Interesting way of putting it, Ray. At the urging of a friend of
mine, a computer programmer, I watched the movie "Matrix" the other day.
I still don't understand what it was about, but one of the bad guys in it
described humanity as a destructive virus intent on consuming the earth.
(You could tell he was a bad guy because he wore dark, dark shades and
looked very thin in his black suit.)
Well, perhaps he has a point. A book I'm reading, Samantha Power's
"A Problem from Hell", deals with the various genocides of recent history, and
most certainly does not make us look very good.
Some economists, such as Herman Daly, have tried very hard to get their
brethern of the dismal science and their political masters to recognize
"externalities" in the national accounting process. While everybody has
nodded "Yes, yes, we should do that" very little that is practical has been
done. To give you an idea of what Daly and company are after, I'll quote
from a piece of work I did last year:
Hope this helps and makes us look a little less like viruses, at
least intellectually.
> Coming from an agricultural and cultural background rather than
an
> industrial one, it has always struck me that the models that you
described
> seem to be within the mega system rather than the system
itself. One of
> the areas that I have trained in is
Kinesics. In Kinesiology we work for
> the health of the
physical system from a holistic perspective. Systems
>
within a body or megasystem, that take too much energy or that throw off
the
> whole system are known as cancers. Cancers may be perfectly
healthy systems
> in their own right. They may also
thrive as long as the mega-system
> survives but ultimately they cause a
decline in the whole.
>
> I have argued over the years, that the
economic systems that you and others
> have explained are systems that
do not contribute to the health of the whole
> human and environmental
system. That although they have their own
logic,
> just as does a cancer, they ultimately contribute to the
decline of the
> whole system of the earth. America is built
upon one such system as was
> Imperialism and Communism.
Ultimately they were and are doomed to fail
> because they cannot answer
the questions that place humanity within the
> system of the earth and
all of the other mini-systems that make up the
> whole. Any
cultural system that is unable to come to grips with limits and
> find
other ways to expand its human horizons without eating itself, is
>
doomed almost from the beginning.
>
> I have argued from my
beginnings on this list that the psycho/economic roots
> of
industrialism and what that means as work, in the Western sense,
was
> incomplete, bordered on failure and demanded a serious look by
serious
> minds. It seems you now have begun to question the
logic that you have
> espoused in the past. I congratulate
you on that and encourage the
> continued exploration of such with your
considerable intellect. As such I
> hold great
optimism that we will have some very good posts from Bath in the
>
future.
>
> Best to you and yours and may your voice be
strong.
>
> Ray Evans Harrell
>
>
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Hudson" <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
To: <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 4:01 AM
> Subject: [Futurework] Hitherto,
a Ricardian free trader
>
>
> > Until fairly recently I
was an out-and-out free trader in the Ricardian,
> > 19th century
tradition. At the drop of a hat I could write an essay
> >
excoriating the present-day antics of large corporations in seeking to
>
> consolidate intellectual copyright and outlaw plagiarism by
less
> developed
> > countries trying to lift themselves up by
their bootstraps. Similarly, I
> > would condemn those politicians,
totally untutored in economics (but
> > usually receiving large
backhanders from businesmen), who would seek to
> > protect their
home industries from more efficient industries from abroad
> > for
apparently patriotic reasons even though import restrictions would
>
> impose higher consumer prices on the mass of their populations.
>
>
> > By way of example, I would have pointed to15th century
western Europe,
> > wallowing in recession, still recovering from a
century or more of
> warfare,
> > which had destroyed the
slender trade routes that it had with the
> > Mediterranean, namely
the Champagne Fairs which stretched across France to
> > Genoa and
the other prosperous cities of Italy. These, in turn, linked to
> >
China via the Great Silk Route. But after these routes were cut off,
the
> > individual countries, principalities and the independent
city-states of
> > western Europe had to manage on their own -- and
they weren't doing very
> > well. Whatever trade existed in western
Europe at that time largely
> > consisted of food supplies sent into
the cities in exchange for
> small-scale
> > craft goods to the
countryside and, whenever bad weather or drought
> > intervened,
people would starve on a massive scale or fall prey to
>
disease.
> > The Black Death didn't happen once -- it would reappear
decade after
> decade
> > whenever the vitality of the
population was at a low ebb. In short, their
> > economic machine was
grinding down -- with many other consequences.
> >
> > While
poor old western Europe was in the pits, India, China and the
>
Islamic
> > Empire were doing very well, thank you very much. The
main thing that
> > finally rescued Europe was the weakened state of
the Roman Catholic
> Church.
> > For centuries the Church had
railed against trade because it saw rich
> > merchants and bankers as
rivals to their own money-making powers.
> > Encyclical after
encyclical had gone out from the popes trying to ban free
> > prices
in the market place and also the charging of interest (or usury, as
>
> it was called then). However, by the 15th century, the Church was
losing
> > out, mainly because of the intellectual quality of its own
scholastics in
> > the great universities, such as Bologna and
Salamanca, which had been
> > established a few centuries beforehand
and were beginning to be
> > independent. Everytime the Church went
backwards in condemning trade and
> > usury, their own scholastics in
the universities managed to move the
> > discussion forward again.
Nevertheless, the popes still had tremendous
> > power and, in 1479
and 1494, gave gracious permission to Spain and
> Portugal
> >
to start trading again, this time by ship in order to bypass
landlocked
> > Europe. Portugal, in particular, was in desperate
straits and needed the
> > gold that it thought lay in Africa, and
the spices that they knew lay in
> > Asia. The Portugese were able to
do so because, by then, their fishermen
> > had developed their
coast-hugging boats into much more versatile
> > ocean-going vessels
suitable for long-distance cod fishing which were able
> > to tack
into the wind.
> >
> > Columbus was thwarted because the
land he discovered to the west happened
> > not to be east Asia -- or
the Indies as it was then called -- but most of
> > the other
explorer-traders were more successful by sailing southwards and
> >
eastwards, rounding Africa, thus finding the real Indies. Then England
and
> > Holland and other European maritime nations piled in and
long-distance
> > trade thus resumed. Europe never looked back from
then onwards. The
> > countries of Europe were particularly fortunate
by an accident of history
> > in that the whole of the south-east
Asia was open to them. In the early
> > 15th century, the then
Chinese Emperor had done what the popes of Rome had
> > not been able
to do. He had banned Chinese sea-going trade completely.
> > Until
that time, the whole of south-east Asia was dominated by the much
> >
larger and much more heavily armed junks which wouldn't have allowed
the
> > puny European boats any sea-space at all.
>
>
> > The rest, as they say, is history. In due course, the
industrial
> revolution
> > finally got going in Europe.
However, apart from the inclusion of North
> > America into the
affluent trading network, and the recent revival of China
> > and
some of the south-east Asian countries (and the possible, though
> >
unlikely, revival of India) that's largely where we are today. Huge
land
> > masses and large populations in Africa, South America,
Central Europe and
> > the Middle East have been unable to break in
for various reasons. True,
> > they are trading with us, legally and
illegally, but only because they
> have
> > oil, which we need,
or drugs, which we don't. But, by and large, although
> a
> >
small minority of them, such as the South American Mafia, African
>
dictators
> > and the Saudi Arabian royal family have wealth beyond
our imagination,
> most
> > of their populations live in
poverty and misery.
> >
> > Free trade or no free trade,
these excluded populations are likely to
> > remain in the cold,
unfortunately. For much deeper historical reasons that
> > I'm not
able to try and describe in this posting, these excluded masses do
>
> not seem to be able to develop the entrepreneurial culture which
is
> > required. For another, the present high standards of living in
the west
> > depend almost completely on supplies of cheap fossil
fuels which will soon
> > be in decline. Given our present type of
energy technologies, there is no
> > way that Africa, South America,
Central Europe and the Middle East will
> > ever enter the system,
even if they were able to adopt the economic
> > conventions of the
west.
> >
> > My personal view, therefore, is that the
argument for and against free
> > trade has now become largely
academic, given that the main issue in the
> > coming decades will be
bitter and savage wars fought over the declining
> oil
> > and
gas supplies. Western Europe, in the form of the European Union, seems
>
> to be very slow in letting down its protective trade barriers, so I
think
> > the economic future for the next decade or two will be
almost totally
> > dominated by America and China.
>
>
> > However, if we gradually move towards technologies based on
solar power,
> as
> > I believe we will do, then genetic
engineering will enable the production
> > of organic-based products
rather than those which are metal-based which
> > require the highly
intensive energy given by a fossil-fuel energy system.
> > This will
mean that the production of consumer goods will, in principle,
>
be
> > able to be far more diversified than at present. All countries
ought to be
> > able to benefit. In being able to exchange genetic
know-how via the
> > Internet and future telecommunications systems,
we will then be much more
> > concerned with Free Information rather
than Free Trade. Fortunately,
> > copyright-restrictionists will no
more be able to prevent the free flow of
> > information anymore than
the medieval guild masters and the early
> > industrialists were able
to prevent the leakage of secret manufacturing
> >
procedures.
> >
> > KH
> >
> >
>
> Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> > Futurework
mailing list
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework
mailing list
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework