|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 04 2008 00:40 Milton Friedman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2008 15:08 BottleAbuser wrote:
If we applied the article's logic to the production rates of a pre-industrial revolution world, we would find that the current world status is not possible, because we did not account for advances in production methods.
This is exactly it. I find all too often the importance of technological improvements is neglected when looking at the scarcity of resources issue. Dare I say, politicians should be spending less time negotiating environmental target treaties and more time encouraging co-operation and more funds available to researchers developing the world's technological state. For example, assuming the introduction of increased anti-pollution regulations costs businesses $X a year. Instead of having these increased regulations the government instead taxed businesses receiving revenue of a$X, where a is a constant that may be greater or less than 1 since the efficiency of the tax relative to the increased cost of meeting regulations is unknown (although I would assume a < 1). I would rather $aX be then transferred to research and development than simply raising costs on businesses. The fact world leaders sign something like the Kyoto treaty is a move to gain votes; even if the target are set after their governmental term is over the political party (and the leader) can easily tell the electorate what they've done to help the environment, and similarly, the electorate can easily understand what's happened. Whereas research and development may take, say, a decade before tangible results are seen while in the meantime leaving politicians who support such paths with a relatively less impressive pro-environmental image. i love the way you introduced that sophisticated economic analysis in order to make a point. it worked so well. world must be all so clear to you. let's tax people's income and use that moneyz to cover up for the negligent callousness of capital. nice going there.
|
I question the usefulness of sarcasm in this case. I was under the impression that this was to be a meaningful discussion.
I define "faith" as "belief without supporting evidence." In this case, belief that technology will advance is not faith. Technology is advancing. Look at your computer and compare it to what you used 5 years ago. If it's the same computer, get yourself a new one. NOW!  There is plenty of evidence that technology is advancing.
Otherwise, the same argument could be made for growing consumption. Which would make this discussion quite pointless, as we're working on the premise that it is.
Here's another aspect to consider. We have talked about a portion of the population that is consuming a disproportionate amount of resources. What we have not considered (as far as I am aware) is that maybe some portion of the population is producing a disproportionate amount of resources.
I see no problem if the sizes of these populations grow at the same rate. They do not necessarily have to be the same populations, but I hypothesize that they will be. The article states that the consumer population is growing, and lists several countries that I have been hearing are undergoing their own economic revolutions.
Also, I see a problem with the "Money spent on X would be much better spent on Y" argument. You obviously have access to a computer terminal with a connection to the internet. We all do; otherwise, we wouldn't be talking here. I will assume that such access costs some amount of money. Is the benefit of this access more important than, let's say, feeding a starving child for some number of days? Yes; otherwise, you would have already redirected the funds to feeding starving children. The slippery slope argument brings us straight to what you consider a "myopic Capitalist" view.
|
On a lighter note, you could cite Windows Vista as a counterexample to the technological advance trend.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Also, I see a problem with the "Money spent on X would be much better spent on Y" argument. You obviously have access to a computer terminal with a connection to the internet. We all do; otherwise, we wouldn't be talking here. I will assume that such access costs some amount of money. Is the benefit of this access more important than, let's say, feeding a starving child for some number of days? Yes; otherwise, you would have already redirected the funds to feeding starving children. The slippery slope argument brings us straight to what you consider a "myopic Capitalist" view.
here, the problem is two fold. practicality and guiding concern. the argument is not that we should act as if we are creating utopia, but that we should accept that there are a lot of stuff going wrong, and within the properly traced out limits of our range of choices, choose the right one. two guys doing something bad could either cry or laugh about it, we prefer the crying. admittedly this si a rather nasty trap, the melancholies of idealism, but here is the deal. do what we can, but do so with a commitment to the highest good or whatnot full appreciation of w/e is appreciable.
much of the technological advances you are talking about show the probleml of the simple technology advance=progress view. the making of vista or for that matter a more advanced lawnmower could only occur within a society that has peculiar aims and priorities with corresponding resource allocations. at the moment, it seems that the tendency for high technological development is to serve the next and less important concern on the minds of the affluent. one wonder why economists who are so used to utility curves never use them to make any normative hay out of different consumption baskets. at least somewhat, we'd like to shift this with some positive effort to a direction more suitable to good things for more people.
|
On January 04 2008 08:56 nA.Inky wrote:
Zherak's statement above is a prime example of technological fundamentalism. I mean, think of the Christians on the one hand: "whatever happens is irrelevent, Jesus is coming back and all the Christians will be saved." Then think of folks like Zherak: "whatever happens is irrelevent, technology will keep evolving and will solve all problems."
These ideas are rooted in faith, and faith in technology is probably as misguided as any faith, given that the great looming crises are largely a product of technological development. Our power has exceeded our wisdom, and this causes us to act unwisely. The solution - let's ask Zherak.... "more technology! More power!"
Again, it's not that consumption is bad. It's not even that waste is necessarily bad. It's a question of SCALE. The present scale of consumption, production, and waste is staggering - not sustainable. As we speak, the scale is increasing greatly, and there are many poor people who want to jump in and play the modern game - catch the affluenza bug. About 1.5 billion of the Earth's population is in the consumption class, and the Earth is already buckling under this pressure. Add another 6 billion people to the consumption class and then what?
Rhetoric much?
Idiot journalist you are quoting thinks he understands science, and thinks he can make claims on what is impossible. He is wrong, you are wrong. It is easily sustainable. You could sustain present day consumption on nothing but tidal harnesses, christdamnit.
The limit you and your idiot journalist is grasping at is not the theoretical limit or the scientific limit but the present day developmental limit. If we start putting the resources around us to use, 72 billions are nothing.
Go back some 150 years and see what level of comfort the US maintained depending pretty much entirely on its own resources. If you develop the zillion square miles in Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and Asia, this is not impossible.
Go back some 150 years and you could be making the exact same argument as your idiot journalist is doing now, except what the idiot journalist would have claimed 150 years ago to be the limit would be one we have blown past long time ago.
This is not a matter of your bullshit rhetoric technological fundamentalist. If anything, it would be a matter of developmental fundamentalism.
|
On January 04 2008 13:34 BottleAbuser wrote:I question the usefulness of sarcasm in this case. I was under the impression that this was to be a meaningful discussion. I define "faith" as "belief without supporting evidence." In this case, belief that technology will advance is not faith. Technology is advancing. Look at your computer and compare it to what you used 5 years ago. If it's the same computer, get yourself a new one. NOW! There is plenty of evidence that technology is advancing. Otherwise, the same argument could be made for growing consumption. Which would make this discussion quite pointless, as we're working on the premise that it is. Here's another aspect to consider. We have talked about a portion of the population that is consuming a disproportionate amount of resources. What we have not considered (as far as I am aware) is that maybe some portion of the population is producing a disproportionate amount of resources. I see no problem if the sizes of these populations grow at the same rate. They do not necessarily have to be the same populations, but I hypothesize that they will be. The article states that the consumer population is growing, and lists several countries that I have been hearing are undergoing their own economic revolutions. Also, I see a problem with the "Money spent on X would be much better spent on Y" argument. You obviously have access to a computer terminal with a connection to the internet. We all do; otherwise, we wouldn't be talking here. I will assume that such access costs some amount of money. Is the benefit of this access more important than, let's say, feeding a starving child for some number of days? Yes; otherwise, you would have already redirected the funds to feeding starving children. The slippery slope argument brings us straight to what you consider a "myopic Capitalist" view.
just quoting to emphasize that....comparing having "faith" in technology with christian fundamentalism is incredibly fallacious:O
I am not saying we should not worry about these problems and say " its ok we will just let technology solve it LOL" but I think it is wise at this point to realize that advances in technology will probably be our biggest aid when confronting these problems.
Every once in a while there are leaps in technology so huge that it completely eliminates problems
or reduces them to little more than annoyance. Putting more money into research of certain key sciences is like a gamble that pays off way better than any realistic conservation effort in the long run. I use gamble loosely because advancements in technology remain very beneficial even when they come the slowest.
While conservation is important and an issue we need to discuss, especially as new technology develops, the fact of the matter is technology will play way more of a role in solving these problems then conserving ever will:o
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
technology is great. we all love technology. pwns them mofos
|
On January 03 2008 12:00 SonuvBob wrote:
We require more minerals.
A lot more.
|
A few people seemingly take great offense at mentioning technological fundamentalism. This is sort of what I am talking about - to question technology (not to say technology is bad, but to merely question it) is to the modern person as questioning God was to priests in the past.
But more directly, what people are "calling me on," is not even what I am talking about. I'm not saying that technology won't get advanced - historically it has ONLY gotten more advanced. My point is only that thinking technological advancement is KEY to solving problems is questionable. And it is - no one called me on my comment that most of the present day environmental problems are the result of technology!
The modern environmental problems are largely a result of modern technology.
To believe that the next wave of technology will be the one to fix all the problems that have thusfar been created by technology exemplifies FAITH.
You guys need to recognize what technology does. Technology is created to solve some problem. Cars, to some extent, solve a mobility problem, for example. But what you guys overlook are the unintended consequences of technology. No one disputes that cars move very quickly and, by a certain narrow reckoning, save human energy. But that's not all cars do. They also require us to cover our land with concrete and asphalt, which affects climate, water, and the natural landscape. They create much pollution (smog) which has effects on human health and on global climate. These are not the purpose of the car, but they are consequences of the technology.
They put my grandma on medicine for her heart. The medicine caused her to get asthma. Then they put her on drugs for asthma, which negatively affected her heart, and she had a minor heart attack. Do you see what I am saying here?
Most technology is like this. We solve one problem with a new technology, but the new technology creates new problems.
Even the basic technology like irrigation or tilling can create problems - namely the erosion or degradation of soil, leading to a LOSS of fertile land, and thus food. These technologies were invented and employed in order to INCREASE food supply, but at times the result has been to decrease food supply. (Look at the dustbowl situation in America, during the 1930's.)
Let me be especially clear to those of you who will distort what I am saying: I am not against technology. I am critical of technology, meaning I believe we should examine carefully any technology we might adopt, and not assume that the intended result of using a technology will be the ONLY result. Some technology will be useful and good, and others will be bad - all to varying degrees.
Once again, considering that technology often has unintended consequences, many times creating worse problems than existed to begin with, the belief that some as yet undiscovered technology will miraculously solve everything is irrational faith.
|
I challenge you technological fundamentalists to name technologies that ultimately have helped the environmental situation (I won't say there are none - I'm open to the possibility that some truly have helped). I also challenge you to name technologies that have worsened the environmental situation. Note, it doesn't count to say that putting in pollution control technology in automobiles has helped the environment - such moves are only to compensate for other technology which has worsened the state of the environment, and we still experience a net negative effect on the environment.
Keep in mind the concept of unintended consequences.
Also, when new technologies are adopted, many people habituate to them and take them for granted. No one needed cars or thought about them 200 years ago. Now we have them and they are a "necessity." Consider what affects this kind of habituation to ever increasing lifestyles has on the environment (not to mention social relationships, power relationships, etc.)
|
On January 04 2008 15:20 oneofthem wrote:
much of the technological advances you are talking about show the probleml of the simple technology advance=progress view. the making of vista or for that matter a more advanced lawnmower could only occur within a society that has peculiar aims and priorities with corresponding resource allocations. at the moment, it seems that the tendency for high technological development is to serve the next and less important concern on the minds of the affluent. one wonder why economists who are so used to utility curves never use them to make any normative hay out of different consumption baskets. at least somewhat, we'd like to shift this with some positive effort to a direction more suitable to good things for more people.
Good. I like your reasoning here. This is how I read you:
Progress is not neutral. Progress is motion towards a goal. What is the goal?
We should not cling to progress for its own sake. We should constantly analyze our goals and try to work towards goals that are humane, sustainable, etc.
The powerful in society define progress in such a way as to serve themselves (more cars, more homes, more luxury, and more power for themselves!) Unfortunately, the goals of the elite have been adopted by many people who are not served by the same goals (this is something like what Marx would call false consciousness).
Economists are great at drawing fancy diagrams of consumption choices, but in trying to maintain a value free (objective) science, they ignore ethical issues - they do not concern themselves with what might be best for people or the environment.
---------------------------
Where this comes in to play is that most people care about the environment (even if on some token, meaningless level.) However, people are also often attached to another set of priorities that ultimately have nothing to do with environmental or social well being (they are attached to what is called "progress," in the sense that they want ever expanding wealth and power.)
What must be recognized is that in some very real ways, "progress" and environmental, social, political well-being are divergent, contradictory goals.
We want more wealth, but at what cost to the environment? At what cost to economic justice?
We want more power, but at what cost to equity and democracy? (At some point, technology reaches a level of complexity that brings it beyond democratic control.)
|
I think we've strayed somewhat from the original topic.
The OP's thesis appears to be thus: Current resource consumption at its current growth cannot be met by current production rates, must be curbed, and will be curbed "if we choose to do so."
My objection to this is that although extrapolated consumption rates cannot be met by current production rates, a growth in production rates will meet the higher consumption rates, and therefore a reduction in our consumption of resources is not evidently necessary.
If it is unreasonable to expect a higher production rate in the future, I do not see how reasonable it is to expect a higher consumption rate as well.
Also, while I do not consider myself a "technological fundamentalist," I must admit that it would be exceedingly difficult to evaluate the impact of certain technologies on the environment, and therefore equally difficult to name technologies of certain impacts. Also, I think it is a weasel argument: the "environment" is bettered or worsened for the accommodation of humans, or for non-human organisms? If for the first, then most technologies would be considered good for the environment. If for the second, then most technologies would be detrimental to the environment (and therefore abandoned?). Would something be considered beneficial if it made the environment more friendly to humans by making it easier to see at night (street lights), but also damaged nocturnal animals' lifestyles? Anyhow, the criteria are not well defined, and it is difficult to discuss with so many ambiguities.
|
Oneofthem says: "look at developmental dynamics going forward. that is what matters, not some theoretical technological utopia. the problem here is simple, whether a certain development is sustainable, and for what social cost. increases in efficient production techniques 'could' lead to less costly consumption, but you have to make the argument that this si likely or will happen, and act appropriately. otherwise you are suffering from the very blindness of dynamics that you apparently critiicse.
added in is the concept of efficient use. only a myopic Capitalist!!11 would argue that the resources spent beautifying a corner of manhattan is not better spent raising the living standards in some poor place. but hey, who gives a shit about them, right. "
--------------------
Solid statements here.
Historically we see humanity going ever further out of balance with nature, expanding its power beyond its reason and wisdom. What evidence do we have of people changing? For all the talk of saving the environment, most of what I see are people concerned with IPods and cell phones and cars. (me me me - more wealth for me, please!)
And saving the environment? One is far more likely to hear a politician talk about economic growth - meaning more IPods, cell phones, cars, etc, and these primarily for those who already have far more than they need.
And again - another good point about economics and values. Mainstream economists would argue that if money goes towards something like a new yacht for a wealthy person, rather than towards feeding a starving person, this is the most efficient, useful, and "good" allocation of money possible (assuming a free market.)
Most anyone else would recognize this as insanity. At least I would hope...
So the point here, again, is that regardless of what people say, modern priorities with regard to "progress" often have little to do with helping those in need, or saving the environment.
|
United States22883 Posts
There's far more that have hurt the environment, we all know that. But the goal of technology is not simply "advancement", it's very specific and constantly changing, and generally we have accomplished what we set out to do (although not always, such as the case with explosives.) This is a new goal, so pointing to cars because they've hurt the environment, while unfortunately and incredibly true, does not mean you can point to future cars as a threat to the environment. I'm sure there will be some other negative consequence, but these things are more forseeable now than they ever have been before, and I don't agree with not doing something simply because we are ignorant of the outcome.
Truthfully, I don't think anything will ever be fully solved by technology, only continually pushed back, but that's the nature of evolution and life anyways - there is no perpetual sustination. Wonder drugs like penicillin will eventually be overcome, but they've made the world a lot healthier today and probably within a couple hundred year range, and that's the best anyone can hope to do right now. Thanks to scientists, that forseeable window also continues to grow.
|
Maybe off topic now, but I'll indulge myself and rant on:
Economists ignore ethics because they do not apply to economics. One could argue that they do, because ethical concerns cause legislation that could affect business (like laws against undercutting, the practice of which is considered unethical by most), but in no way does ethics directly affect economics. Therefore, considering ethics in economics is not relevant or useful.
Ideally, all people would be ethical. Many are not. I doubt the efficacy of saying "well, you should be moral" to such people, which is basically what Inky's post appears to propose.
Personally, I think it's silly to talk about cars if you want to talk about ways to curb consumption (or pollution, I'm not quite sure which we're talking about any more). Transportation accounts for less than 15% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. With current technology (and technology immediately forseeable), cutting this down by reducing consumption would be on a 1 to 1 basis.
Now, consider that agriculture accounts for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of this portion is from the livestock industry. We could produce the same effect as halving car usage by reducing meat consumption (just in the US) by 10%. Incidentally, this would also result in surplus grain sufficient to eliminate death by hunger. Everywhere. Or if you want to nitpick, reducing it by 15% and turning 1/3 of the surplus grain into biofuel for distribution of the grain would eliminate world hunger with no additional cost.
Disclaimer: I am vegan, for ethical reasons, and my views may therefore be biased.
|
Jibba says "and I don't agree with not doing something simply because we are ignorant of the outcome."
I am saying we need to be critical, not necessarily conservative (although undoubtedly a more critical view will lead us in a more conservative direction, as we recognize some choices are simply not acceptable).
I think when there is any real question about a technology's safety (not necessarily ignorance, but rather the possibility that something might be really dangerous), we should err on the side of caution (what is known as the precautionary principle.) If we don't know how to truly safely store nuclear waste and ensure 100 percent that we can keep plants from melting down, then it is best to not go down the path of nuclear energy, for example, regardless of its supposed benefits.
We must have criteria for technology... Here is an improvised example:
1 Can everyone use this technology? (is it fair)
2 Can the Earth sustain this technology (for all)?
3 Is this technology safe for humans and other life (does it make us sick? etc)?
4 Will this technology be under democratic control, or will it facilitate technocracy - rule by an elite class of "experts" that do not necessarily respond to "the people?"
5 What social or environmental changes must take place to make use of the new technology, and do these changes meet criteria 1-4?
I am glad you acknowledge that technology has unintended consequences.
|
BottleAbuser - I both want to praise you and call some of what you say into question. I'll do the last first, and the first last.
Economics is a study of how humans use resources. It is not the study of astronomical phenomena (as much as economists have physics envy and whatnot.) It is the study of people. So, for those reasons, I and other intellectuals argue that it is a moral science.
There is no way we can talk about a choice between saving a rainforest or building a bunch of walmarts; between buying a yacht or saving a starving child, as anything but a moral issue. These are moral issues, and economics gets at the heart of this.
You are right, telling people to be moral might not be the most effective thing. But being that I am a pacifist, it is the best I can do. Some people will be convinced, others will not. I do what I can.
Now, to clarify a question you hinted at, we are discussing pollution AND consumption - both are connected.
Last of all, to talk about some pollution issues... First, I mention cars because that is what comes to mind. You are right that raising animals for consumption is a HUGE cause of greenhouse gas emissions - more so than automobile use. No argument from me, and I appreciate that you brought this up - and I am impressed.
If you read my other threads, you will know that I am a vegetarian and tend towards veganism (I've been vegan as well) and that I explicitely advocate a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. Giving up meat, or at least reducing meat consumption, is a wise choice to make for the environment, for one's health, and for animal rights.
I applaud you for being a vegan. I am impressed.
|
Ah, posting while I was writing eh?
I think we should define what we mean by "saving the environment" now. And while we're at it, we should also clarify what we mean by "nature." And figure out why nature and the environment are so important. Call me stupid and ignorant, but I don't know what the big fuss is.
I imagine that some will talk about water and air pollution by particles, chemicals, or heat. How does this adversely affect us? Let's say that it increases the number of fatal lung, liver, and heart diseases by tens of thousands per year, and destroys the habitats of thousands more fish and aquatic organisms in rivers. I think this is an improvement over previous state. Keep in mind that although for you personally it might be merely inconvenient, it could very well be life-threatening for millions of people to not have factories manufacturing certain items, or power plants supplying them with electricity.
I'll change a few words and turn the question around. Can anyone name technologies that are clearly beneficial or detrimental to human life, considering all consequences of that technology's implementation?
And I truly doubt that economists put labels like "good" or "moral" on economic transactions. More likely they describe it as having a higher probability to encourage further circulation of currency and value. It is pointless to call specialists insane because the results of their science run contrary to your intuition.
|
There are other ways to change peoples' behavior other than talking or violence. Creating economic incentive for what you see as a more moral lifestyle could work. I know that certain people choose vegan products simply because they last longer or cost less.
I'll admit that I'm not very big on economics. But what I know disagrees with a morality-based system. Quoting Wikipedia (because everyone knows Wikipedia is infallible): Economics deals with "the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." Which means it describes how people spend money, and to some extent why (greedy agents, etc), but not whether or not it's "good." I just can't see "spend money on X or on Y?" as an economic question when X and Y are not investments made for the purpose of getting some sort of compensation. Yes, it can become a moral question, but not one that economics can or purports to answer.
|
BottleAbuser - can't address your longer post just above just now, but I'll say that there are economists and many social scientists that argue that all social science should not try to be value free. What people so often do not see is that the pretension to objectivity is infact a built in bias that serves very real political and social ends (often inequality and destruction.)
I'm not saying you advocate these things. But I will say that from my perspective (as a student of economics, among many other things) economics absolutely is a moral science, and the fact that the mainstream treats it otherwise is a big problem with very real consequences in the world.
By the way, I appreciate your posts, sincerely. I'll post more later. Take it easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
