Recapitulation and a Look Ahead
Hardin makes a very good point at the end of the book about the danger of globalization. The key issue is that 'if you have only one system, then if anything goes wrong, everything goes wrong.' Today, as the world becomes more integrated, and dependent on each other (as well as the overall machine running smoothly), can we survive a potential breakdown in the system?
The idea of coevolution comes to mind again. For example, my skills as an analyst evolved in conjunction of the society in which I live (up to 100 yrs ago, there were no need for analysts). I rely upon society to provide my bread, and society thrives from the effort of the analyst tribe. This is true now for 95% of the people in this globe. As the system has grown, we have developed specializations.
If the system breaks down, would I survive? What kind of survival skills does an analyst have in a climate of anarchy?
On the national level...
This is true, not only for individuals, but countries as well. Is it better to have many sovereign nations carrying out their own experiments in human civilization, and population control? Or should we become one big 'global village' by opening up our borders, and essentially living/dying by a single uniform population policy (live, and let live, and let immigrate).
Though somewhat controversial today, Hardin believed in this policy: 'Unity within each sovereignty; diversity among sovereignties'.
Showing posts with label Living Within Limits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Living Within Limits. Show all posts
Jul 3, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 26
Necessity of Immigration Control
Even with creative solutions to population control within the borders of a country, that is not enough. Hardin argues that there needs to also be stringent restrictions on immigration, otherwise, the progress made through population control will be offset by an influx of the great multitude of masses, which more than offsets the delicate equilibrium.
Conceivably, this is what happened in China, when the one-child-policy was instituted. City-dwellers were restricted in the number of children allowed, however rural farmers were not. Today, there is a huge problem in China of numerous farmers migrating into the city to look for work. At the same time, data suggests dubious results from the half-hearted population control measures undertaken by the Chinese government (half-hearted in planning, not dedication)...
Personally, I'm not sure...
My family immigrated here from other places. In fact, most Americans were descended from immigrants (most people in the world are the descendants of immigrants, technically). Rhetorically, I feel compelled to argue for continuing the open-border policy of the U.S. (not truly open border, but better than most other places).
On the other hand, rationally speaking, there are very real limits to an open-border immigration policy. The criticisms pointed out by Hardin are very real, and nearly impossible to refute. It makes the arguments on border laws even more complex.
Even with creative solutions to population control within the borders of a country, that is not enough. Hardin argues that there needs to also be stringent restrictions on immigration, otherwise, the progress made through population control will be offset by an influx of the great multitude of masses, which more than offsets the delicate equilibrium.
Conceivably, this is what happened in China, when the one-child-policy was instituted. City-dwellers were restricted in the number of children allowed, however rural farmers were not. Today, there is a huge problem in China of numerous farmers migrating into the city to look for work. At the same time, data suggests dubious results from the half-hearted population control measures undertaken by the Chinese government (half-hearted in planning, not dedication)...
Personally, I'm not sure...
My family immigrated here from other places. In fact, most Americans were descended from immigrants (most people in the world are the descendants of immigrants, technically). Rhetorically, I feel compelled to argue for continuing the open-border policy of the U.S. (not truly open border, but better than most other places).
On the other hand, rationally speaking, there are very real limits to an open-border immigration policy. The criticisms pointed out by Hardin are very real, and nearly impossible to refute. It makes the arguments on border laws even more complex.
Jun 27, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 25
Population Control - Why?
As a reminder, the goal of population control is not for its own sake, but to improve (maintain) the prosperity of the living - evolutionarily speaking, to keep a successful species from becoming too successful - consuming itself to its own doom. More specifically, we wish to replace nature's methods of population control (starvation and disease) with human ones (preferably not nuclear holocaust or biological apocalypse).
Individual Rights or Virtue of Community
Hardin states that it is difficult for us westerners to realize that what we extol as 'Universal Human Rights' are in actuality 'Western Human Rights', which happens to date only three centuries back to John Locke. The individualism of western society, and the emphasis it places upon the rights of the individual make population control particularly difficult.
In China, 1-child policies were enforced by community groups. The community groups worked together, through such traditional motivational techniques as shame and morality (items long since out of style here in the West), in order to coerce adherence to law, for the good of all.
Perhaps sometime in the future, China will exhort the West to adopt laws more focused on 'Universal Societal Rights' - and perhaps our own legal system may even one day focus more on greater good, rather than individual rights.
Finally, a good solution...
2.2 kids per couple is approximately the magic number in order to stabilize population growth. The solution I particularly like was offered by Kenneth Boulding. The solution is interesting, and important, enough that it will be posted separately.
As a reminder, the goal of population control is not for its own sake, but to improve (maintain) the prosperity of the living - evolutionarily speaking, to keep a successful species from becoming too successful - consuming itself to its own doom. More specifically, we wish to replace nature's methods of population control (starvation and disease) with human ones (preferably not nuclear holocaust or biological apocalypse).
Individual Rights or Virtue of Community
Hardin states that it is difficult for us westerners to realize that what we extol as 'Universal Human Rights' are in actuality 'Western Human Rights', which happens to date only three centuries back to John Locke. The individualism of western society, and the emphasis it places upon the rights of the individual make population control particularly difficult.
In China, 1-child policies were enforced by community groups. The community groups worked together, through such traditional motivational techniques as shame and morality (items long since out of style here in the West), in order to coerce adherence to law, for the good of all.
Perhaps sometime in the future, China will exhort the West to adopt laws more focused on 'Universal Societal Rights' - and perhaps our own legal system may even one day focus more on greater good, rather than individual rights.
Finally, a good solution...
2.2 kids per couple is approximately the magic number in order to stabilize population growth. The solution I particularly like was offered by Kenneth Boulding. The solution is interesting, and important, enough that it will be posted separately.
Jun 23, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 24
The Story of Penicillin and DDT
After penicillin was discovered in 1928, it was hailed as the wonder drug. By the 1930's, it became apparent that its use provoked evolutionary changes in bacteria, eventually leading to penicillin-resistance.
DDT, after its discovery as an insecticide in 1939, was used with great success in combating Malaria, and mosquito-spread diseases. It was later found that the use of DDT led to the prevalence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. (DDT was also the environmental disaster which contributed to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring).
What's the point? One of Darwin's key insights was the way temporarily successful traits selected for their own eventual failure. Bactericides such as penicillin selected for progressively stronger mutations of infections; insecticides such as DDT selected for ever-more-resilient strains of mosquitoes.
Birth Control vs Population Control
In celebration of the 100 year anniversary of The Origin of Species, University of Chicago asked Darwin's grandson, physicist Charles Galton Darwin to make a speech. He shocked the community (the shock now long since forgotten) that purely voluntary birth control will fail as a means of population control.
His reasoning was that, through voluntary birth control, a certain group of people, Homo contracipiens, would elect to exercise this new restraint to exploding population growth. On the other hand, another group, Homo progenitivus, would be genetically predisposed to exercise high levels of geometric growth. Over time, Homo contracipiens would be extinct, and Homo progenitivus would see to it that their children would be as the stars in the sky.
Counter Argument - Is it truly genetic (nature)?
What if the propensity to procreate like rabbits was not truly a genetically inherited trait? This argument is hindered by the evidence in human animal husbandry. Domesticated animals have long been selectively bred in order to create the 'desired behavior' - dogs which are obedient, dogs which are trackers, dogs which are shepherds... etc.
This type of circumstantial evidence seems to suggest that there's reason to believe that nature will 'select' for the behavior of Homo progenitivus, that is the more virile (and less rational) man.
Counter/Counter Argument - It is also learned (nurture)!
However, research has shown us that even if behavior has absolutely no genetic component, the same results would follow. Factors such as upbringing, societal pressure, and education will have similar repercussions on voluntary birth control. Research has shown that 'daughters of mothers who had more children than the norm for their generation have more children than the norm for their - the daughters' - generation'. Look no further than Africa.
If you agree with the above, then let me present to you this question... when developed nations send aid to 3rd world countries, what are they more concerned with?
1) Giving the man a fish? (food)
2) Teaching the man to fish? (education)
A successful war on poverty must be waged through education, a long-term carrot. It's the only way to win against an enemies as strong as Nature and Nurture.
After penicillin was discovered in 1928, it was hailed as the wonder drug. By the 1930's, it became apparent that its use provoked evolutionary changes in bacteria, eventually leading to penicillin-resistance.
DDT, after its discovery as an insecticide in 1939, was used with great success in combating Malaria, and mosquito-spread diseases. It was later found that the use of DDT led to the prevalence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes. (DDT was also the environmental disaster which contributed to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring).
What's the point? One of Darwin's key insights was the way temporarily successful traits selected for their own eventual failure. Bactericides such as penicillin selected for progressively stronger mutations of infections; insecticides such as DDT selected for ever-more-resilient strains of mosquitoes.
Birth Control vs Population Control
In celebration of the 100 year anniversary of The Origin of Species, University of Chicago asked Darwin's grandson, physicist Charles Galton Darwin to make a speech. He shocked the community (the shock now long since forgotten) that purely voluntary birth control will fail as a means of population control.
His reasoning was that, through voluntary birth control, a certain group of people, Homo contracipiens, would elect to exercise this new restraint to exploding population growth. On the other hand, another group, Homo progenitivus, would be genetically predisposed to exercise high levels of geometric growth. Over time, Homo contracipiens would be extinct, and Homo progenitivus would see to it that their children would be as the stars in the sky.
Counter Argument - Is it truly genetic (nature)?
What if the propensity to procreate like rabbits was not truly a genetically inherited trait? This argument is hindered by the evidence in human animal husbandry. Domesticated animals have long been selectively bred in order to create the 'desired behavior' - dogs which are obedient, dogs which are trackers, dogs which are shepherds... etc.
This type of circumstantial evidence seems to suggest that there's reason to believe that nature will 'select' for the behavior of Homo progenitivus, that is the more virile (and less rational) man.
Counter/Counter Argument - It is also learned (nurture)!
However, research has shown us that even if behavior has absolutely no genetic component, the same results would follow. Factors such as upbringing, societal pressure, and education will have similar repercussions on voluntary birth control. Research has shown that 'daughters of mothers who had more children than the norm for their generation have more children than the norm for their - the daughters' - generation'. Look no further than Africa.
If you agree with the above, then let me present to you this question... when developed nations send aid to 3rd world countries, what are they more concerned with?
1) Giving the man a fish? (food)
2) Teaching the man to fish? (education)
A successful war on poverty must be waged through education, a long-term carrot. It's the only way to win against an enemies as strong as Nature and Nurture.
Jun 21, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 23
Commonized Costs - Privatized Profits
Known as the CC-PP game, Hardin points out the duplicity of society, where 'most men believe in laissez-faire for others, while seeking to escape it themselves'. In truth, success more often comes to an ingenious man who 'fashions a bifurcation in the accounting system that channels the costs of his enterprise to society, while directing profits to himself.' Asymetrical capitalism is not to be confused with the real thing.
Externalities (aka Pollution)
Unwanted effects imposed on the environment by industry. Companies (individuals) are rarely punished or charged for damages, though they reap all benefits. Even when they pay damages, it is almost always to human victims. The true damage done (wildlife, ecosystem, etc.) are not accounted for.
Disaster Relief
Think Katrina. Mammoth rescue projects were undertaken to rebuild the city of New Orleans, paid for courtesy the tax payer. However, the ecological-economic rule that we are fighting against is this: the flood plain belongs to the river. Thought it's cheaper to build houses on flood plans than rolling hills, there is the clear risk of flooding. If home builders, or home owners, were to internalize the costs of repair/rebuild, they would NEVER have built these homes. Instead, through twisted incentive systems and immense hubris, we continue to fight against the laws of ecology and economics, forever dooming ourselves to repeat our past mistakes.
Farm Subsidies (and other subsidies)
Prices of farm produce is manipulated through subsidies, resulting in higher profits for farmers and higher costs for customers (and taxpayers). This system is further twisted by subsidies tobacco farmers, which elevates medical needs for smokers, which elevates medical costs for all, which leads us to the next, and biggest topic...
Lawyers Protect Individuals (Not Society)
Hardin believes that the reason medical costs in the U.S. have sky-rocketed is largely due to the legal system - our laws are simply too big a temptation for lawyers. We have 20 times more lawyers, per capita, than Japan. However, very few (if any) defend the rights of the general public (social good doesn't pay the mortgage).
'It is impossible to put a price tag on life... particularly the life of innocent newborn babies'. With the system we have today, social medicine, we don't have to. Premature babies of even drug-addicted mothers are given every possible resource to nurture. However, premature babies are notoriously expensive to save, with costs of roughly $1,700 per day (back in late 1980's).
If parents were forced to pay for the cost of saving a child, would they then be more capable of putting a 'price' on the life of a innocent newborn?
Consider China...
Hardin brings up the example of China as a comparison. First, in China, lawyers have no right to intrude into medical matters. Second, medical costs for treating babies are borne (no pun intended) by parents. Third, both Confucian and Marxist values places high-esteem on the well-being of the greater society. These factors would lead to dramatically different outcomes for neonatal care.
Mortality vs Morbidity
There is also the consideration of mortality vs morbidity. We abhor the idea of the death of a child. Yet, we rarely talk about the suffering of this child. There is probably reason to suspect that the child suffers greatly during the intensive care process. Not only that, but most 'saved' preemies have medical challenges the rest of their lives, including defects in hearing, sight, intelligence, and cardiovascular systems (causing not only suffering, but further deterioration of the medical commons).
Opportunity Cost
And then, there is the never-mentioned issue of opportunity cost. Instead of the money being spent on these difficult to tackle problems, what if they money was spent to treat lesser ailments? Or perhaps education? Opportunity costs are very real, and (cold as it sounds) return on investment is an important consideration.
If the parents in the previous example had other, healthy, children to consider/raise, how would that effect their decision? Save the child at any cost? Is that what you would do?
Consider why social costs exist in a democracy. Senator A wants to protect the farmers in his state, yet wants to vote against the farmers in other states. Senator B and C are in similar situations. Together, they agree to vote for each other's subsidies. Poor senators D and E are outvoted. Democracy at work, in all its glory.
What about the broken legal liabilities in the medical system. Here is Hardin's explanation:
Known as the CC-PP game, Hardin points out the duplicity of society, where 'most men believe in laissez-faire for others, while seeking to escape it themselves'. In truth, success more often comes to an ingenious man who 'fashions a bifurcation in the accounting system that channels the costs of his enterprise to society, while directing profits to himself.' Asymetrical capitalism is not to be confused with the real thing.
Externalities (aka Pollution)
Unwanted effects imposed on the environment by industry. Companies (individuals) are rarely punished or charged for damages, though they reap all benefits. Even when they pay damages, it is almost always to human victims. The true damage done (wildlife, ecosystem, etc.) are not accounted for.
Disaster Relief
Think Katrina. Mammoth rescue projects were undertaken to rebuild the city of New Orleans, paid for courtesy the tax payer. However, the ecological-economic rule that we are fighting against is this: the flood plain belongs to the river. Thought it's cheaper to build houses on flood plans than rolling hills, there is the clear risk of flooding. If home builders, or home owners, were to internalize the costs of repair/rebuild, they would NEVER have built these homes. Instead, through twisted incentive systems and immense hubris, we continue to fight against the laws of ecology and economics, forever dooming ourselves to repeat our past mistakes.
Farm Subsidies (and other subsidies)
Prices of farm produce is manipulated through subsidies, resulting in higher profits for farmers and higher costs for customers (and taxpayers). This system is further twisted by subsidies tobacco farmers, which elevates medical needs for smokers, which elevates medical costs for all, which leads us to the next, and biggest topic...
Lawyers Protect Individuals (Not Society)
Hardin believes that the reason medical costs in the U.S. have sky-rocketed is largely due to the legal system - our laws are simply too big a temptation for lawyers. We have 20 times more lawyers, per capita, than Japan. However, very few (if any) defend the rights of the general public (social good doesn't pay the mortgage).
Malpractice suits against doctors are common; settlements cost money (not to mention legal fees). Malpractice insurance costs money. Insurers insist doctors protect themselves against lawsuit by demanding excessive diagnostic tests... cost money. The costs are paid for either by a) government, or b) employer - the bulk of costs are socialized.Saving babies (Warning... Reader Discretion Advised)
'It is impossible to put a price tag on life... particularly the life of innocent newborn babies'. With the system we have today, social medicine, we don't have to. Premature babies of even drug-addicted mothers are given every possible resource to nurture. However, premature babies are notoriously expensive to save, with costs of roughly $1,700 per day (back in late 1980's).
If parents were forced to pay for the cost of saving a child, would they then be more capable of putting a 'price' on the life of a innocent newborn?
Consider China...
Hardin brings up the example of China as a comparison. First, in China, lawyers have no right to intrude into medical matters. Second, medical costs for treating babies are borne (no pun intended) by parents. Third, both Confucian and Marxist values places high-esteem on the well-being of the greater society. These factors would lead to dramatically different outcomes for neonatal care.
Mortality vs Morbidity
There is also the consideration of mortality vs morbidity. We abhor the idea of the death of a child. Yet, we rarely talk about the suffering of this child. There is probably reason to suspect that the child suffers greatly during the intensive care process. Not only that, but most 'saved' preemies have medical challenges the rest of their lives, including defects in hearing, sight, intelligence, and cardiovascular systems (causing not only suffering, but further deterioration of the medical commons).
Opportunity Cost
And then, there is the never-mentioned issue of opportunity cost. Instead of the money being spent on these difficult to tackle problems, what if they money was spent to treat lesser ailments? Or perhaps education? Opportunity costs are very real, and (cold as it sounds) return on investment is an important consideration.
If the parents in the previous example had other, healthy, children to consider/raise, how would that effect their decision? Save the child at any cost? Is that what you would do?
If a rural hospital in a county with a small tax base were required to do everything humanly possible for all the patients who might come to it, the end result would be bankruptcy, following which the hospital could do nothing for anyone, rich or poor.Legislative Failure - Pork Barrels & Lawyers
Consider why social costs exist in a democracy. Senator A wants to protect the farmers in his state, yet wants to vote against the farmers in other states. Senator B and C are in similar situations. Together, they agree to vote for each other's subsidies. Poor senators D and E are outvoted. Democracy at work, in all its glory.
What about the broken legal liabilities in the medical system. Here is Hardin's explanation:
...the majority of state legislators are lawyers by training; lawyers constitute something of a tribe, and we should not be surprised to find that here, as in so many instances, the tribal loyalty is given preference over loyalty to the nation as a whole.
Jun 20, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 22
Discriminating Altruism
Darwin postulated that the nonexistence of altruism amongst different species is one of the default positions of biology. Hardin carries the argument even further. Altruism does not even exist for members of the same species, or even the same family. Take an example.
A parent sacrifices him/herself for a child. Noble indeed. However, this act of individual altruism is actually an act of genetic selfishness... via The Selfish Gene theory (Richard Dawkins). Genes within the parent have passed on 'urges' which work to maintain the survival of the child (new gene carrier), even at the cost of their (old gene carrier) own lives. For Hardin, this is just another example of the essential role that discrimination plays in altruism.
Praising Discrimination
Hardin argues that 'discrimination is a necessary part of every persisting altruistic behavior. Why? Because without discrimination the good effects of altruism would be commonized over the entire population.' One alternative to discriminating altruism would be universal altruism - a noble intention indeed. However, it is pointed out that 'the specific shortcoming of universalism is easy to identify: it promotes a pathology... namely the tragedy of the commons'.
What are we to do? What about altruism?
To be honest, I'm not sure. As a follower of Jesus, I still adhere to the belief that a major purpose of life is wholeheartedly serving others, without judgement (universal altruism). At the same time, rationality cautions that such reckless servitude is folly, and altruism without discretion could be quite damaging (money to the beggar for more drugs).
To me, this is reminiscent of the ESS dilemma between the doves and hawks. As a Christian, we should be as doves. Yet, this world is a world of hawks.
Nowhere near a final, universal, conclusion, I have arrived at a locale minima in cognitive dissonance. I think universal altruism should not be inscribed into law. Instead, I will exercise discretion, though erring on the side of universal altruism, when serving. I will hope that God gave us good will, in addition to free will.
Random Thoughts...
Money is a form of reciprocal altruism, aka 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine'. In addition, the phrase 'Money is the root of all evil' is actually distorted from a biblical aphorism:
Darwin postulated that the nonexistence of altruism amongst different species is one of the default positions of biology. Hardin carries the argument even further. Altruism does not even exist for members of the same species, or even the same family. Take an example.
A parent sacrifices him/herself for a child. Noble indeed. However, this act of individual altruism is actually an act of genetic selfishness... via The Selfish Gene theory (Richard Dawkins). Genes within the parent have passed on 'urges' which work to maintain the survival of the child (new gene carrier), even at the cost of their (old gene carrier) own lives. For Hardin, this is just another example of the essential role that discrimination plays in altruism.Praising Discrimination
Hardin argues that 'discrimination is a necessary part of every persisting altruistic behavior. Why? Because without discrimination the good effects of altruism would be commonized over the entire population.' One alternative to discriminating altruism would be universal altruism - a noble intention indeed. However, it is pointed out that 'the specific shortcoming of universalism is easy to identify: it promotes a pathology... namely the tragedy of the commons'.What are we to do? What about altruism?
To be honest, I'm not sure. As a follower of Jesus, I still adhere to the belief that a major purpose of life is wholeheartedly serving others, without judgement (universal altruism). At the same time, rationality cautions that such reckless servitude is folly, and altruism without discretion could be quite damaging (money to the beggar for more drugs).
To me, this is reminiscent of the ESS dilemma between the doves and hawks. As a Christian, we should be as doves. Yet, this world is a world of hawks.
Nowhere near a final, universal, conclusion, I have arrived at a locale minima in cognitive dissonance. I think universal altruism should not be inscribed into law. Instead, I will exercise discretion, though erring on the side of universal altruism, when serving. I will hope that God gave us good will, in addition to free will.
Random Thoughts...
Money is a form of reciprocal altruism, aka 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine'. In addition, the phrase 'Money is the root of all evil' is actually distorted from a biblical aphorism:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. (1 Timothy 6:10)
Jun 17, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 21
The Global Pillage
Hardin introduces the reader to the famous Tragedy of the Commons. This idea was first suggested by William Forster Lloyd back in the 1800's. It is partly explained by the classic owner-operator problem:
This chapter also mentions the account of a famine in Sweden in 1772. We who are quick to judge might have blamed the rich at the time for failing to come to the aid of the poor, including one woman who 'cut her child's throat, having had no food to give it, that it might not pine away in hunger and tears.'
However, Hardin points out that 'it would have done no good for the rich to donate money to a community chest because the food for a large population of needy people was simply not available for purchase. In a world of genuine scarcity a rich minority can offer the too numerous indigent little but sympathy.
Hardin introduces the reader to the famous Tragedy of the Commons. This idea was first suggested by William Forster Lloyd back in the 1800's. It is partly explained by the classic owner-operator problem:
Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden; give him a nine year's lease of a garden and he will convert it into a garden. (Arthur Young)Donkey's Head
This chapter also mentions the account of a famine in Sweden in 1772. We who are quick to judge might have blamed the rich at the time for failing to come to the aid of the poor, including one woman who 'cut her child's throat, having had no food to give it, that it might not pine away in hunger and tears.'
However, Hardin points out that 'it would have done no good for the rich to donate money to a community chest because the food for a large population of needy people was simply not available for purchase. In a world of genuine scarcity a rich minority can offer the too numerous indigent little but sympathy.
There was a great famine in Samaria, as (the Syrians) besieged it, until a donkey's head was sold for eighty shekels of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove's dung for five shekels of silver. (2 Kings 6:32)
Jun 16, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 20
Carrying Capacity
Hardin mentions the possibility that as the focus of human society has shifted from rural agriculture to urban industry, our view of the environment has changed as well. He compares two perceptions of Greece as an example:
Successful (sustainable) practitioners of animal husbandry know that overgrazing the soil leads to deterioration in the wealth and carrying capacity of a piece of land.
In nature, this balance has traditionally been enforced by predators. However, human culture portrays predators as 'evil', rather than 'good' (in the sense that they maintain the natural balance). Pop cultural artifacts, such as Bambi, have long worked to solicit goodwill on behalf of prey such as deer, on the grounds of 'sanctity of life'.
As has been previously suggested, to respect life but not death is to display poor wisdom. The path of foolishness often leads to unpleasantness.
Hardin mentions the possibility that as the focus of human society has shifted from rural agriculture to urban industry, our view of the environment has changed as well. He compares two perceptions of Greece as an example:
Present-day Greece... is what you expect the earth to look like given a fair chance. It is the subliminal threshold of innocence. It stands, as it stood from birth ,naked and fully revealed. (Henry Miller, 1941)
In the earlier days, Attica yielded far more abundant produce. In comparison of what then was, there are remaining only bones of the wasted body... in the primitive state of the country, its mountains were high hills covered with soil, and the plains were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains... Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea... (Critias, Plato 3rd Century BC)What to do about Bambi?
Successful (sustainable) practitioners of animal husbandry know that overgrazing the soil leads to deterioration in the wealth and carrying capacity of a piece of land.
In nature, this balance has traditionally been enforced by predators. However, human culture portrays predators as 'evil', rather than 'good' (in the sense that they maintain the natural balance). Pop cultural artifacts, such as Bambi, have long worked to solicit goodwill on behalf of prey such as deer, on the grounds of 'sanctity of life'.
As has been previously suggested, to respect life but not death is to display poor wisdom. The path of foolishness often leads to unpleasantness.
Jun 13, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 19
Major Default Positions of Human Biology
1. Our Earth is the Total World for Most of the Human Species - though I'm a fan of science fiction, it is a difficult to refute this truth, and it is unlikely to change in the near future (if ever). Space 'Hope Operas' which portend otherwise do a disservice to their fellow human beings.
2. Rewards Determine Behavior - the rewards of parenthood are subtle and imperfectly understood. It may be rewarding to explore this in greater detail if we want to change our behavior.
3. We Can Never Do Merely One Thing (Hardin's Law) - also known as Law of Unintended Consequences. Curiously, this is similar to the Butterfly Effect found in Chaos Theory.
4. There's No Away to Throw to - the sooner we begin teaching this to our children, the better
5. 'Guilty' as the Default Position of Choice - ancient Anglo-Saxon law set the default position of criminal law as 'innocent until proven guilty'. While commendable, social laws should be governed by the opposite maxim. We are beginning to make progress, but there is still much to undo.
6. The Impact Law (I=P*A*T) - the impact (I) on the environment can be viewed as the product of the population size (P) multiplied by per-capita affluence (A), as measured by consumption, multiplied by the damage done by the technologies (T) employed in supplying each unit of consumption.
1. Our Earth is the Total World for Most of the Human Species - though I'm a fan of science fiction, it is a difficult to refute this truth, and it is unlikely to change in the near future (if ever). Space 'Hope Operas' which portend otherwise do a disservice to their fellow human beings.
2. Rewards Determine Behavior - the rewards of parenthood are subtle and imperfectly understood. It may be rewarding to explore this in greater detail if we want to change our behavior.
3. We Can Never Do Merely One Thing (Hardin's Law) - also known as Law of Unintended Consequences. Curiously, this is similar to the Butterfly Effect found in Chaos Theory.
4. There's No Away to Throw to - the sooner we begin teaching this to our children, the better
5. 'Guilty' as the Default Position of Choice - ancient Anglo-Saxon law set the default position of criminal law as 'innocent until proven guilty'. While commendable, social laws should be governed by the opposite maxim. We are beginning to make progress, but there is still much to undo.
6. The Impact Law (I=P*A*T) - the impact (I) on the environment can be viewed as the product of the population size (P) multiplied by per-capita affluence (A), as measured by consumption, multiplied by the damage done by the technologies (T) employed in supplying each unit of consumption.
Living Within Limits - Chapter 18
Making Room for Human Will
In today's heated political arena, despite their dichotomous rhetoric, neither liberals nor conservatives have shown the will necessary to institute real change. Liberals want perpetual economic growth in order to help the poor (unsaid: most liberals would like to at least preserve their current standard of living). Conservatives need perpetual growth so that they can continue becoming wealthier (no ulterior motives).
We're Living on Borrowed Time
Much to the chagrin of both sides of society, 'only madmen and economists believe in perpetual exponential growth'. This truth of natural science was advocated by none other than the white knight of western capitalism, Warren Buffet:
Matter and energy is conserved. To this there is no exception (cue for natural scientists to breathe a sigh of relief). However, there is a third entity which does not seem to observe conservation: information. Music, arts, literature, science, philosophy, spirituality, - these can 'grow without limit, and there is no reason they cannot grow vigorously in a steady-state economy.' The end of growth is not the end of human civilization. It is simply the end of gluttony and greed, and all the avarice and suffering that come with them.
No Free Burnt Offerings
In the end, we need to make some tough decisions. We should not 'seek a costless change, for there is none'. There may be some which appear less painful (for us), but these often impose heavy burdens on others (including our children). Though some of the sacrifices we need to make will bear a cost, should we expect it any other way?
"I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing"
2 Samuel 24:24
In today's heated political arena, despite their dichotomous rhetoric, neither liberals nor conservatives have shown the will necessary to institute real change. Liberals want perpetual economic growth in order to help the poor (unsaid: most liberals would like to at least preserve their current standard of living). Conservatives need perpetual growth so that they can continue becoming wealthier (no ulterior motives).
We're Living on Borrowed Time
Much to the chagrin of both sides of society, 'only madmen and economists believe in perpetual exponential growth'. This truth of natural science was advocated by none other than the white knight of western capitalism, Warren Buffet:
In a finite world, high growth rates must self-destruct. If the base from which growth is taking place is tiny, this law may not operate for a time. But when the base balloons, the party ends: A high growth rate eventually forges its own anchor. (1990 Annual Letter)Side Note - An Exception to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Matter and energy is conserved. To this there is no exception (cue for natural scientists to breathe a sigh of relief). However, there is a third entity which does not seem to observe conservation: information. Music, arts, literature, science, philosophy, spirituality, - these can 'grow without limit, and there is no reason they cannot grow vigorously in a steady-state economy.' The end of growth is not the end of human civilization. It is simply the end of gluttony and greed, and all the avarice and suffering that come with them. No Free Burnt Offerings
In the end, we need to make some tough decisions. We should not 'seek a costless change, for there is none'. There may be some which appear less painful (for us), but these often impose heavy burdens on others (including our children). Though some of the sacrifices we need to make will bear a cost, should we expect it any other way?
"I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing"
2 Samuel 24:24
Jun 12, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 17
The Benign Demographic Transition
In 1934, Adolphe Landry advanced the theory that the industrialized world will eventually settle upon a 'new normal'. More importantly, the route that this will naturally take, is a decrease in birth rates. This is known as the "Benign Demographic Transition" - benign because it is better to imagine a decline in the birth rate, than the alternative. (In fact, the theory doesn't even mention the alternative)
Graphically, it can be represented as below.
There is no indecision in this case. Indecision is choosing the alternative. If we do not make changes to our birth rate, we will have indirectly chosen to make changes to our death rate. I hope we make the right choice.
In 1934, Adolphe Landry advanced the theory that the industrialized world will eventually settle upon a 'new normal'. More importantly, the route that this will naturally take, is a decrease in birth rates. This is known as the "Benign Demographic Transition" - benign because it is better to imagine a decline in the birth rate, than the alternative. (In fact, the theory doesn't even mention the alternative)
Graphically, it can be represented as below.
The Alternative
Affectionately known as the "Malign Demographic Transition", this anti-theory presents the possibility that the new normal will be reached another way - through a dramatic increase in the death rate. The causes of this are too numerous to list, however they could include such unpleasantness as nuclear war, viral outbreak, mass genocide, natural disaster, etc.
This is a possibility not often mentioned in popular culture... perhaps even a taboo
Question of Choice
The benign demographic transition is only possible through a conscious choice. Humanity must decide to go down this route, through birth control measurements.
Living Within Limits - Chapter 16
Trying to Escape Malthus
Observation has revealed a correlation that appears to contradict Malthusian principles: prosperous countries often have a lower fertility rate than poor countries. This, in turn, has led to alternative theories on population and prosperity.
Sex as Anti-Malthusian?
Thomas Edmonds presented the idea that the poorer a people are, the greater will be their fertility because the only amusement they have is sex. Among the wealthy, sex must compete with other amusements.
However, this theory is refuted by its inherent positive feedback. In one scenario, an increase in population will lead to more misery, which leads to more sex and higher fertility, which leads to yet more population and misery, and so on and so forth. Conversely, a decrease in population will lead to greater felicity, thereby leading to less sex and lower fertility, which feedbacks into yet sharper decreases in population...
Clearly such a theory is misguided, or at best, wholly incomplete.
Gluttony as Feedback?
Thomas Doubleday observed that, in some animals, over-feeding led to infertility. From this, he deduced the general theory that fecundity is inversely proportional to the richness of the diet. He used this theory to explain the relationship b/w societal wealth and fertility.
However, his flaw came from choosing examples that were unnatural. For example, his observations were based upon human-raised swines, or domestic rabbits. The eating habits of these particular samples have been artificially distorted. In nature, no swine or rabbit would eat itself to the point of infertility (anti-darwinian).
Child Survival Hypothesis
Lester Brown was the one to present the theory that, by decreasing infant mortality rates, we can decrease a society fertility rates (if more babies survive to adulthood, there is less need by mothers to produce babies).
Though inconclusive, there is plenty of evidence that should give pause to philanthropists subscribing to this theory:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2173608
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1973552
The Goal
Ultimately, we must not lose sight of the needs of the poor. The urgent is to bring greater comfort into their lives. Though infant-mortality reduction is morally commendable, the means should not become the end. In addition to death-control, priority should also be turned to adequate birth-control, which is what will ultimately lead to decreased birth-rates, and greater prosperity.
Observation has revealed a correlation that appears to contradict Malthusian principles: prosperous countries often have a lower fertility rate than poor countries. This, in turn, has led to alternative theories on population and prosperity.
Sex as Anti-Malthusian?
Thomas Edmonds presented the idea that the poorer a people are, the greater will be their fertility because the only amusement they have is sex. Among the wealthy, sex must compete with other amusements.
However, this theory is refuted by its inherent positive feedback. In one scenario, an increase in population will lead to more misery, which leads to more sex and higher fertility, which leads to yet more population and misery, and so on and so forth. Conversely, a decrease in population will lead to greater felicity, thereby leading to less sex and lower fertility, which feedbacks into yet sharper decreases in population...
Clearly such a theory is misguided, or at best, wholly incomplete.
Gluttony as Feedback?
Thomas Doubleday observed that, in some animals, over-feeding led to infertility. From this, he deduced the general theory that fecundity is inversely proportional to the richness of the diet. He used this theory to explain the relationship b/w societal wealth and fertility.
However, his flaw came from choosing examples that were unnatural. For example, his observations were based upon human-raised swines, or domestic rabbits. The eating habits of these particular samples have been artificially distorted. In nature, no swine or rabbit would eat itself to the point of infertility (anti-darwinian).
Child Survival Hypothesis
Lester Brown was the one to present the theory that, by decreasing infant mortality rates, we can decrease a society fertility rates (if more babies survive to adulthood, there is less need by mothers to produce babies).
Though inconclusive, there is plenty of evidence that should give pause to philanthropists subscribing to this theory:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2173608
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1973552
Perceived child survival chances seem to have little influence on whether or not a woman desires additional children... Reductions in child mortality may have the short-term effect of accelerating population growth, until enough experience with decreased mortality is accumulated to effect a change in fertility desires... (Research in Guatemala)Essentially, evidence suggests that, in the short-term, lower child mortality rates dramatically increase population growth (for up to two generations). In the long-term, there does seem to be evidence that population limits and social awareness will lead to lower birth rates. However, Hardin argues that this is a dangerous policy to pursue, particularly in nations which already suffer from overpopulation.
The Goal
Ultimately, we must not lose sight of the needs of the poor. The urgent is to bring greater comfort into their lives. Though infant-mortality reduction is morally commendable, the means should not become the end. In addition to death-control, priority should also be turned to adequate birth-control, which is what will ultimately lead to decreased birth-rates, and greater prosperity.
Jun 7, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 15
Nuclear Power
The most obvious alternative to carbon fuels is nuclear energy. However, there remain some unresolved issues with peaceful human utilization of the power of atoms.
1) Unforgiving Danger - as is well known, nuclear power can potentially be very dangerous. Though it is unlikely, aside from direct sabotage, that conventional nuclear power plants would ever experience a full-scale atomic explosion, there is the very real danger of radioactive exposure to human beings. In fact, once the main reactor is in full operation, 'no one can ever go inside the shield, to repair or lubricate or adjust any of the reloading or control equipment inside... if an important part of it becomes inoperable we shut the reactor down and build another one'
2) Unresolved Disposal - nuclear reactors leave behind far more dangerous material, in the form of radioactive waste, than other conventional power plants. In addition, the disposal of this material is further convoluted by the long half-life of radioactive material. Unlike traditional waste, there really is no 'away' to throw radiation into, as dumping radionuclides into the desert may result in unintentional contamination of underground aquifers.
The dangers of nuclear energy are so profound, that attempts to quantify the theoretical costs of a potential nuclear disaster have been abandoned after several attempts. This has, inturn, led to the creation of the Price-Anderson Act, which provides insurance to, and caps the liability of, nuclear energy providers (akin to FDIC and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which limits the liability of offshore oil explorers, such as Deepwater Horizon, to $75M). In my mind, this is a form of corporate welfare, and is asking for future disaster.
The New Priesthood
Alving Weinberg, long-time director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, was one of the most well-known defenders of nuclear power. Below are his thoughts...
The most obvious alternative to carbon fuels is nuclear energy. However, there remain some unresolved issues with peaceful human utilization of the power of atoms.
1) Unforgiving Danger - as is well known, nuclear power can potentially be very dangerous. Though it is unlikely, aside from direct sabotage, that conventional nuclear power plants would ever experience a full-scale atomic explosion, there is the very real danger of radioactive exposure to human beings. In fact, once the main reactor is in full operation, 'no one can ever go inside the shield, to repair or lubricate or adjust any of the reloading or control equipment inside... if an important part of it becomes inoperable we shut the reactor down and build another one'
2) Unresolved Disposal - nuclear reactors leave behind far more dangerous material, in the form of radioactive waste, than other conventional power plants. In addition, the disposal of this material is further convoluted by the long half-life of radioactive material. Unlike traditional waste, there really is no 'away' to throw radiation into, as dumping radionuclides into the desert may result in unintentional contamination of underground aquifers.
The dangers of nuclear energy are so profound, that attempts to quantify the theoretical costs of a potential nuclear disaster have been abandoned after several attempts. This has, inturn, led to the creation of the Price-Anderson Act, which provides insurance to, and caps the liability of, nuclear energy providers (akin to FDIC and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which limits the liability of offshore oil explorers, such as Deepwater Horizon, to $75M). In my mind, this is a form of corporate welfare, and is asking for future disaster.
The New Priesthood
Alving Weinberg, long-time director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, was one of the most well-known defenders of nuclear power. Below are his thoughts...
We nuclear people have made a Faustian bargain with society. On the one hand, we offer an inexhaustible source of energy... But the price we demand of society...
We make two demands. The first... is that we exercise the very best techniques and that we use people of high expertise and purpose... managing and operating our nuclear power plants with people of higher qualification... The second... (that) we have relatively little problem dealing with wastes if we can assume always that there will be intelligent people around to cope with eventualities we have not thought of...
The price we must pay for this great boon... is a cadre or priesthood who understand the nuclear systems and who are prepared to guard the wastes... such speculations about 100,000 year-priesthoods must strike an eerie and unreal soundPessimistic translation? There is nothing wrong with nuclear technology as a viable source of near-limitless energy. The problem lies in human nature, and our inability to even mentally conceive (much less actually maintain) the notion of a '100,000 year priesthood'.
Jun 3, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 14
Jevons's Coal
William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) was one of the first to make the observation that, not only was the population of Britain increasing exponentially, but the consumption of energy per capita (person), was also increasing as an exponential function - in other words, real consumption of energy was increasing as an exponential function of an exponential function.
In his time, coal was the energy source of choice. Based upon his findings, Jevon predicted the eventual doom of perpetual growth in Britain, due to the eventual exhaustion of economically viable coal. He never tried to determine the approximate amount of available coal (though he did make educated guesses), but simply based his forecast based upon the idea that, sometimes the exact limit of a resource was not as important as the rate of growth of consumption of it (particularly when something is growing as an exponential of an exponential).
Jevon's predictions never came true (pessimism is a tough business to be in). Partly, this was because because his 'educated guesses' dramatically underestimated the technological limits of detecting mineral wealth underground. However, more importantly, we were saved from Jevon's prognosis by the "Drake well", and the discovery of petroleum as a source of energy.
Hubbert's Pimple
M King Hubbert (1903-1989) was a petroleum geologist employed by the Shell Oil company. He pionered the idea of tracking the amount of effort expended per barrel of petroleum extracted. More importantly, Hubbert noted, in 1948, that 'the barrels of oil produced per unit effort required for the discovery of the reserves had been decreasing regularly for a long time' (law of diminishing returns).
Unconvinced? The gulf of mexico BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is the news story of today. Do you know why they call it Deepwater Horizon? The rig was designed to drill miles below the ocean floor, which itself is miles below the ocean surface. Why were they doing this? Because the shallower regions of the Gulf had already been exhausted, for the most part. Translation? Economics forced them to expend more effort to discover & extract more petroleum, than was previously required of them.
Hubert's, like all great thinkers, was not afraid to make his own prognosis. He believed that a graph of the rate of use of each fossil energy source would yield a bell-shaped curve known as Hubbert's Peak, or affectionately Hubbert's pimple. He made the prediction, in 1956, that by the early 1970's, oil production in the U.S. would peak - see Oil Shock of 1973 (it also explains why we have an 'idiotic' 55MPH speed limit) and the below graph.
William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) was one of the first to make the observation that, not only was the population of Britain increasing exponentially, but the consumption of energy per capita (person), was also increasing as an exponential function - in other words, real consumption of energy was increasing as an exponential function of an exponential function.
In his time, coal was the energy source of choice. Based upon his findings, Jevon predicted the eventual doom of perpetual growth in Britain, due to the eventual exhaustion of economically viable coal. He never tried to determine the approximate amount of available coal (though he did make educated guesses), but simply based his forecast based upon the idea that, sometimes the exact limit of a resource was not as important as the rate of growth of consumption of it (particularly when something is growing as an exponential of an exponential).
Jevon's predictions never came true (pessimism is a tough business to be in). Partly, this was because because his 'educated guesses' dramatically underestimated the technological limits of detecting mineral wealth underground. However, more importantly, we were saved from Jevon's prognosis by the "Drake well", and the discovery of petroleum as a source of energy.
Hubbert's Pimple
M King Hubbert (1903-1989) was a petroleum geologist employed by the Shell Oil company. He pionered the idea of tracking the amount of effort expended per barrel of petroleum extracted. More importantly, Hubbert noted, in 1948, that 'the barrels of oil produced per unit effort required for the discovery of the reserves had been decreasing regularly for a long time' (law of diminishing returns).
Unconvinced? The gulf of mexico BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is the news story of today. Do you know why they call it Deepwater Horizon? The rig was designed to drill miles below the ocean floor, which itself is miles below the ocean surface. Why were they doing this? Because the shallower regions of the Gulf had already been exhausted, for the most part. Translation? Economics forced them to expend more effort to discover & extract more petroleum, than was previously required of them.
Hubert's, like all great thinkers, was not afraid to make his own prognosis. He believed that a graph of the rate of use of each fossil energy source would yield a bell-shaped curve known as Hubbert's Peak, or affectionately Hubbert's pimple. He made the prediction, in 1956, that by the early 1970's, oil production in the U.S. would peak - see Oil Shock of 1973 (it also explains why we have an 'idiotic' 55MPH speed limit) and the below graph.
US oil production did in fact peak around 1970. This graph (created in 2004), also seems to suggest that world production will peak around 2010 (maybe a bit later now, due to economic downturn). Notice that 'deepwater' sources will be one of the last to be produced (due to difficulty of exploration).
Jun 1, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 13
Limits: A Constrained View
Hardin introduces the idea of ghost acreage. The is the idea that the average urban dweller, though occupying and otherwise living out his life in a relatively confined space, actually draws upon the resources of a much larger plot of land. For example, New Yorkers draw upon wheat produce din Kansas, cattle started in Wyoming and fattened in Missouri, water from upper New York State, electricity from Canada, coffee from Colombia, cocoa from Ghana, etc.
Ghost acreage is one argument against the anecdotal claim made by proponents of limitless growth that, 'it's OK because we still have so much land left to settle'. While perhaps true, it may not really be 'so much' as we would like to believe.
Education Readiness
Science, like education, relies upon the concept of education readiness. In education, readiness conveys the idea that individual children mature at different rates (just as young animals do). Some individuals learn to speak, read, write, multiply faster than other children. They are not smarter, but they were simply 'more ready' (Einstein was a very awkward child). Forcing a child to learn concepts before he is ready is not particularly effective, and potentially dangerous.
Similarly, science is cumulative. With the knowledge of certain things, then progress can be made in certain other, potentially unrelated subjects. For the ancients to develop the model of the universe, what could have been expected but the flawed, Earth-centric one that was created?
Hardin introduces the idea of ghost acreage. The is the idea that the average urban dweller, though occupying and otherwise living out his life in a relatively confined space, actually draws upon the resources of a much larger plot of land. For example, New Yorkers draw upon wheat produce din Kansas, cattle started in Wyoming and fattened in Missouri, water from upper New York State, electricity from Canada, coffee from Colombia, cocoa from Ghana, etc.
Ghost acreage is one argument against the anecdotal claim made by proponents of limitless growth that, 'it's OK because we still have so much land left to settle'. While perhaps true, it may not really be 'so much' as we would like to believe.
Education Readiness
Science, like education, relies upon the concept of education readiness. In education, readiness conveys the idea that individual children mature at different rates (just as young animals do). Some individuals learn to speak, read, write, multiply faster than other children. They are not smarter, but they were simply 'more ready' (Einstein was a very awkward child). Forcing a child to learn concepts before he is ready is not particularly effective, and potentially dangerous.
Similarly, science is cumulative. With the knowledge of certain things, then progress can be made in certain other, potentially unrelated subjects. For the ancients to develop the model of the universe, what could have been expected but the flawed, Earth-centric one that was created?
May 26, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 12
Generating the Future
Hardin tells the story of an American journalist who once visited a refugee camp in Russia, on reports that half the people died of starvation.
Malthus had at least one supporter...
John Stuart Mill was one of the only economists of the 19th century to deviate from the camp of 'growthmanship'. He advocated for the idea of a stationary state...
Necessity (was) the mother of invention...
So said Aesop, the famous fabler, twenty five hundred years ago. Paradoxically, today invention has become the breeder of necessity. Welcome to the world of 3000 sq ft 'cribs', luxury SUVs, performance running shoes, 50 inch LED TV's (3D optional), etc. etc.
What goes up, must come down (but faster)...
The tragic truth is that the rise and fall of civilizations (and markets) is not a symmetrical affair. 'From barbarism to civilization requires a century; from civilization to barbarism needs but a day' (Will Durant).
Trendspotting vs fundamental analysis...
Proponents of the idea that the indefinite (implied, infinite) future will mirror the recent past is a form of 'synoptic' forecasting. This methodology is similar to 1) trying to predict the weather based upon historical weather patterns, or 2) trying to predict future stock prices by reading historical price charts.
The alternative is through fundamental analysis, in this case taking into account the laws of diminishing returns, finite resources, geometric growth, etc.
Hardin tells the story of an American journalist who once visited a refugee camp in Russia, on reports that half the people died of starvation.
Noticing some sacks of grain stacked on an adjacent field, he asked the patriarch of the refugee community why the people did not simply overpower the lone soldier guarding the grain and help themselves. The patriarch impatiently explained that the seed was being saved for next season's planting. 'We do not steal from the future,' he said.Unless perpetual growth is obtainable (unlikely in the opinion of Hardin), then we must try to settle the population at a stationary/stable state. Otherwise, if we continue to expand without limits, we will face a bleak future, which will likely involve a potential population collapse (has happened before).
Malthus had at least one supporter...
John Stuart Mill was one of the only economists of the 19th century to deviate from the camp of 'growthmanship'. He advocated for the idea of a stationary state...
If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be stationary, long before ncessity compels them to it. -Principles of Political Economy
Necessity (was) the mother of invention...
So said Aesop, the famous fabler, twenty five hundred years ago. Paradoxically, today invention has become the breeder of necessity. Welcome to the world of 3000 sq ft 'cribs', luxury SUVs, performance running shoes, 50 inch LED TV's (3D optional), etc. etc.
What goes up, must come down (but faster)...
The tragic truth is that the rise and fall of civilizations (and markets) is not a symmetrical affair. 'From barbarism to civilization requires a century; from civilization to barbarism needs but a day' (Will Durant).
Trendspotting vs fundamental analysis...
Proponents of the idea that the indefinite (implied, infinite) future will mirror the recent past is a form of 'synoptic' forecasting. This methodology is similar to 1) trying to predict the weather based upon historical weather patterns, or 2) trying to predict future stock prices by reading historical price charts.
The alternative is through fundamental analysis, in this case taking into account the laws of diminishing returns, finite resources, geometric growth, etc.
May 24, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 11
The Demostat
Negative feedback is essential to produce stability in a self-regulating system. Consider elements in nature, such as body temperature, blood sugar level, cell salt level, or even animal population levels.
The Malthusian Demostat is the theory of what regulates human populations. Hardin argues, like the Demostat, that 'true respect for life must include respect for the functions and necessity of death'
Demostat
Overpopulation -> Misery/Vice -> Less Fertility/More Death -> Equilibrium
Underpopulation -> Surplus -> More Fertility/Less Death -> Equilibrium
Individual thinking vs community thinking...
These two philosophies have conflicting values. In individual thinking, the value of one person is infinite, and cannot possibly be sacrificed. Any action which causes the suffering to accrue to just one person is unjustifiable. In community thinking, there are certain actions that, though unpleasant for individuals, can be a 'blessing' to the whole.
Community-oriented thinking was more pervasive during prior times, than today. Though we now have mega-cities, western society (the drivers of progress) are shifting individuals further and further away from communities. Today, the 'greatest honor is accorded to speakers who focus on individual interests to the exclusion of community interests.'
Negative feedback is essential to produce stability in a self-regulating system. Consider elements in nature, such as body temperature, blood sugar level, cell salt level, or even animal population levels.
The Malthusian Demostat is the theory of what regulates human populations. Hardin argues, like the Demostat, that 'true respect for life must include respect for the functions and necessity of death'
Demostat
Overpopulation -> Misery/Vice -> Less Fertility/More Death -> Equilibrium
Underpopulation -> Surplus -> More Fertility/Less Death -> Equilibrium
Individual thinking vs community thinking...
These two philosophies have conflicting values. In individual thinking, the value of one person is infinite, and cannot possibly be sacrificed. Any action which causes the suffering to accrue to just one person is unjustifiable. In community thinking, there are certain actions that, though unpleasant for individuals, can be a 'blessing' to the whole.
Community-oriented thinking was more pervasive during prior times, than today. Though we now have mega-cities, western society (the drivers of progress) are shifting individuals further and further away from communities. Today, the 'greatest honor is accorded to speakers who focus on individual interests to the exclusion of community interests.'
Living Within Limits - Chapter 10
What Malthus Missed
"Each new mouth brings with it a new pair of hands"...
So goes an old European saying, and so often goes the popular criticism of Malthus's predictions of imminent human misery. Since his works were published, Malthus has been shown to be wrong, fairly consistently. World population has sky-rocketed, yet at the same time, wealth per capita (adjusted for inflation) has also grown miraculously (living standards have improved on average in each successive generation).
This hard-to-ignore truth defies (Malthus's) conventional wisdom, and seems to imply that all 'hands' are immune ot the law of diminishing returns, which socio-economically states that 'normal persons seek to minimize the time and effort he expends on essential work' (default position of psychology).
Feeding of the five thousand... thousand, thousand, thousand...
The production factors necessary for human sustenance can be broken down into 6 elements:
However, thanks to technology, 'the diminishing returns caused by the policy of using the best lands first have been overshadowed by the increasing returns resulting from improvements in other production factors. Yet with each factor there finally comes a level of application at which diminishing returns dominate the results.' Lacking the discovery of other factors through which to leverage greater efficiency, we will eventually exasperate all means of further increasing the output of the resources we have.
Perhaps then we may return to more biblical roots, and turn to the Lord God to give to us our daily bread.
"Each new mouth brings with it a new pair of hands"...
So goes an old European saying, and so often goes the popular criticism of Malthus's predictions of imminent human misery. Since his works were published, Malthus has been shown to be wrong, fairly consistently. World population has sky-rocketed, yet at the same time, wealth per capita (adjusted for inflation) has also grown miraculously (living standards have improved on average in each successive generation).
This hard-to-ignore truth defies (Malthus's) conventional wisdom, and seems to imply that all 'hands' are immune ot the law of diminishing returns, which socio-economically states that 'normal persons seek to minimize the time and effort he expends on essential work' (default position of psychology).
Feeding of the five thousand... thousand, thousand, thousand...
The production factors necessary for human sustenance can be broken down into 6 elements:
- Inherent fertility of soil
- Genetic quality of the seeds
- Amount and quality of cultivation
- Amount of fertilizer
- Amount of pesticides
- Amount and timing of water inputs
However, thanks to technology, 'the diminishing returns caused by the policy of using the best lands first have been overshadowed by the increasing returns resulting from improvements in other production factors. Yet with each factor there finally comes a level of application at which diminishing returns dominate the results.' Lacking the discovery of other factors through which to leverage greater efficiency, we will eventually exasperate all means of further increasing the output of the resources we have.
Perhaps then we may return to more biblical roots, and turn to the Lord God to give to us our daily bread.
May 18, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 9
Exponential Growth of Populations
Hardin believes that population growth is ill-grasped by broader society, partly due to the failings of history. Malthus said that across the span of history, the secular trend of population growth has always been up. However, this has been masked by oscillations from period to period, concealing its true nature from cursory analysis by humans. Of no help has been professional historical analysis, which Malthus explains thus: 'the histories of mankind taht we possess are histories only of the higher classes.'
Similarly, French naturalist Jean Henri Fabre said: 'History celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the plowed fields whereby we thrive. It knows the name of the King's bastards, but cannot tell us the origin of wheat'.
Hardin believes that population growth is ill-grasped by broader society, partly due to the failings of history. Malthus said that across the span of history, the secular trend of population growth has always been up. However, this has been masked by oscillations from period to period, concealing its true nature from cursory analysis by humans. Of no help has been professional historical analysis, which Malthus explains thus: 'the histories of mankind taht we possess are histories only of the higher classes.'
Similarly, French naturalist Jean Henri Fabre said: 'History celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the plowed fields whereby we thrive. It knows the name of the King's bastards, but cannot tell us the origin of wheat'.
May 16, 2010
Living Within Limits - Chapter 8
Growth: Real and Spurious
"Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world"
-one of the Rothchilds (or Albert Einstein)
Money is Sterile...
To truly fathom the power of compound interest, Hardin offers a lustrous illustration:
Debt is not...
What does grow, is debt. Debt is an abomination that has the power to multiply itself - debt begets more debt. Today, we have a debt-based society. Our money is a form of IOU (debt). All purchases are financed by debt. Our banks happily lend to all willing to borrow. Our government's lifeblood comes from the willingness of others to lend to us.
The prosperity of our society was built upon the backbone of debt. More accurately, the wealth of our society was built upon the belief that debt could be converted into something of value (underlying collateral). However, the flaw, as Hardin points out eloquently, is that 'the convertibility of immaterial debt into material wealth should never be assumed.'
The following list of individuals were against usury (interest) - Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses, Philo, Buddha (from wikipedia, citation needed)
From the King James Bible:
How wealth is created... How resources are made useful to man...
There is one true source of 'wealth' on earth. Consider, 'there is a daily input of wealth from the outside in the form of radiant energy from the sun. Some of this energy is captured by the earth, so terrestrial wealth should steadily increase.'
Inflation, the ultimate tamer of usury...
If usury is to be portrayed in a negative light, then inflation is to be thought of as something virtuous. Hardin gives a general overview, including a historical example of hyperinflation in Rome. However, the key insight that he offers is this: '(we) have never experienced more than the opening stages of (inflation). Our limited experience inclunes us to make light of the danger of truly runaway inflation. The 'normal', slow advance of inflation is dwarfed by rare and explosive outbraks of hyperinflation.' (emphasis added).
Another side of Keynes...
Much has changed since the days of early Christianity. Today, we regard usury as normal, and could scarcely imagine a world without it.
Though most only appreciate one aspect of his genius nowadays, John Maynard Keynes stands out among economists in his view of interest. In his essay, 'Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren', he believes that some day we may...
"Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world"
-one of the Rothchilds (or Albert Einstein)
Money is Sterile...
To truly fathom the power of compound interest, Hardin offers a lustrous illustration:
In Chapter 27 of the book of Matthew we are told that when Judas regretted betraying Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he brought th emoney ot th echief priests saying, 'I have sinned,' and cast down the pieces of silver as he left the temple. At that poin thte booty became the priests' problem. They decided that since the coins were 'the price of blood' they should not be added to the holy treasury... instead, they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in...
But suppose some rambling Rothschild, or other capitalist, had persuaded the priests that they should 'make their money grow'... Had this happened, Matthew 27 might have been written along the following lines:
'Taking counsel with certain wise men called economists, the priests converted the thirty pieces of silver into gold (presumably the equivalent of 2 grams of gold), which they used to open up an account in the People's Perpetual Gold Bank of Jerusalem, saying "Let this wealth purify itself by quietly drawing interest at 5% per year for two thousand years. Then let both principal and interest be withdrawn from the bank and divided among all the people then living who regret the death of Jesus.'
At 5% compound interest the total sum would, in two thousand years, grow to 4.8E42 grams of gold, roughly 800 trillion earth mass equivalents (Mass of Earth is 5.9E27 grams)Both Aristotle and Martin Luther agree, that 'money is sterile'. This is proven simply, by imagining a gold bullion sitting inside a vault in a bank. Whether after ten years, or 100 years, or 2000 years, the gold will never increase, not one ounce. What would happen if gold could beget itself? Why, then everyone would make a deposit with the People's Perpetual Gold Bank of Jerusalem, in the hopes of getting their 'free lunch'.
Debt is not...
What does grow, is debt. Debt is an abomination that has the power to multiply itself - debt begets more debt. Today, we have a debt-based society. Our money is a form of IOU (debt). All purchases are financed by debt. Our banks happily lend to all willing to borrow. Our government's lifeblood comes from the willingness of others to lend to us.
The prosperity of our society was built upon the backbone of debt. More accurately, the wealth of our society was built upon the belief that debt could be converted into something of value (underlying collateral). However, the flaw, as Hardin points out eloquently, is that 'the convertibility of immaterial debt into material wealth should never be assumed.'
There are two sorts of wealth-getting: one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade. The former is necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censored; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. This term 'interest', which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural. -Aristotle
It is monstrous and unnatural that an unfruitful thing should breed, that a thing specifically sterile, such as money, should bear fruit and multiply of itself -OresmeUsury...
The following list of individuals were against usury (interest) - Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses, Philo, Buddha (from wikipedia, citation needed)
From the King James Bible:
[Exodus 22:25] If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
[Leviticus 25:36] Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
[Leviticus 25:37] Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
[Deuteronomy 23:19] Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
[Deuteronomy 23:20] Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. ("and who is my brother")Historically, there are many well-respected opponents of charging interest. Biblically speaking, usury is hardly portrayed as commendable... something clearly banned in order to preserve the well-being of one's own community, but accepted when applied to strangers, and those in other tribes. Certainly, not as bad as murder or adultery (universally condemned), but nevertheless, its the kind of (bad) behavior best saved for those not in one's own immediate family. (Muslims ban it outright)
- Take already existing, but diffusely distributed materials, and bring them together into higher, useful, concentrations (iron, copper, etc.)
- Energy released from accumulations (coal, oil, etc.)
- Reducing the amount of human effort required for a certain task (lever)
- Reducing amount of time spent to perform a task (wheel)
There is one true source of 'wealth' on earth. Consider, 'there is a daily input of wealth from the outside in the form of radiant energy from the sun. Some of this energy is captured by the earth, so terrestrial wealth should steadily increase.'
Inflation, the ultimate tamer of usury...
If usury is to be portrayed in a negative light, then inflation is to be thought of as something virtuous. Hardin gives a general overview, including a historical example of hyperinflation in Rome. However, the key insight that he offers is this: '(we) have never experienced more than the opening stages of (inflation). Our limited experience inclunes us to make light of the danger of truly runaway inflation. The 'normal', slow advance of inflation is dwarfed by rare and explosive outbraks of hyperinflation.' (emphasis added).
Another side of Keynes...
Much has changed since the days of early Christianity. Today, we regard usury as normal, and could scarcely imagine a world without it.
Though most only appreciate one aspect of his genius nowadays, John Maynard Keynes stands out among economists in his view of interest. In his essay, 'Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren', he believes that some day we may...
Approximately, half of the 'another hundred years' have passed. Keynes would likely be rolling in his grave, if he knew about his 'intellectual' descendants (forgive me Sir John, that's their names for themselves. I would never insult you in such a way)....return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue - that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour , and the love of money is detestable... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)