The last blog ended with asking "what should we value?" How about a very flowery answer, value life. Life long into the future. This involves creating a sustainable system that does not revolve around endless growth. It involves ending the power struggle that exists in almost all aspects of our lives. This view does create too many happy images of people running around and enjoying free love. That would be ridiculous. Maybe we should just follow Jesus, Buddha, or Lao Tzu.
This is not trying to be religious, but most people need something to base their principles on. In addition, the knowledge these three passed on his a good base to learn from instead of developing through years of struggle. You need to start somewhere.
Picture the world. Can it possibility be taken in with one vision? Fly around and try to imagine every corner of the world, every person. The dimension is mind boggling. I consider this the greatest difficulty in changing people's world view. People in general (me included) are incapable of zooming out only so far before it makes no sense. There is a reason that world leaders have numerous advisers working under them, and numerous below them. They simplify and organize the data as needed. Yet, the leaders make decisions in their own little box. They have no power beyond what the people want and the people just want their lives. Change the definition of what that life is and you can change the world.
Wake up in the morning and say "I exist in a world of unfathomable suffering, what next?"
"I live within a species destined to kill itself, what next?"
Note: I will try this and see what happens. I just thought of it. The book I have been reading about "adaptive management in natural resources" has been a bust and my mind is shot.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Value-New shift
Inspired by reading some works by Herman Daly, Robert Pirsig, and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, among others, I have been inspired to try and organize the thoughts that have been circulating in my head. I would say "codify", but that is a little too ambitious. My goal is to develop, think about, what the next vision/plan for the world should look like. I approach it partly from an economic standpoint, but not exclusively, nor extensively.
Why start with value? "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" was about value. Value is also an important concept in economics. Because if these factors, that idea is demanding to be addressed, though it is debatable if it is the most important factor. Because the capitalist countries control the direction of the world, it is necessary to look at what drives them and what should drive them in the future. What is valued in this system? Stuff is valued. (I should apologize here for refusing to define terms in an encyclopedic manner. This is not an academic paper and the fluidity of the terms is best preserved by not defining them.) If GDP goes up (aka more stuff), then everyone is happy. This works in a world where there is an essentially limitless amount of stuff, space, and places to put trash. In the current world, we are no longer living with those conditions. This is the key point identified by Daly and Georgescu-Roegen.
In this "full" world, it is clear that we can't grow (economic growth) forever. Not when "growth" means "more stuff". Where is the quality of what is growing? It may be indirectly reflected in the price, but that is a poor measure. Yet, this is an immensely simple value system. Money is good, get money, that is where the value in life is. Is this the secret of the capitalist system? It can utterly ravage cultures because it allows you to turn off as many value systems as possible and just focus on money, and consequently wealth. There is more value placed on the outcome, money, than the process, what you do to get it. Of course, there are socially accepted (lawful) ways of acquiring money, but when the source of the money is unknown, the money's value itself outweighs other considerations.
Before this becomes a rant on wealth, I will get back on track. The value question will not be resolved today. There are too many factors involved. One of things that plagues the formulation of a new system is looking at what is valued when people are just trying to get clean water and something to eat. In the economic North, it is easy to rail against consumerism. What do you say to people living in a dirt shack who send their daughter to the city in order to assemble electronic goods? I don't want to live in dirt shack. There are things I could live without, and yet succumb to temptation and purchase. I don't know yet, but I'll look for it.
Final thoughts: What does the world system value? What do individuals value? What should be valued?
Why start with value? "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" was about value. Value is also an important concept in economics. Because if these factors, that idea is demanding to be addressed, though it is debatable if it is the most important factor. Because the capitalist countries control the direction of the world, it is necessary to look at what drives them and what should drive them in the future. What is valued in this system? Stuff is valued. (I should apologize here for refusing to define terms in an encyclopedic manner. This is not an academic paper and the fluidity of the terms is best preserved by not defining them.) If GDP goes up (aka more stuff), then everyone is happy. This works in a world where there is an essentially limitless amount of stuff, space, and places to put trash. In the current world, we are no longer living with those conditions. This is the key point identified by Daly and Georgescu-Roegen.
In this "full" world, it is clear that we can't grow (economic growth) forever. Not when "growth" means "more stuff". Where is the quality of what is growing? It may be indirectly reflected in the price, but that is a poor measure. Yet, this is an immensely simple value system. Money is good, get money, that is where the value in life is. Is this the secret of the capitalist system? It can utterly ravage cultures because it allows you to turn off as many value systems as possible and just focus on money, and consequently wealth. There is more value placed on the outcome, money, than the process, what you do to get it. Of course, there are socially accepted (lawful) ways of acquiring money, but when the source of the money is unknown, the money's value itself outweighs other considerations.
Before this becomes a rant on wealth, I will get back on track. The value question will not be resolved today. There are too many factors involved. One of things that plagues the formulation of a new system is looking at what is valued when people are just trying to get clean water and something to eat. In the economic North, it is easy to rail against consumerism. What do you say to people living in a dirt shack who send their daughter to the city in order to assemble electronic goods? I don't want to live in dirt shack. There are things I could live without, and yet succumb to temptation and purchase. I don't know yet, but I'll look for it.
Final thoughts: What does the world system value? What do individuals value? What should be valued?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Limits to Growth--unorginal title
Am reading Herman Daly right now. His approach to economics is pretty good.
The key is that we are moving from an empty world, where resources seemed limitless and man's actions/pollution could be absorbed by ecosystem services. Now, we live in a full world. We are pushing the limits to which the ecosystem can survive. No matter how many substitutes we find to the resources that are becoming more and more scarce, we can't find them forever. Even if we can, those that we lose will be gone forever. We cannot rebuild a wetlands environment when basic species have become extinct. We need to build a sustainable economy.
This involves recognizing the need to cut back on consumption and maximize the services provided by resources while not depleted them at an irresponsible rate. The growth economy cannot continue forever. The growth economy relies on treating depleted natural resources as income when they should be treated as a loss of capital. The exact transformation is too complex to comprehend in total. But, that should not prevent us from abandoning our current system.
This was a horrible glossing over of the beauty of the theory. I just had to get this down so I could further explore it later.
The key is that we are moving from an empty world, where resources seemed limitless and man's actions/pollution could be absorbed by ecosystem services. Now, we live in a full world. We are pushing the limits to which the ecosystem can survive. No matter how many substitutes we find to the resources that are becoming more and more scarce, we can't find them forever. Even if we can, those that we lose will be gone forever. We cannot rebuild a wetlands environment when basic species have become extinct. We need to build a sustainable economy.
This involves recognizing the need to cut back on consumption and maximize the services provided by resources while not depleted them at an irresponsible rate. The growth economy cannot continue forever. The growth economy relies on treating depleted natural resources as income when they should be treated as a loss of capital. The exact transformation is too complex to comprehend in total. But, that should not prevent us from abandoning our current system.
This was a horrible glossing over of the beauty of the theory. I just had to get this down so I could further explore it later.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Environmental politics
The conclusion is that, for the most part, politicians prefer that the choice is out of their hands. Hand the tough decisions to economists crunching numbers, or corporations that can tell you what is the right level of environmental protection. It has become a farce.
That is the nature of man. To live for oneself at the expense of others. This is not those that are close to you, but the billions that you will have no connection to in the course of your life. If a problem can be handed off, then hand it of and continue living the way you want to. Confrontation without absolute superiority over the opponent, or mastery of the issue, is the greatest fear of most people. It is also a problem that has plagued me.
This is not that I am afraid of it. I just want to understand every aspect of every system, yet that is well beyond my reach. But broad swathes of knowledge do little to actually solve problems. It is necessary to specialize. Politicians specialize in making people believe they will do things, though are rarely called out on it.
The new status quo is a path to oblivion.
That is the nature of man. To live for oneself at the expense of others. This is not those that are close to you, but the billions that you will have no connection to in the course of your life. If a problem can be handed off, then hand it of and continue living the way you want to. Confrontation without absolute superiority over the opponent, or mastery of the issue, is the greatest fear of most people. It is also a problem that has plagued me.
This is not that I am afraid of it. I just want to understand every aspect of every system, yet that is well beyond my reach. But broad swathes of knowledge do little to actually solve problems. It is necessary to specialize. Politicians specialize in making people believe they will do things, though are rarely called out on it.
The new status quo is a path to oblivion.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Valuation
My exploration of environmental economics is off to a good start. Today I want to discuss putting a price on things that are priceless.
Yes, I am an economist in my heart. I believe things can be broken down into what efficiencies they provide. This process can easily be misguided. The basis of any model is its assumptions about how things should be, or are. There are things that should be protected beyond the ability to price them into non-existence. I'll use an example that I am taking from someone else.
Say someone asks how much each individual person is willing to pay to protect an aspect of the natural environment, say an endangered species. The price will vary depending on economic status and how much the person simply values the thing in question. Average it out, get a rough total, and then conclude that if more profit can be made than people are willing to protect, that, let's say, endangered species should be sold, and, in theory, the money distributed to the people. It is more efficient to profit from this species than it is to drag our feet protecting. This makes sense. Economic growth is the most important statistic in this world. It lifts people out of poverty and makes nations stronger.
If you ask people how much they would demand for the extinction of an endangered species, the numbers would be astronomically higher, sometimes people would not accept any amount of money. If we want to exploit a resource, we ignore this fact, because people always demand too much. But, they have a right to not lay down for people exploiting public resources.
Most people don't have too terribly much to spare to save the world's endangered resources. But, they value those resources and don't want them sold to a soul-less corporation. Because corporations control the political system, have the money to be involved in the process, they get away with this all the time.
Once something is developed, it can never go back to its natural state. But, if you delay development, then it can become something if it truly is worth it to develop said area. Economists that betray the public trust do not place value on the future. Only the present has value.
Yet, when you/I say something has value and should be protected regardless of the fact that somebody can make a dollar seems to be a case of imposing values on people. There is always the trap of dystopia, premised on good intent. This is not SF. The means aren't there to engineer society. There is only the goal to make people sit back and think about shared resources and humanity.
I need to form an action plan.
Yes, I am an economist in my heart. I believe things can be broken down into what efficiencies they provide. This process can easily be misguided. The basis of any model is its assumptions about how things should be, or are. There are things that should be protected beyond the ability to price them into non-existence. I'll use an example that I am taking from someone else.
Say someone asks how much each individual person is willing to pay to protect an aspect of the natural environment, say an endangered species. The price will vary depending on economic status and how much the person simply values the thing in question. Average it out, get a rough total, and then conclude that if more profit can be made than people are willing to protect, that, let's say, endangered species should be sold, and, in theory, the money distributed to the people. It is more efficient to profit from this species than it is to drag our feet protecting. This makes sense. Economic growth is the most important statistic in this world. It lifts people out of poverty and makes nations stronger.
If you ask people how much they would demand for the extinction of an endangered species, the numbers would be astronomically higher, sometimes people would not accept any amount of money. If we want to exploit a resource, we ignore this fact, because people always demand too much. But, they have a right to not lay down for people exploiting public resources.
Most people don't have too terribly much to spare to save the world's endangered resources. But, they value those resources and don't want them sold to a soul-less corporation. Because corporations control the political system, have the money to be involved in the process, they get away with this all the time.
Once something is developed, it can never go back to its natural state. But, if you delay development, then it can become something if it truly is worth it to develop said area. Economists that betray the public trust do not place value on the future. Only the present has value.
Yet, when you/I say something has value and should be protected regardless of the fact that somebody can make a dollar seems to be a case of imposing values on people. There is always the trap of dystopia, premised on good intent. This is not SF. The means aren't there to engineer society. There is only the goal to make people sit back and think about shared resources and humanity.
I need to form an action plan.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Switch successful, more posts
I finally switched to Firefox and am not experiencing the crashing that Netscape was giving me. This should allow me to start posting more frequently. Sorry about the inconsistency.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Steady-state gowth
I finally came across an economist with the same idea that I wanted to develop, though about 6 years too late. The original book is called Steady-state Growth by Herman Daly. It asks the question of whether or not endless growth is the most prudent of plans. I can't wait to get it.
I've actually newly discovered a lot of the economists that have dealt with ecological economics, and those who oppose it. There should be a lot of good reads in the coming months.
I've actually newly discovered a lot of the economists that have dealt with ecological economics, and those who oppose it. There should be a lot of good reads in the coming months.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
First of a new wave
Netscape hates blogger. It again shutdown when I went to the login page and I gave up for a long time. I will now use old ass internet explorer while I debate just getting firefox.
In response to sarath's comment: There is an outlet in America for marginalized kids to find another group to associate with. The mass attacks/killings are still rare/a product of America's gun happy culture. In Japan, it is extremely difficult to immerse oneself in these cultures. Almost all parts of society are pushing you to conform. Without the backing of parents or teachers, you are in trouble. That leads to suicides. It is cultural.
I will try to expand into environmental areas and philosophies. The world needs change. Very few people are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Everything is down in the context of what others are doing. This needs to stop. Anybody who measures themselves against others lacks the self esteem, or something, that is necessary in this world. That is poorly described because I have no word for it. The poor that live on the fringes and in places the 1st world doesn't go, don't have the a value system beyond surviving. That is not wrong. Everybody just wants to live and eat. I take a look at the developed world/people. Education is a blessing. It should also be a curse, not just a way to get money and live a lavish lifestyle. Educated people should be fully aware of the world they live in.
From here, where should I go? Well, basically, I will just talk until I am heard. (action will follow if I have the courage to do what I plan)
In response to sarath's comment: There is an outlet in America for marginalized kids to find another group to associate with. The mass attacks/killings are still rare/a product of America's gun happy culture. In Japan, it is extremely difficult to immerse oneself in these cultures. Almost all parts of society are pushing you to conform. Without the backing of parents or teachers, you are in trouble. That leads to suicides. It is cultural.
I will try to expand into environmental areas and philosophies. The world needs change. Very few people are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Everything is down in the context of what others are doing. This needs to stop. Anybody who measures themselves against others lacks the self esteem, or something, that is necessary in this world. That is poorly described because I have no word for it. The poor that live on the fringes and in places the 1st world doesn't go, don't have the a value system beyond surviving. That is not wrong. Everybody just wants to live and eat. I take a look at the developed world/people. Education is a blessing. It should also be a curse, not just a way to get money and live a lavish lifestyle. Educated people should be fully aware of the world they live in.
From here, where should I go? Well, basically, I will just talk until I am heard. (action will follow if I have the courage to do what I plan)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)