Yes. Capitalism is a social construct; just as interventions to curb the harmful side effects of capitalism’s actors are a social construct. Attacks on “capitalism” have their analogs in attacks on “government,” where government interventions are claimed to inherently reduce the benefits of capitalism. Unfortunately, this paradigm of government as something to be avoided, tends to shift the burden to require proof that a government action is needed before there is a strong enough consensus to license that action. As we have seen in the U.S. especially, in the last half century, this makes it hard to act soon enough on problems like climate change. But, as I said at the start, the answer is not to mount calls for an end to capitalism. It is to build support for more timely and effective government interventions and other social responses. David
Sent from my iPad > On Jan 22, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote: > > If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies", > how does one explain the following: > > -the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at > considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market > regulated) economies. > > - ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup > compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen. > > - ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle > fuels. > > And so on....even in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal > with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the > border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I > was there, many years ago). > > All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology. > > Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it. > Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society. > Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning > capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus > to regulate. > > I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the > dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it > diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue. > > Peter > > Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. > Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers > Department of Mechanical Engineering > University of Alberta > peter.fl...@ualberta.ca > cell: 928 451 4455 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au] > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM > To: Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>; andrew.lock...@gmail.com > Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and > Technological Rationality in Social Context > > > Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part. > > The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of > capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to > prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments. > > GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune > to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist > system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of > that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise > may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE > could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to preserve corporate > profits, while trying to do research in the hope of some day being able > to postpone the increasing cancer toll. > > The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with > problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which > 'instrumental reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and > possibly better options, but those options require us to challenge > established corporate power, and we are unlikely to do that successfully. > I think the last 20 to 30 years of politics in the English Speaking world > demonstrates that is very likely to be the case. > > There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic, > and that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly > unusual, even among those who are interested in the field. The governing > idea of SRM seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system > than to change a political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm > not sure it is, but it is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going > to spread accusations that people think things because it is comfortable > for them. > > The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me. > However, I would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in > their framework, they cannot deal with complex maladaptive systems which > are likely to destroy themselves completely. That is probably the result > of Marxist optimism, which I think is unjustified, and has been shown to > be unjustified by history. > > All of the points the author makes involve reasonable questions. The > correct answers to them, may well involve disagreement, but not dismissal. > Personally I think the problem is a version of developmentalist ideology, > which could be magnified by capitalism, and that we both need to challenge > corporate power and investigate GE, particularly CDR. > > jon > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any > accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are > not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or > copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in > error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any > views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except > where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the > views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any > attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
