[americandream]

Thanks, ad. Note that even this astoundingly tepid critique of 'unchecked' capitalism (one wonders if some more benign forms of capitalism would be just fine for Romm or Klein ) brings out the howling rabid hordes.

Good luck moving on to more advanced and nuanced forms of critique of the current system.

The problems are quite simple actually. However, the system cultivates a certain aversion to contemplation being largely driven by the satisfaction of the subjective foundation of our biology. This is then often camouflaged by a cynicism which in fact does mask a widespread idiocy which we are advised to understand if we are to understand what confines the likes of KJ or sixstrings for example.

[americandream]

I have one kid. But I claim no status from that, at that time in my life I wanted more, just couldn't have any.

Decades later, I recognize that most basic biological urge as the root cause of all our troubles.

They say mother nature is cruel. Her way was to have small clans of humans preyed upon by lions, tigers, and bears.

It'll never fly, but one way to get out of the mess we were in would be to let predators multiply across the globe, eating people. Make it a capital crime to kill a predator, take us omnivores down a notch to our natural position which is one step down from the apex of the food chain.

Imagine that, humans would start evolving again.

Nature unfurled a unique tool in sentience as it grants us the capacity to expand on our consciousness beyond the genetically driven subjective world to the realms of pure logic. The capacity I might add as humans largely remain a work in progress.

[Paulo1]

You would prefer another system other than capitalism that simply puts a select few in charge that decide what every one else will do? A kind of benevolent Trump?, Stalin?, or Clinton? For the sake of.....?

Nah, I'll take my chances and relish the freedoms I have left and the ability to live under the radar.

I had two children. My daughter has one child and my son does not want children at this point. Everything we ate for supper came from our garden. We are doing our best and will hopefully swim instead of sink.

For the most part, civilization is well on the way to being destroyed, anyway. Right now I am re-reading Jim Corbetts series on India, and his of hunting man -eating tigers, some who killed more than 500 people. I am taking absolute delight in his writing style and vivid descriptions. He walked almost everywhere. The people lived as simple as people can and still survive. I compare this to what I see in town; twits on their damn phones....even using phones while walking! The traffic, bulging stores, kids saying, "effing this-effing that", "mothafu.... ", "bro", and I want to cry. You want to save this civilization? You want to save the elite university structure? The corrupt Governments, everywhere? The 7-11s? The 'smart phones'? The Military system? The NFL? The freeways? Tract homes?

What for?

Many many people are becoming soft, fat, stupid, and full of expectations. The world is supposed to unfold and provide a consumer filled living. The evenings will be filled with tv offerings and video gaming. Books are a thing of the past, as is actually studying and obtaining success through hard work and perseverence. If some people don't receive their goodies and magically become fulfilled they are angry, build bombs and set them off on busses. Or, they shoot up a public venue.

Maybe we'll be wiser next time?

I certainly will never advocate the misery of a collapsing civilization. However, is there anyone on this site who does not think it is time for a hard boot? (I use both meanings).

Paulo

[radon1]

Looks like the heading implies that checked capitalism should be OK.

[Ibon]

I am curious to hear any feedback on one point of my last post. Do any of you see the possibility that the immediate generations to follow who will go through some severe consequences of constraints might well implement, out of necessity, some strong regulations regarding consumption for the greater good. Preserving a "free market" perhaps but the "freedom" part held within some real strict boundaries justified by preserving the commons; air, soil, biodiversity, resources. Is this wishful thinking?

[hvacman]

One traditional solution to "the tragedy of the commons" are societal taboos. Taboos go beyond rational explanation or even codified law. Regardless of your individual potential gain for doing something, you don't because it has been instilled in you since birth it is "taboo". End of discussion.

I suspect, as the impact of CO2-driven global warming and other excesses of the manipulations of the world's resources become all too real, future generations will have "taboos" about burning the remaining coal, oil, and NG reserves, building large dams, etc.

[americandream]

I am curious to hear any feedback on one point of my last post. Do any of you see the possibility that the immediate generations to follow who will go through some severe consequences of constraints might well implement, out of necessity, some strong regulations regarding consumption for the greater good. Preserving a "free market" perhaps but the "freedom" part held within some real strict boundaries justified by preserving the commons; air, soil, biodiversity, resources. Is this wishful thinking?

Dialectic tendencies go hand in hand with any set of social relations.

[dohboi]

Good point, hvacman.

[americandream]

One traditional solution to "the tragedy of the commons" are societal taboos. Taboos go beyond rational explanation or even codified law. Regardless of your individual potential gain for doing something, you don't because it has been instilled in you since birth it is "taboo". End of discussion.

I suspect, as the impact of CO2-driven global warming and other excesses of the manipulations of the world's resources become all too real, future generations will have "taboos" about burning the remaining coal, oil, and NG reserves, building large dams, etc.

Taboos are capable of a rational explanation and merely reflect evolutionary tendencies, embodied in culture, but dictated by the material. Depending on ones extent of objective sentience, one will attribute these developments on a variety of gods, blood, sentiment or the obvious, the material (resources, the weather or climate etc, etc..... and of course act subjectively (think timmac) or objectively (a more logical direction which you can term taboo....these are just labels).

[Timo]

I am curious to hear any feedback on one point of my last post. Do any of you see the possibility that the immediate generations to follow who will go through some severe consequences of constraints might well implement, out of necessity, some strong regulations regarding consumption for the greater good. Preserving a "free market" perhaps but the "freedom" part held within some real strict boundaries justified by preserving the commons; air, soil, biodiversity, resources. Is this wishful thinking?

Yes, with some caveats. Millenials in the US are about as far removed from Boomers as you can get. They're the anti-boomers. They're what the Xers wanted to be, but were too lazy to actually go full throttle and fulfill. Millenials are far less likely to have a car, and are much more likley to live in urban centers where everything necessary for living is within walking distance. Millenials do with a smartphone what boomers do with a car. Millenials are much more likely to start an urban garden regardless of whether or not that's even legal to do in an urbanized area. They intrinsicly know what's right and what's wrong, and they don't care what official policies are that keep them from doing what they know to be right. They go ahead and do it, and thumb their noses at the boomers who run the government.

The caveat is that this description of millenials is unique to the US and Europe, maybe to Oz and Kiwiland, too. In the 3rd world, though, i have no idea. I imagine that overall living conditions are still a bit too hard to afford the lifestyle of a 1st world millenial. I could be wrong, though. Let's hope.

[americandream]

timo

The current generation are simply more optimised consumers from my observations. Conditions will need to arise where the antithesis to current social relations emerges and that will be driven by more coherence and of course, reflect the underlying crises with greater accuracy. Whether that occurs is uncertain but various reforms of current relations can be expected along the way, some quite original ones such as the new age, The Secret (lol) and of course, green growth.

[WildRose]

I am curious to hear any feedback on one point of my last post. Do any of you see the possibility that the immediate generations to follow who will go through some severe consequences of constraints might well implement, out of necessity, some strong regulations regarding consumption for the greater good. Preserving a "free market" perhaps but the "freedom" part held within some real strict boundaries justified by preserving the commons; air, soil, biodiversity, resources. Is this wishful thinking?

Yes, with some caveats. Millenials in the US are about as far removed from Boomers as you can get. They're the anti-boomers. They're what the Xers wanted to be, but were too lazy to actually go full throttle and fulfill. Millenials are far less likely to have a car, and are much more likley to live in urban centers where everything necessary for living is within walking distance. Millenials do with a smartphone what boomers do with a car. Millenials are much more likely to start an urban garden regardless of whether or not that's even legal to do in an urbanized area. They intrinsicly know what's right and what's wrong, and they don't care what official policies are that keep them from doing what they know to be right. They go ahead and do it, and thumb their noses at the boomers who run the government.

The caveat is that this description of millenials is unique to the US and Europe, maybe to Oz and Kiwiland, too. In the 3rd world, though, i have no idea. I imagine that overall living conditions are still a bit too hard to afford the lifestyle of a 1st world millenial. I could be wrong, though. Let's hope.

What's happening in Canada is that our population growth is mainly coming from immigration, with those families from countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc. settling in the cities, of course, following the jobs. From what I can see, there is more of a likelihood that consumerism will grow by leaps and bounds as our cities grow because there is the desire to have it all, being in this first world country. I think that if initiatives will come for constraints and more urban gardens, it will be from the kids whose parents and grandparents have been here a long time and are tiring of the consumerism. Otherwise, it's full speed ahead with the pipelines and the shop-til-you-drop.

[americandream]

wildrose

New, old, or otherwise consumerisms aside, anything distinct from capitalist lifestyles will be extremely difficult and prolonged in its gestation.

[Graeme]

Krugman, IMF: Fighting Global Warming Is ‘Cheap’ And ‘Might Actually Lead To Faster Growth’

Every major independent analysis of aggressive climate action has found it has very low cost, virtually no impact on growth, and several valuable co-benefits. And one more thing — it avoids climate impacts so catastrophic their costs are almost incalculable, a staggering $1240 trillion, by one analysis.

Two new studies further underscore these points, as Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explains in his latest New York Times column:

I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

We have known that climate action is super cheap for a long time. I first reviewed the literature back in my 2009 post, “Introduction to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost.” The key finding is that it has “a cost of one tenth of a penny on the dollar — not counting co-benefits.”

Just this April, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its big report on mitigation that again reviewed the literature. It found that the cost to achieve the low emission 2°C (3.6°F) pathway needed to preserve a livable climate is to reduce the median annual growth of consumption over this century by a mere 0.06%. And that’s “relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year.”

That means annual growth of, say 2.24% rather than 2.30% to save billions and billions of people from needless suffering for decades if not centuries. As always, the report was signed off on by every major government in the world line-by-line. And this does not include the full accounting of co-benefits.
As Krugman explains:

On the other side, it turns out that putting a price on carbon would have large “co-benefits” — positive effects over and above the reduction in climate risks — and that these benefits would come fairly quickly. The most important of these co-benefits, according to the I.M.F. paper, would involve public health: burning coal causes many respiratory ailments, which drive up medical costs and reduce productivity.

The IMF notes that because the co-benefits vary by country — “they are relatively high in China and Poland — where most of the CO2 reduction would come from less reliance on coal and there is high population” — different countries have different optimal CO2 prices:


And the International Energy Agency (IEA) explained this year that the optimal strategy to reduce carbon pollution is centered around the most abundant and cost-effective clean energy resource — energy efficiency. Such a strategy pays for itself, since “the $44 trillion additional investment needed to decarbonise the energy system in line with the [2°C scenario] by 2050 is more than offset by over $115 trillion in fuel savings -– resulting in net savings of $71 trillion.”

thinkprogress

[americandream]

Capitalisms toxic footprint extends far beyond emissions but will take a generation or two and near maximisation to emerge. The resulting crisis is what will trigger dialectic forces.......revolutionary or barbaric.

[Graeme]

By unchecked I assume that Klein is referring to corporations. In that sense I tend to agree but they could become more responsible by following sustainability principles or be forced to do so by legislation. There are different shades of "capitalism" some of which are already working outside the US. There may well be others if you google search for alternatives to corporations.

[Newfie]

I am curious to hear any feedback on one point of my last post. Do any of you see the possibility that the immediate generations to follow who will go through some severe consequences of constraints might well implement, out of necessity, some strong regulations regarding consumption for the greater good. Preserving a "free market" perhaps but the "freedom" part held within some real strict boundaries justified by preserving the commons; air, soil, biodiversity, resources. Is this wishful thinking?

Ibon, I've heard you argue along these lines before but I don't see it working as you hope. In fact I was discussing this with my Wife today.

What I think is more likely is that we will break down into some smaller administrative groups and continue to try to kill one another. The most successful groups are like to be mean and nasty survivalist. Tough critters.

I do t see the positive feedback mechanism where your desired traits are highly sought.

Sorry!

[americandream]

By unchecked I assume that Klein is referring to corporations. In that sense I tend to agree but they could become more responsible by following sustainability principles or be forced to do so by legislation. There are different shades of "capitalism" some of which are already working outside the US. There may well be others if you google search for alternatives to corporations.

Capital (as in capital....ism) has at its heart, accumulation, which requires infinite growth, even if we can cap some subsets of its overall social relations.

Subjective dialectics of which denial is one component, may persuasively argue otherwise. However, these forces (accumulation) act beyond the normative.

[ennui2]

Failed states provide a good idea where this winds up. Tribalism, organized crime, gang warfare, dictatorship, corruption. We'd be lucky if something as structured as feudalism develops. At least feudalism had some rules of conduct.

Ecovillages with mutually accepted voluntary limits on consumption/reproduction is unlikely.

[dohboi]

There were actually elements of limited democracy in some times and places in feudalism. Perhaps, though, we can come up with better forms of governance, perhaps forms not imagined yet?