M. Blackmore:
>Hence the reality of our position is obscured by market relations. Disrupt
>those relations and watch the industrial populations die off like flies
>:-( would be my guess.
I suppose it depends on what is meant by "disrupt". Total disruption, if
such a thing can be imagined, would of course be disastrous to all of the
earth's people. But partial disruption has always occurred in some fashion
or another, and probably always will go on despite efforts to make things
predictable via large trading blocks and the "normalization" of trade and
capital flows via organizations such as the WTO and efforts such as the MAI.
Because of resource depletion or politics, sources of supply (and demand)
change, and rearrangements have to be made.
In my opinion, the largest impending problem that humanity will face is not
global market disruption but more particularized and regionalized disruptive
phenomena. I have in mind things such as trade and market disruptions on a
regional basis, a sheer scarcity of vital resources in heavily populated
parts of the world, and something that might be called "the bad effects of
good intentions".
There are many examples of disruptions on a regional basis: While the rest
of the world goes on, some people simply cannot get the supplies they need
or undertake trade because of localized wars or economic collapse - Kosavo,
Russia, the Ukraine. The increasing scarcity of vital resources can perhaps
best be illustrated by falling water tables in densely populated areas
(India). The creation of educated, literate, longer-lived and politically
aware populations in regions in which higher expectations simply cannot be
met is an example good intentions and bad effects.
While any of these phenomena, and probably others, can have disastrous
effects in the regions in which they occur, their impact is probably
containable globally, at least for the time being.
Ed Weick
