Jed, I agree with all what you said below. The problem is mostly economic, as the economic system is today a superstructure of the politic system. You cannot sustain an economy and a social system on irrational and innecessary consumption, and its associated exponential growth as a goal. Both are contrary to sustainability and quality of life, in the middle/long term (centuries). In short: we're are approaching the crisis of civilization which results from incorrect social and economic models, with incorrect(unsustainable) goals.
Jed Rothwell wrote: > Chris Zell wrote: > > >> Why should we condemn consumers for wanting a good home, a safe >> useful car or the ability to support their families? The idea that >> we are somehow 'stealing' too much of the world's resources so as to >> impoverish the rest is nonsense. If we all stop eating meat, it >> won't add a single calorie to the starving. >> > > It is not nonsense, but not quite true either. As you say, the > proximate cause is bad governance. However, resources are limited. If > we reduce our consumption, market costs will fall and people > elsewhere will have more. To take a dramatic approach, suppose we > develop cultured meat, grown in machines. In that case the cost of > meat per gram will be about the same as tofu, and supplies will > increase by a huge factor. Plus the meat will have fewer carcinogens > and bacteria, and it will eventually taste better. (This is likely to > happen in next few decades.) > > No one condemns consumers for wanting "a safe useful car." I am all > in favor of that! Unfortunately, anyone familiar with automotive > technology knows that cars are anything but safe and useful: they are > appallingly inefficient, unsafe and overpriced. Do consumers want to > throw away their money and risk their lives for no reason? An > automobile is a 19th century machine with a bag on it (as programmers > would say). This is like using souped-up Zeppelins instead of jet > aircraft, and fast moving mechanical calculators instead of > silicon-based computers. Oil-powered internal combustion engine cars > should have been replaced decades ago. > > Bad governance does cause problems. So does bad management, and > backward, anti-technology, anti-science attitudes, and consumers who > settle for fifth-rate obsolete technology and 40,000 unnecessary > accidental deaths per year. These consumers are ignorant: they do not > understand safety; they do not realize that better alternatives > exist, and that the auto companies are ripping them off. If the > automobile companies would do their job right, we could easily supply > every family on earth with a car, and the expanded fleet of cars > would consume far less energy then automobiles now consume, and cost > far less overall, especially when you include the cost of insurance > and accidents. > > People sometimes say that consumers are spoiled in America, and too > demanding. It sure doesn't look that way to me. I cannot understand > why Americans, who are so enamored of technology and wealthy, are > willing to put up with garbage cars from GM, buggy software from > Microsoft, and food that tastes like cardboard. Japan has many social > problems but compared to the U.S. it is a consumer paradise. The cars > are decades ahead of ours; washing machines and other gadgets are > superbly engineered and last for decades; and the everyday food you > buy from the 7-11 on the way home tastes better than American gourmet > restaurant fare. I cannot understand why Americans settle for > second-rate stuff! We would be better off indeed if people demanded > "a safe useful car." > > - Jed > > >
