbers matter in all living systems. The human economy IS a subsystem of a living system. Steve=NY Times: Immigration drives down wages
As reported by the New York Times, ("Median Income Drops Are Tied to
Immigrants" 12/22/01), new Census data backs up what we immigration
reductionists have long argued: Immigration is not good for middle- and
low-income Americans. The article noted annual income losses of
$5,000-$9,000 per household over the last decade in high-immigration
locales.
The article didn't mention, however, that while mass immigration is a
kick in the teeth for Americans on the lower rungs of the economic
ladder, it is a great boon to higher-income Ame
ricans, who are more able
to enjoy the benefits of a large, low-wage servant class.
Many Americans, of course, recognize the inherent injustice of a public
policy that is stacked against our most vulnerable citizens.
Unfortunately, many Americans also seem to have swallowed the lie that
immigrants take the "jobs Americans don't want."
The real truth is that immigrants do the jobs that Americans don't want
for those WAGES.
This is easily seen by the fact that the "jobs Americans don't want" are
the very jobs Americans have always done during the long immigration
time-outs in our nation's history (the most recent being the 40-year
period between 1925 and 1965).
Meat-packing, for example, is a dirty, dangerous, and low-status job
that no one WANTS to do. Yet, a few decades back, those jobs were
protected by union memberships and provided a middle-class income for
American workers and their families. Then a period of union busting was
followed by the meat-packing industry's
importation of illegal aliens
williing to work at sub-American wages.
If other industries follow the poor example of the meat packing
industry, the list of "jobs Americans don't want" will continue to grow.
We need a complete ten-year time-out from mass immigration in order to
reestablish social justice in the United States and reassess our
nation's priorities -- economic, social, and environmental. American
immigration policy must be devised for the good of all Americans, and
not just those who profit by the cheap labor of foreigners.
Median Income Drops Are Tied to Immigrants (NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/22/nyregion/22CENS.html
"We should strengthen our immigration laws to prevent the importation of
foreign wages and working conditionsAnd we should end the unskilled
immigration that competes with young Americans just entering the
job
market."
US Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA),
Chairman of the Senate Immigration and Claims Subcommittee. (1996)
--
http://magma.ca/~gpco/
http://www.scientists4pr.org/
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Herbert Schiller
Brad, I was using "teleology" in the grandest sense: a direction of reality, a purpose or meaning of life other than our anthropogenic ascriptions. Is it necessary to "find justification for our[-]selves" outside of the values and meanings nurturenature (incl our creativity) produce? Is any other notion of teleology verifiable/falsifiable? The only one I've been able to accept is the tendency of life to perpetuate itself, and there are exceptions to that - it's not an absolute in 100% of individual life forms (but may be for life in general??). In my opinion, Abraham (myth?) is an example of the exception that proves the rule. Steve B.McC:"Teleology is not easy to justify" -- One way of reading that sentence destroys teleology, since teleology is supposed to be how we find justification for our[-]selves, rather than the other way around. Abraham did not anguishedly debate with himself whether to take Isaac up onto the mountain. -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: For Dan George
Just one sidenote which reinforces Brad's interpretation of nature us: We are not outside of nature; we are a growing (too fast) part of it. It is extremely likely that we will not be the last surving life form on earth. It is also extremely likely that similiar (to us) life forms exist elsewhere/sometime. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Herbert Schiller
B.McC: This does not get to the root of the matter. The media do not get into the game until the child has been infected with the values of his or her social matrix of origin -- what I call: an ethnicity -- thru *childrearing*, which the parents transmit to the infant before the acquisition of language. Hi Brad, As usual, I enjoy reading your comments. What is mindboggling to me is most humans devotion to religion,(incl you as evidenced by your sig file quotes.) The leap of faith required to believe in dogmatically derived absolute values of ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics is perhaps the highest order result of parental and societal conditioning. Cheers, Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: not so fast!
Hi Lawry, I too benefited from free markets, as I was a winning player in the zero sum game of trading the derivative instruments which are are based upon the shares, currencies, commodities, and interest rates of the 'system'. As I have reiterated many times, the system is far from perfect. I fully agree that it gives no assurances of personal or social well-being. I won't get into justice, as it a highly subjective notion, but I can expand a bit on smart development. Time horizons once were very short: hunter-gatherers migrated from area to area (often on a circuit) and learned (those that didn't were deselected from the gene pool) to not take too many of a species in one area. Similiarly, they probably learned not to cut and burn the berry bushes and producing fruit trees for fuel. Agrarian era horizons were longer,(yearly more) as seeds needed to be saved, crops rotated, animals bred for desired traits, etc. Sailing vessels, caravans,(exploration, trade) military expeditions often required multi year planning. Industrialization probably likewise, although I'm not up on that history. The factory workers, etc. may have been largely oblivious to the long term plans. The soldiers and seamen signed on for campaigns, so they were aware of duration. It seems to me that the past 20 years or so has seen shortened horizons again, mainly due to the bonus system (sometimes quarterly!) and stock options paid to high ranking execs. Shareholders want to see growth NOW. Dividends, which used to represent a large portion of investor motivation, became largely irrelevent during the 1990s. Consumers want gratification NOW, and are hocked to the gills (record levels in US). Smart behavior (incl development) requires in my opinion a flexibility of options going forward. Locking oneself or ones enterprise into a quarterly return maximization strategy diminishes foreward flexibility. Debt does likewise, which is one reason that I'm very reactionary fiscally. Governments in debt can lose flexibility once confidence wavers even a bit. Bankruptcies (business personal) are now at record levels, I believe (US). The Native American (those here before Europeans) notion of Seven Generations as the guide for planning land use, migration patterns, knowledge storage and transfer, etc demonstrated smart behavior (if not development), for the sustainability and health of their society was of highest import. It seems to me that the developed world (particularly N. Amer) is following a polar opposite path. I've left the overpop. issue out of this till now, but consider unplanned breeding as a lack of attention to the consequences of current behavior. Unexpected/unwanted pregnancies reduce flexibility/options going foreward. If women are denied free choice, as well as being dominated in other ways in patriarchal societies, smart development is further inhibited. 50% of humans in a society can't be ignored in decisionmaking and planning. The available family planning technology is cheaper and better each year. Disease avoidance is a side benefit of condom use; but patches and norplant at least can minimize unwanted pregnancies, and reduce the need for abortions. S.. TIME HORIZON as a major factor in decision making seems crucial for smart behavior by a society, in business, in governance, in cultural educational institutions, in infrastructure planning, in resource management, in research and technology, and yes in desired size of population. My 2 cents, Steve -- Personally, I benefit quite a bit from free-markets, but I would never view them as assurances of personal or social well-being, or anything that I would equate with social justice or smart development. Indeed, I view free markets as antithetical to smart development. When commercialism and material acquisition become the driving forces behind free markets, the social future of our species comes into risk. But that's a larger issue. Lawry -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
Re: Very gentle reminder to Ed (was Re: community and money
The point is that a half millennium ago, it was possible to have a pretty good working life with high wages, so why isn't it possible now? So, there's my question for today. Harry Two factors immediately come to mind. 1. Mechanization (industrial revolution) harnessed non-human calories to an increasingly greater extent during the 500 years. This decreased the leverage of muscle in competition for money. Automation/Robotics is a continuation of this. 2. The number of available laborers increased by approximately 1000% during the 500 years. Rapidly increasing the supply of potential labor (at the same time that mechanization and automation were growing) undoubtedly caused gluts to greater and greater extents than during prior millenia of much slower population growth. Steve http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html Historical Estimates of World Population (Population in millions. When lower and upper estimates are the same they are shown under "Lower.") - McEv- edy --Summary-- Bira- --Durand--- and Thomlinson- -UN, 1973-- UN, Year Lower Upper ben Lower Upper Haub Jones Lower Upper Lower Upper 1995 USBC - -1 110 4 110 -8000 5 5 -6500 510 510 -5000 520 5 520 -4000 7 7 -300014 14 -200027 27 -100050 50 -500 100 100 -400 162 162 -200 150 231 231 150 1 170 400 255 270 330 300 170 200 200 400 300 200 190 256 256 190 400 190 206 206 190 500 190 206 206 190 600 200 206 206 200 700 207 210 207 210 800 220 224 224 220 900 226 240 226 240 1000 254 345 254 275 345 265 310 1100 301 320 301 320 1200 360 450 400 450 360 1250 400 416 416 400 1300 360 432 432 360 400 1340 443 443 1400 350 374 374 350 1500 425 540 460 440 540 425 500 1600 545 579 579 545 1650 470 545 500 545 500 470 545 1700 600 679 679 610 600 1750 629 961 770 735 805 795 720 700 629 961 790 1800 813 1,125 954 900 900 813 1,125 980 1850 1,128 1,402 1,241 1,265 1,200 1,200 1,128 1,402 1,260 1900 1,550 1,762 1,633 1,650 1,710 1,656 1,625 1,600 1,550 1,762 1,650 1910 1,750 1,750 1920 1,860 1,860 1930 2,070 2,070 1940 2,300 2,300 1950 2,400 2,556 2,527 2,516 2,500 2,400 2,486 2,520 2,556 - Source s: Biraben, Jean-Noel, 1980, An Essay Concerning Mankind's Evolution, Population, Selected Papers, December, table 2. Durand, John D., 1974, "Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation," University of Pennsylvania, Population Center, Analytical and Technical Reports, Number 10, table 2. Haub, Carl, 1995, "How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?" Population Today, February, p. 5. McEvedy, Colin and Richard Jones, 1978, "Atlas of World Population History," Facts on File, New York, pp. 342-351. Thomlinson, Ralph, 1975, "Demographic Problems, Controversy Over Population Control," Second Edition, Table 1. United Nations (UN), 1973, The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends, Population Studies, No. 50., p.10. United Nations, 1996, "World Population From Year 0 to Stabilization", gopher://gopher.undp.org:70/00/ungophers/popin/wdtrends/ histor U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC), 1995, "Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050", Data updated 2-28-96, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html --
A New Giant Sucking Sound
A current article describing the overcompetition for jobs in the world today. Steve === FEATURE STORY | December 31, 2001 A New Giant Sucking Sound by William Greider he "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot used to talk about is back, only this time it is not Mexico sucking away American jobs. It is China sucking away Mexico's jobs. And jobs from Taiwan and South Korea, Singapore and Thailand, Central and South America, and even from Japan. Globalization is entering a fateful new stage, in which the competitive perils intensify for the low-wage developing countries much like the continuing pressures on high-wage manufacturing workers in the United States and other advanced economies. In the "race to the bottom," China is defining the new bottom. (snip) rest of article: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011231s=greider -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Disappearing forests
Harry, I had no trouble with the PDF weblink. It did take about 20 seconds to load I'm on a high speed cable. So dial-up modem speed might be causing the problem. Steve HP: I couldn't get through to the PDF. Did you find it easy?
Re: Very gentle reminder to Ed (was Re: community and money
Arthur asks: My father in law could supporta family of 2 kids and wife, afford a new house and car---all at a middle class salary level. This in the 1950's. Today, well you know. Two earners in the family and running faster and faster to keep up. So what happened in the last 40 to 50 years or so. It is it just the entry to the labour force of women thereby driving up land values (over to you Harry, to spell out what we should have done with the land tax that didn't happen). Or was it something else. How did we go from relative ease in the late 50's to keen, lean and mean in the late 90's and early 2000's.? Why do we need two wage earner households to more or less accomplish what a one wage earner household accomplished in the 1950s and early 60s? Arthur Cordell The two factors I mentioned in my earlier post (automation pop growth) were roaring ahead at the highest speed ever during the latter half of the 20thC. Global Population DOUBLED in the past 40 years. I'd have to dig upthe stats for Europe, UK, N. America to give rates for those areas, but the growth was certainly substantial even if not up to the global rate. Immigration accounted for much of it. I'm not claiming these are the only factors; but Occams Razor and common sense tell me that they are significant. Greider isn't a wacko, and global econ war includes competing labor rates. Steve (Happy New Year) Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050 Average Average annual annual growth population Year Populationrate (%) change 1950 2,555,078,0741.47 37,783,610 1951 2,592,861,6841.61 42,057,724 1952 2,634,919,4081.71 45,334,288 1953 2,680,253,6961.77 47,968,370 1954 2,728,222,0661.87 51,447,715 1955 2,779,669,7811.89 52,953,889 1956 2,832,623,6701.95 55,820,377 1957 2,888,444,0471.94 56,498,740 1958 2,944,942,7871.76 52,326,211 1959 2,997,268,9981.39 42,063,403 1960 3,039,332,4011.33 40,781,960 1961 3,080,114,3611.80 56,083,390 1962 3,136,197,751 2.19 69,508,948 1963 3,205,706,6992.19 71,110,065 1964 3,276,816,7642.08 69,021,089 1965 3,345,837,8532.08 70,227,393 1966 3,416,065,2462.02 69,742,104 1967 3,485,807,3502.04 71,868,340 1968 3,557,675,6902.08 74,665,661 1969 3,632,341,3512.05 75,268,761 1970 3,707,610,1122.07 77,580,647 1971 3,785,190,7592.01 77,006,527 1972 3,862,197,2861.96 76,511,302 1973 3,938,708,5881.91 75,889,828 1974 4,014,598,4161.82 73,625,631 1975 4,088,224,0471.75 72,167,756 1976 4,160,391,8031.73 72,536,792 1977 4,232,928,5951.70 72,474,692 1978 4,305,403,2871.74 75,373,540 1979 4,380,776,8271.72 75,928,390 1980 4,456,705,2171.70 76,259,715 1981 4,532,964,9321.76 80,436,954 1982 4,613,401,8861.73 80,530,264 1983 4,693,932,1501.68 79,634,655 1984 4,773,566,8051.68 81,036,085 1985 4,854,602,8901.70 83,004,818 1986 4,937,607,7081.73 85,962,468 1987 5,023,570,1761.71 86,583,085 1988 5,110,153,2611.67 86,179,948 1989 5,196,333,2091.67 87,422,136 1990 5,283,755,3451.56 83,182,744 1991 5,366,938,0891.53 82,725,730 1992 5,449,663,8191.48 81,337,993 1993 5,531,001,8121.44 79,976,536 1994 5,610,978,3481.41 79,887,428 1995 5,690,865,7761.36 77,746,508 1996 5,768,612,2841.35 78,192,518 1997 5,846,804,8021.32 77,770,099 1998 5,924,574,9011.31 77,934,526 1999 6,002,509,4271.29 77,632,256 2000 6,080,141,6831.26 77,258,877 2001 6,157,400,5601.24 76,849,827 2002 6,234,250,3871.22 76,299,210 2003 6,310,549,5971.19 75,477,418 2004 6,386,027,0151.16 74,526,549 2005 6,460,553,564
Re: Disappearing forests
I have examined the report which Keith linked (pdf; 38 pgs) on Global Forests. Keith's conclusion or interpretation that impelled this : FutureWork readers might care to be reassured that the situation is improving since then. is not even a glass half full vs half empty difference of opinion. The conclusion of the study is that the RATE of decline is slowing BUT that: net deforestation at the global level was estimated at an annual rate of approximately 9 million hectares, with gross global deforestation at 13.5 million hectares. (pg 20) (hectare = 2.47 acres) The difference between net/gross is new plantations; and scientists overwhelmingly agree that the rapid growing, monoculture crops deplete the soils fertility and its ability to support long term forestry. Thousands of other species, and watershed characteristics are also affected. Statistics need to be analyzed beyond the numbers. In any case, rational people will be reassured when fewer people make demands on expanding forests! Currently earth adds around 90 million people NET yearly, and the forests are still in decline by ANY measure. Per Capita water, soil, forests, fisheries, etc are what count in a living system. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.--Kenneth Boulding
forgot Business debt!
Lines of credit being used, proprietor partnership loans, and corporate bonds notes are a large debt component that I inadvertantly omitted. Steve --
Re: EU admits: Euro currency a disaster
For those unaware, I was a professional trader( money mgr) of underlying financial assets and derivatives for 25 yrs. A few years ago, I wrote a piece on this topic which is still available on the web: Misconceptions About Currency Commodity Markets A recent piece "Growth: Salvation, Addiction, Cessation" also addresses these issues in the context of well-being for ALL humans, not those in any specific nation, corporation, job, etc.: (scroll down to middle of section) http://www.contratheheard.com/cth/comment/01oct.html Both Chris and Keith make statements which are highly debatable as to relevance to the original post by Chris re Euro being a failure. Steve comments bold for ease of reading CR: Rather than about the weakness of the Euro, the article was about the problems that arise from the abolition of national sovereignity over national currencies. Note that 4 of the 5 countries mentioned have *weak* own currencies, so they should rather "gain" from the Euro. Nonetheless, as the EC report admits, the negative effects prevail. The only 'gain' the weaker currency countries get is slightly cheaper imports. They lose export competitiveness if they don't increase productivity. National sovereignty is useless in the total picture of (floating) exchange rates. If a country devalues, it is seeking to take market share (via increased exports) away from competing sellers. (known as 'beggar thy neighbor') there is also harm for the previously strong currencies such as DEM, because the DEM exchange rate has already been fixated to the Euro 3 years ago (i.e. the harm to Germany has already been done and little will change during 2002).Only harm is slightly more expensive imports. The weakening of the DM this past year actually helped exports. the CHF will have to be lowered artificially to prevent harm for our export industries and tourism, and a mix of both may apply to the GBP.It is virtually impossible to devalue a freely floating currency. If the market (capital of the world)wants to own assets denominated in CHF or GBP, demand for them will dwarf/thwart lowering of interest rates or other policies. Unless the country doers self-destructive things, little will change. Intervention in FX (foreign exch) mkts can have short term effects, but the rate will turn only when the mkt decides there is better relative value elsewhere. it's hard to see any *economic* argument in favor of the Euro (while there are lots of emotional, political/imperial and vested-interest arguments for it). Do you have one? Yes. The policy setting by the 'Euro countries' together gets many times the weight when negotiating with US, China, Japan, UK etc. That's why( I think) Blair wants to give up the GBP. Unfortunately, the EMU is indeed a straitjacket [policy wise] Nobody likes disciplines when they prove more difficult than anticipated. (ex.: a diet) The results from the discipline might still prove to be beneficial. | Because the countries had joined the euro bloc, they could not put up their | own interest rates to calm their economies. Again, the banks and capital mkts set real world rates! The worship of the Central Banks is much like other forms of prayer: not necessarily rewarded as hoped. The point is that there aren't "real world rateS" anymore but just ONE "real world rate" for the whole Euro area. This has devastating effects on different regions within that area.TheONE interest rate = the overnight rate (like LIBOR, or Fed Funds). Corps., small businesses, and consumers borrow for months and even for many years. A central bank cannot set or have great impact upon the middle and long term rates. Economies adjust, but the question is what it will cost in terms of additional unemployment, social unrest, organized and street crime, etc.That's acausative stretch, Chris. I prefer massive population growth during one century (400% as the main driver of economic and social distress. We all have our own biases! :-)What's especially worrying about this non-listening isthat it isn't simply incompetence on the EC's part, but rather a recklessmegalomaniacal calculation that is so concerned about the profits for thefew that it doesn't give a damn about the disastrous effects for the many.If the evidence exists for this, it will come out. The fact that the bureaucrats wrote the report tells me that it is probably poor judgement rather than conspiracy.(short bit re Keith's post) CR) Your prediction above may well be correct, but that won't have to be the merit of the Euro... (the USD may fall by itself, the CHF will have to be lowered artificially to prevent harm for our export industries and tourism, and a mix of both may apply to the GBP.) (KH)Chris is right. The exchange rate of the GBP and CHF against the Euro is a sideshow.Chris didn't say that! And to those in CH or UK, the exchange rates ( interest rates) are significant. A currency has
civil liberties in US
(from Nov 21; sorry if already referenced) Picture of student the poster on the webpage http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2001-11-21/triangles.html The Poster Police A Durham student activist gets a visit from the Secret Service B Y J O N E L L I S T O N A.J. Brown, a 19-year-old freshman at Durham Tech, was thanking God it was Friday. It was 5 p.m., the school week was over, and in an hour she'd be meeting her boyfriend to unwind. Then: Knock, knock ... unexpected guests at Brown's Duke Manor apartment. Opening the door, she found a casually dressed man, and a man and woman in what appeared to be business attire. Her first thought, she says, was, Are these people going to sell me something? Photo By Alex Maness Threat or dissent? A.J. Brown and her anti-Bush poster But then the man in the suit introduced himself and the woman as agents from the Raleigh office of the U.S. Secret Service. The other man was an investigator from the Durham Police Department. Ma'am, we've gotten a report that you have anti-American material, the male agent said, according to Brown. Could they come in to have a look around? Do you have a warrant? Brown asked. They did not. Then you're not coming in my apartment, she said. And indeed, they stayed outside her doorway. But they stayed a while--40 minutes, Brown estimates--and gave her a taste of how dissenters can come under scrutiny in wartime. And all because of a poster on her wall. Though she's still a teenager, Brown is already more informed about political repression than most Americans. She's been politically aware and involved since grade school. In second grade, I saw the Gulf War on television, and seeing those bombs drop, it did something to me, she says. I knew from some news reports that there were innocent people dying. In middle school, Brown became interested in environmentalism and civil liberties. She made the shift to full-fledged activist at Jordan High School when she became involved with Youth Voice Radio, a media collective with a leftist bent. Most recently, she's been involved with the movement against the war in Afghanistan. Brown and fellow activists often discuss government encroachments on free speech and political organizing, she says, as do some of her favorite hip-hop artists. She loves her music--and that may have been what sparked the turn of events that brought the Secret Service to her door. Brown suspects it began with the noise complaints. On Oct. 22, a Monday evening, she stayed up late playing some new CDs for her boyfriend. By her own admission, she was playing them too loud. Around midnight, a Durham police officer came by to tell her to turn it down, and she obliged. Two nights later, someone from Duke Manor called in another noise complaint, and again a police officer came to Brown's door. This time, she says, her music wasn't playing at an offensive volume. The police officer speculated that the call may have been about someone else's stereo. During this visit, and unlike the first, the officer had a full view of the wall that faces Brown's front doorway, a detail that would become relevant two days later: On that wall hung The Poster. Brown got it at an anti-inauguration protest in Washington, D.C. Distributed to hundreds of activists, it depicts George W. Bush holding a length of rope against a backdrop of lynching victims, and reads: We hang on your every word. George Bush: Wanted, 152 Dead--a reference to the number of people executed by the state of Texas while Bush was governor. Brown believes that the message caused the Durham policeman who paid the second visit to her apartment to recommend a third. On Friday, Oct. 26, two Secret Service agents, along with Durham police investigator Rex Godley, came to Brown's apartment. Special Agent Paul Lalley, who did most of the talking, spoke first. Ma'am, we've gotten a report that you have anti-American material, or something like that, in your apartment, he said, according to
Re: EU admits: Euro currency a disaster
Hi Chris, I'll bet you a good dinner that the Euro doesn't decline significantly (5% max) against the US$, Br. Pound, or the Swiss Franc during the next year. The charts tell me that it is likely to actually advance against the US$ Canadian$. I haven't studied the other relationships. I'm a technical analyst, not a fundamentalist. There is a bias 'anti-euro' by conservatives in UK by those EC countries, like Switzerland, who have till now rejected joining in. Blair has tipped his hand saying on several occasions that he wants UK to become a closer partner with the rest of W. Europe; he doesn't mean only Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. Lastly, when have bureaucrats like those at the EC been the best handicappers of economic outcomes? They are not people I would let manage my assets! Some contentions: FIVE countries in the eurozone face the threat of severe economic problems as a direct result of their membership of the single currency, according to a damning official report by the European Commission."direct result" claims in a complex living system are ridiculous. In a frank admission that the single currency's critics in Britain and elsewhere were right all along, the report warns that Ireland, Finland, Spain, Portugal and Holland are trapped in a policy straitjacket they cannot escape. "cannot escape": another example of predictive hubris by the author. Over the past two years, eurozone interest rates have been kept low to meet the needs of big economies such as France and Germany. But the low rates, combined with the weak single currency, have given the five a huge extra economic boost at precisely the wrong time - just when they were already booming. As Krugman and many other experts state, setting a spot rate (overnight) can be largely irrelevant to intermediate and long term rates. The market sets those. Lenders and borrowers set rates according to perceptions of inflation and supply/demand. Because the countries had joined the euro bloc, they could not put up their own interest rates to calm their economies. Again, the banks and capital mkts set real world rates! The worship of the Central Banks is much like other forms of prayer: not necessarily rewarded as hoped. Now they face a crash, says the report. Government deficits are likely to soar, unemployment will rise and their banking systems will be threatened with crisis. [And the crash will include other EU countries too, as was predicted by German economists as early as 1992! --CR]The whole world is tetering on depression; who thinks those few late boomers could be immune?The report admits that the five joined the euro at the wrong exchange rates. Having given up control of their own currencies and interest rates, they cannot use monetary policy to fend off disaster. Time will tell, and economies adjust. In this world of 'funny money', is the $US worth its' current relative value? I think not. 'Monetary conditions in a single member state can be inappropriate, as the single euro-area interest rate may not be in line with the individual country's needs,' the report continues.Same error of spot rate = whole curve. The admissions come in the end-of-year report of the EC's directorate for economic affairs, in the section 'Macroeconomic Developments In The Euro Area'. It states: 'The real exchange rate at which countries entered the third phase of economic and monetary union might not have fully reflected the competitive position of some member states.'Maybe so; perfect foresight is impossible.The report says Ireland is particularly vulnerable to any rise in the value of the euro because its exports would become uncompetitive, given recent strong wage inflation in the Republic. Maybe. But after being so strong for the past decade, a slowdown is to be expected. Nothing is forever. Gerard Lyons, chief economist of Standard Chartered bank, added: 'This report effectively concedes that the single currency is a completely unstable system.All fiat curencies are an unstable system. Just look at 20 year charts!'It highlights the problems of a one-sizefitsall interest rate and exchange rate. There are no shock absorbers.' Peter Dixon of Commerzbank said: 'The project is flawed. I cannot think of any good economic reasons why you need a single currency.' There will eventually be( I predict) a handful of continental currencies (N.Amer$, ASYEN, Euro. ) and maybe at sometime a global one with very many (hundreds) local currencies for bioregional economic use. Steve-- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: To higher things (was: Re: Longer time horizons)
Keith, Why is it that every variable EXCEPT population is discussed as having causal connections to systemic breakdowns? Hospitals, schools, bridges, roads, water/sewer, flooding of paved land... I'm not negating the mis-masnagement the borrowing from future in every sense. Scale DOES matter, though, in finite habits. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: UK/Swiss-centrism (was Re: Longer time horizons)
Keith's answer posted as my query did. We seem to agree. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Re: Sally -- do you like bungee-jumping?
Harry, You're incorrect about the stock mkt having no affect on the economy. Now that 60% (fr. memory) of US families are in the mkt, the wealth affect (both psychol. real) influences spending behaviour. Also, there are cross holdings (not to the extent of Japan) in corporate pension plans which affect the amount of contributions needed yearly to match the payout needs and actuarial expectations. In mkt boom times, money gets diverted to RD, bonuses, expansion/devel/capital equip. etc. In bear mkts., the flow available to non-pension areas slows down. Universities, foundations, and other non-profits like museums, operas, symphonies...also feel the pinch as endowments shrink and donations slacken. They thus cut employment costs and expansion. The financial services industries cut back employment and compensation as trading volumes drop and as insurance and annuity purchases slow due to feedback loops. Your claim is totally absurd, in my opinion. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
Krugman on money (NYTimes today)
This expands on comments about gov't having limited effect on money/economy. Steve excerpt: One answer is that something has gone wrong with the monetary transmission mechanism, the drive train that normally links the Fed's actions with the real economy. And one of the people who stripped the Fed's gears is Mr. Greenspan himself. The Fed's direct power over the economy is actually more limited than is widely appreciated. People often say that the Fed controls interest rates, but what it actually controls is only an interest rate, the rate in the overnight federal funds market. And this interest rate is, in itself, of very little economic importance. --- Eleven and Counting December 14, 2001 By PAUL KRUGMAN Embarrassing but true: Just one month ago the James A. Baker III Institute presented Alan Greenspan with its Enron Prize. I'm not suggesting any impropriety; it was just another indication of how deeply the failed energy company was enmeshed with our ruling elite. And yet Mr. Greenspan also finds himself in Chapter 11. That is, the Fed has now cut interest rates 11 times this year, and has yet to see any results. What's going on? One answer is that something has gone wrong with the monetary transmission mechanism, the drive train that normally links the Fed's actions with the real economy. And one of the people who stripped the Fed's gears is Mr. Greenspan himself. The Fed's direct power over the economy is actually more limited than is widely appreciated. People often say that the Fed controls interest rates, but what it actually controls is only an interest rate, the rate in the overnight federal funds market. And this interest rate is, in itself, of very little economic importance. Normally, however, a fall in the federal funds rate indirectly affects financial variables that do matter; it leads to higher stock prices, a weaker dollar and - above all - lower long- term interest rates. Goldman Sachs economists have incorporated these variables into a financial conditions index that, they show, has historically done a very good job of predicting future economic performance. Based on past experience, you would have expected the Fed's dramatic rate cuts since January to lower the Goldman Sachs index by about five points - enough to produce a roaring 2002. In fact, however, the index has fallen only about half a point, largely because long- term interest rates have not fallen at all. The Fed, in other words, is getting almost no bang for its bucks. Why? Part of the explanation is self- defeating optimism. Bond traders continue to believe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, that Mr. Greenspan is a magician - that he will soon conjure up another dramatic boom, and will then raise interest rates to cool a red-hot economy. Ironically, this very belief helps keep long-term rates high, and thus ensures that no such boom seems imminent. And then there's the federal budget. Just months ago we were dazzled with projections of huge federal surpluses; there was enough money, the Bush administration insisted, to have a big tax cut, increase spending and still pay off the federal debt. But on Tuesday Paul O'Neill quietly asked Congress to raise the federal government's debt ceiling - something he had previously said would not be necessary until 2008 at the earliest. Has the sudden return of federal deficits had an impact on long-term interest rates? Of course it has. Just a few months ago everyone expected the federal government to pay off its debt, drastically reducing the supply of bonds; now it turns out that it will actually be borrowing money. Inevitably this depresses bond prices, which is the same as raising long- term interest rates. So the rapid deterioration of federal finances is part of Mr. Greenspan's problem. (Has the negative impact of the tax cut on the economy via its effect on interest rates outweighed the positive effect on consumer spending? Yes, on any reasonable calculation.) Mr. Greenspan, then, finds himself with much less ability to move the economy than anyone expected. And it's partly his own fault. After all, he did much to cultivate the mystique that now turns out to be a handicap. And let's not forget that he intervened decisively on behalf of large tax cuts back in January, when he urged Congress to prevent what he then saw as a great risk: that surpluses would be too large, and that the federal debt would be paid off too quickly. It might be helpful if Mr. Greenspan would now say something to dampen self-defeating belief in a sudden economic turnaround. It would be even more helpful if he would concede, however indirectly, that he gave Congress bad advice last January; that might prepare the ground for an eventual return to fiscal responsibility. But the Fed chairman, who was quite willing to intervene in fiscal politics when that was helpful to the Bush administration, has gone oddly silent on the subject
dangerous quacks/ sci tech policy
from www.aps.org free weekly What's New Robert L. Park Friday, 14 Dec 01 Washington, DC 3. BIO-TERRORISM: LINKS TO THE HEAD OF A WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION? Three New York Times writers, Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad have turned out an incredibly timely piece of investigative reporting at its best. Germs, Simon Schuster, 2001, begins with a chilling account of the first bio-terrorism attack on U.S. soil: the deliberate salmonella poisoning of hundreds of residents in Wasco County Oregon in an effort to keep them away from the polls, and thus take political control of the region. The attack was carried out by members of a free-sex cult led by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who was subsequently deported. What Germs doesn't tell you is that one of Rajneesh's followers was a psychiatrist named James Gordon (WN 16 Aug 96), who wrote The Golden Guru, an admiring book about Rajneesh. Gordon was involved in the effort to take political control of Antelope, Oregon. Incredibly, James Gordon now heads the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy (WN 19 Oct 01), created in waning days of the Clinton Administration. 4. PCAST: BUSH NAMES ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. The co-chairs were already known, Jack Marburger, the President's Science Advisor, and Floyd Kvamme, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist. Most of the 24 members are from the information- technology industry. Unlike past Councils, there is virtually no representation from research scientists. Even the few academics best known as administrators. The sole exception is Charles Arntzen, a plant biologist from Arizona State University. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the American Physical Society or the University, but they should be.
not so fast!
Those calling for interplanetary colonisation as a 'solution' to human overpopulation might benefit from a reality check. From: WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 07 Dec 01 Washington, DC THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the American Physical Society or the University, but they should be. 2. SPACE TRAVEL: THERE ARE A FEW HEALTH PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH. NASA is making plans for a human mission to Mars in 2014 that would take 30 months. At the request of NASA, a committee of the Institute of Health has examined the health issues surrounding long-duration space missions outside Earth's magnetosphere (Safe Passage, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001, $80). The greatest risk is radiation exposure. There are no data on effects of the high-Z, high-energy particles that flood space and no suitable experimental facilities on Earth. Nor is there any way to predict solar outbursts with much higher radiation levels. Loss of bone density in zero gravity is so severe and NASA's countermeasures so marginally effective, that a mission to Mars with humans is unlikely to be undertaken unless a biological solution is found. Most surprising was the importance the report gives to the risk of psychological and social stress. === Steve Kurtz -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
omitted link
missing link: http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns23195
new pres. of WFSF
Interesting piece about new Pres. of World Futures Study Federation. Slaughter is not very optimistic; it is comforting to me that people with his realism can be accepted and given leadership roles. Steve -- http://magma.ca/~gpco/ http://www.scientists4pr.org/ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.Kenneth Boulding
