h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Capitalism REQUIRES a state

It does. But the big contemporary Marxist qeustion is whether states have to be overthrown or whether they are witheing away anyway. I suspect that you'd get a different answer from a EuroScot and a Zimbabwean.

>>As another aside where does marketing come into this - the idea that I'll pay you stones with holes in to use my wooden club, so that other people will come and buy my club and I can charge more for it ?

That's not marketing. That's supply and demand. Competition for the one club makes it more valuable, compared to more common stones with holes in (or commodities represented thereby).

Why doesn't someone else make a club? They can! But their Labour requires that they spend some of their Surplus Value...ie that they have some spare time from (eg) grubing for roots. They make an economic decision about whether the cost-benefit tradeoff warrants renting or making a club.

(and we need pedro here to tell us about paleoeconomics)


Malthus:
Sure, some of the assumptions (eg on horsehit) were wrong...but the formula was right and is applicable elsewhere.

I don't think humanity has ever lived sustainably. Since fully modern humans evolved about 100k years ago, we've been exploiting more and more of the earth's resources at the expense of other creatures, and often the other creatures were the resources exploited.

Patterns of extinctions seem to bear this out. 100kya there were several genera of large mammals which went extinct in Africa, but none (above the 'background' level) in other continents. When people reached Australia, about 80% of large mammals (large = over 100lbs) went extinct. This was not at the beginning or end of an ice-age, so climate probably didn't play a role. When people reached the Americas, again about 80-90% of large mammals became extinct. The fact that small mammals didn't become extinct at anything like the same rates makes me think it was abviously humans who drove these whole ecosystems to extinction.

On islands, whenever people have arrived, there have been (very localised) mass extinctions. Hawaii lost something like 2,000 species of birds after being discovered. New Zealand lost all the moas, Madagascar lost most of its lemurs, the Elephant Bird, yadda yadda yadda.

Basically, if we weren't here, every plain would look like the Serengeti, and there would massive forests all over Europe and Asia. There would be ecosystems of large animals like elephants and rhinos, medium sized ones like horses, (wild) cattle etc, heaps of carnivores to eat them, as well as all the smaller animals.

Agriculture was Step 2, I think. By gaining a far higher percentage of the calories available from a given space than through hunting-gathering, it enabled far higher populations and population densities, and the food surpluses lead directly to every modern society. Ecological effects were squeezing out of more animals and huge amounts of deforestation in Europe, the Middle East,SE Asia, China, Papua New Guinea and the Sahel.

The trend is obvious when looked at in this way. We are using more of the capacity of the Earth at the expense of everything else. If current trends continue, there won't be a viable wild fishery anywhere on the planet by 2060. This is just a speeded-up version of what's already happened on land.

The Brundtland Report said "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Stone Age people would have seen this as meaning there would be enough animals to hunt. Given that wild animals play such a small part in our economy, it's hard to say that we 'need' them at all. We could slaughter what's left (in fact, we are) and it wouldn't have too much effect on global GDP.

Overall, whether our society is sustainable depends on what other ecosystems we demolish. If we make a big enough impact, it's not hard to see the creatures which produce oxygen being reduced in number. Climate change will look like **** all once atmospheric oxygen is down to 19%.

So, basically, I'd say that anything that allows us to breathe, and lets the geological processes which regulate the climate go on, we can do *much* more damage to the Earth and still be sustainable. Climate Change will be a bitch, but even the worst case scenarios don't seem to knock humanity back to the 1700s.

Ok, a more random post. Malthus and Ricardo both envisaged a Stationary State, where population would hit maximum levels and then fall back or remain steady, due to what we would call ecological limits. In this they were absolutely correct, going by all the experience the world had to offer. It wasn't their fault that they didn't see that the Industrial Revolution would change all that, and so dramatically too.

Modern society is built on access to energy provided by fossil fuels. Everything but everything derives from cheap, abundant energy. Of course, the effects of disrupting the carbon cycle are becoming obvious now, to the detriment of the planet. Does this mean our wealth comes from 'stealing' the Earth's wealth, or are we really creating wealth out of nothing?

Wealth is actually a function of capital rather than income, which makes me wonder: if we've lost so much 'natural' capital, in the form of extinctions, deforestation, climate change etc, how much wealth do we need to make up for it? If we measured capital instead of income (GDP), then would we feel so rich? If we are running down the Earth's capital to generate income, then we're actually getting poorer, not richer.

I can see some 22nd Century firm being paid by the World Govt to generate oxygen when there's not enough plankton left to do it. While this would no doubt raise GDP, it is clearly a sign of the destruction of natural capital (ie wealth), whose services were formerly free.

"Explain the difference, please, between profitting in a monetary and non-monetary sense? Money is simply a means of exchange for for food, time, fun, sex... whatever."

I made the distinction because the means of barter didn't involve actual money. As I explained, "money" (the basics thereof) would come into it eventually as the bartering becomes more complex, exactly what happened in the first place.

"This is a pretty standard but IMO wrong view that capitalism is inevitable and grows out of barter. There's a big difference between possession of goods and capitalist ownership of land, the means of production, intellectual property, etc.

Property rights are meaningless without a way of enforcing them. In your barter economy that you're imagining with stones with holes in them, I could 'sell' you a piece of land for lots of your pretty little stones, but what does that mean? Nothing unless I feel bound to honour an agreement not to use it myself in exchange for the stones. And why should anyone else feel bound by my having swapped stones with you? In contemporary capitalism, it's the state that does this.

Capitalism REQUIRES a state. Ultra free market economists like Robert Nozick say that the state should be nothing more than the minimum necessary to enforce property rights, because without that minimum there could be no capitalism. So why do you think that having no state would lead to capitalism?"

You're describing a *form* of capitalism; specifically the current one. Our "free market" economies are actually stuffed-full of protectionist policies such as Intellectual Property laws which are designed to regulate capitalism and make it "fair" (supposedly, a cursory glance at how these laws are enforced makes this questionable). Capitalism is the creation of wealth and, as I argued, you don't actually need a state or laws for that (in fact in my example you don't even need money although I think money would appear inevitably). You give the example of land and I agree that the buying and selling of land would need laws to regulate it but the buying and selling of land isn't necessary for people to make a profit.

As for no state leading to capitalism; well I've demonstrated as to how this might happen. I also imagine that, over time, if the things being bartered for become larger then it's likely that laws will be drawn up so that property can't be acquired simply by force. Of course, the commune might not want any land-property bought or sold but they'll need a way to enforce that so a state will, again, be necessary.

And there are capitalist theories that don't required a state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Actually, let's imagine what might happen if one of the main protectionist laws in our market-economy was repealed: the IP laws. Suddenly films, games, music, books are all available for sale in a completely free market without the state protecting the previous "entitlements" of the IP holders. Massive corporations would either collapse or be forced to evolve to match the market traders who would suddenly be hawking these goods at the cheapest price possible. For the consumer, this would bring cheap goods (and a possible drop in quality now that everything is being produced by very small businesses). Arguably, the producers should be put-off producing but it's entirely likely the musicians would (for example) record a song and then sell it for a large once-off price to a consortium of copiers (previously pirates). They'd make less money because they're no longer entitled to a percentage based on play/sale etc but they can still profit. Same goes for writers, game programmers etc etc. This would completely revolutionise the way the market works but it would not destroy capitalism; capitalism would be forced to evolve (perhaps for the better; I'd be interested in any arguments regarding this).

My point here is that the above example involves the removal of a key piece of statism involved in modern capitalist economics but removing the state (in this instance) doesn't cause capitalism to collapse, it would simply evolve. When the state in Somalia collapsed people continued to barter and make profit even though no state existed to regulate their dealings (in fact, I think anarcho-capitalists have pointed to Somalia as an example of their theories in action which tells you all you probably need to know about the sort of world anarcho-capitalists want )

"or whether they are witheing away anyway. I suspect that you'd get a different answer from a EuroScot and a Zimbabwean."

I presume you're alluding to the European Union. That can hardly be described as a state withering away; more a smaller state being slowly incorporated into a bigger confederation.

Also, didn't Marx himself admit that he had no idea how the dictatorship of the proletariat was going to "wither away"?

More apologies to the OP for going off-topic, but it looks as though it's too late to stop it now...

Zagreb,

"You're describing a *form* of capitalism; specifically the current one."

No I really wasn't. A barter economy isn't capitalism because there is no capital. What I was describing was any system where there is private ownership of capital rather than just possessions.

"Our "free market" economies are actually stuffed-full of protectionist policies such as Intellectual Property laws which are designed to regulate capitalism and make it "fair" (supposedly, a cursory glance at how these laws are enforced makes this questionable)."

Is IP law protectionist? I would say that IP law just defines and regulates a new form of property that didn't previously exist, just as carbon credits for example are an attempt to define a new form of property. I don't think it's anything to do with making things fair. AIUI patents exist to solve the 'tragedy of the commons' problem, and modern IP law is just an extension of that.

"Capitalism is the creation of wealth"

Whoah! No way. If that's so then every society is capitalist, surely?

"You give the example of land and I agree that the buying and selling of land would need laws to regulate it but the buying and selling of land isn't necessary for people to make a profit."

You need it to have anything like modern capitalism (and by modern I mean something like from the industrial revolution onwards). Think about ownership of a factory for example. But there are other forms of ownership essential to capitalism that require a state to have meaning: ownership of a company through stocks and shares for example.

"As for no state leading to capitalism; well I've demonstrated as to how this might happen"

No you've said that a barter economy would spring up, but that's not capitalism and you haven't said how you'd get from there to capitalism.

"I also imagine that, over time, if the things being bartered for become larger then it's likely that laws will be drawn up so that property can't be acquired simply by force."

How would laws be drawn up without a state? What you're claiming is that a stateless society would inevitably have to create a state, and that this state would inevitably create capitalist laws.

I think you're imagining that a stateless society would have to be a disorganised society. But that doesn't have to be the case, because there are non-state organisations that can be effective in achieving things even without any coercive authority. It's true that the human race isn't terribly good at cooperating effectively without coercion yet, but it's an open question as to whether this is our nature and is unavoidable, or if it's just something that we haven't had enough practice at yet.

"Of course, the commune might not want any land-property bought or sold but they'll need a way to enforce that so a state will, again, be necessary."

Again, what would it mean to sell land if you didn't have a way to enforce ownership? A society without enforcement of property rights in land doesn't have to enforce land not being sold. It's exactly the other way round, in order to be able to sell and buy land, you need to have a way of enforcing that.

"And there are capitalist theories that don't required a state"

Anarcho-capitalism is a bad joke.

"Actually, let's imagine what might happen if one of the main protectionist laws in our market-economy was repealed: the IP laws.... My point here is that the above example involves the removal of a key piece of statism involved in modern capitalist economics but removing the state (in this instance) doesn't cause capitalism to collapse, it would simply evolve."

Of course not, capitalism pre-dates intellectual property. But capitalism doesn't pre-date the state, land ownership, capital in general.

"For the consumer, this would bring cheap goods (and a possible drop in quality now that everything is being produced by very small businesses)."

Or for the same reason, arguably an increase in quality...

"Arguably, the producers should be put-off producing but it's entirely likely the musicians would (for example) record a song and then sell it for a large once-off price to a consortium of copiers (previously pirates). They'd make less money because they're no longer entitled to a percentage based on play/sale etc but they can still profit."

How would this consortium of copiers form? What would be the penalty for someone not to be a member of the consortium, but still make copies (thus undercutting the consortium)?

But actually I like this hypothetical situation. It's interesting because it is actually happening, and various options are being tried out even now, and because it's a test case for anarchist ideas about cooperation without coercion (but not a conclusive one).

I imagine a nicer solution to the free rider problem for music would be something like this: you'd see the creation of a new, voluntary civil institution to which you could subscribe for an annual fee. The institution would provide income for established musicians, and speculative grants for new talents. Music produced by the institution would be free for all (there's no avoiding that in the digital age), but membership of the institution would entitle you to some other set of related benefits. Exactly what those benefits would be would need to be investigated. Perhaps attending a concert by a group that is funded by the institution would require membership? Or there's other things that you can imagine. Maybe being a member of the institution would allow you to vote on how the institutions spending was allocated, to which types of music, etc. I don't know, I'm just speculating.

"This would completely revolutionise the way the market works but it would not destroy capitalism; capitalism would be forced to evolve (perhaps for the better; I'd be interested in any arguments regarding this)."

Well I'd say that something like what I described above would make this an enclave of non-capitalism inside a capitalist society, more in line with anarchist and socialist ideals. It can't be entirely anarchist or socialist because it's functioning within a capitalist system, and people have got to eat, and to eat they have to have money, etc. So you can't draw any definitive conclusions from the fate of the music industry about anarchism or socialism, but it might be suggestive.

And yeah, I think this could be for the better. Think about something like TV. At the moment, TV is almost entirely funded by advertising. This means that TV shows are being sold by the creators to the advertisers essentially. It's fairly complicated, but I think this contributes to the homogeneity of TV, and that if it were arranged so that the consumers of TV were directly paying for it, it would better reflect their interests. It would reflect them directly, rather than indirectly through their spending on unrelated products.

OK I've yakked on for long enough.

Oh, topic drift is only to be expected . I've been following what's been said carefully, but I haven't said much myself because I really can't claim to know a lot about it. So I've been watching and learning, essentially.

And it's still roughly on-topic. I guess an extra question would be: 'What can we do to our current economic system to make it sustainable?'. Or even 'what can we do to improve our current economic system?'. And we've had plenty of interesting ideas/suggestions/answers to that.

laconian,

"What can we do to our current economic system to make it sustainable?"

Well, as I said I'm not sure it's possible within capitalism. We might conceivably gain enough political momentum to move to a less damaging form of energy production, like nuclear, and certainly it's worth campaigning for these things even if, like me, you have your doubts about whether it's achievable.

And although I was very critical of the possibility of achieving something through treaties like the Kyoto protocol, for sure it must be worth at least trying. It seems to me that the key to getting something like that working would be to design it in such a way that it gets round the prisoner's dilemma type problem. I'd guess something like a treaty that only comes into effect once a sufficient number of states have signed up (this is true of Kyoto), and that has some sort of economic sanctions clause that comes into effect once that number of states has signed up (and I think this is where Kyoto is a bit weak). But even with that, you've got to generate the political momentum to get states to sign up to it, which is very hard and needs to be done soon.

International political entities like the EU could help with this, but it seems not to be terribly popular at the moment (and quite possibly for good reason, it's very undemocratic).

But long term sustainability - I very much doubt it's possible within capitalism.

"what can we do to improve our current economic system?"

Move to socialism, then anarchism!

>>I don't think humanity has ever lived sustainably

Oh, Bravo! A mush-needed antidote to hippy Golden Ageism.

But..take it further, please. No other animal has lived sustainably, either. Look at fluctuations in lemming populations. Humans are simply another animal.

Hell...I just have to think of making sourdough culture. The yeast bubbles up for a few days, then lies dormant. If I didn't either keep it in the fridge or feed it more flour every other day, it would die.

pedro:
>>I can see some 22nd Century firm being paid by the World Govt to generate oxygen when there's not enough plankton left to do it. While this would no doubt raise GDP, it is clearly a sign of the destruction of natural capital (ie wealth), whose services were formerly free.



Dude...you have *got* to read the Red/Blue/Green Mars books over summer. They're as addictive as O'Brian and cover exactly this territory.

Have we all been told about emr's new venture? There's a woman we're all going to be hearing from in a few years time. Some of you guys really ought to be writing for her!

http://www.pushback.org

>>No other animal has lived sustainably, either. Look at fluctuations in lemming populations. Humans are simply another animal.<<

That's an interesting thought, and there's a lot of truth in it, I feel. Humanity is just the only species clever enough to think about what its doing as a species and perhaps manage itself and its environment better.

I find talk of living 'in harmony with nature' confusing. I still don't really know what people mean by it. We are *part* of nature, we evolved like anything else. I suppose the most common meaning of the term roughly corresponds to 'sustainably' - but in that case we would be the first species to do it!

Ooh, will keep an eye on that blog. Thanks Ed .

>>We are *part* of nature, we evolved like anything else.

Further...all our 'unnatural' technologies are as much a part of nature as...ooh...mollusc shells, wasp's nests, beaver dams, termite-collecting sticks...

Re animals and sustainability:

If sustainability means living in a relatively constant ecosystem with other species, then, yes, most animals do live sustainably. This does change over time, obviously, as the climate alters either locally or globally. Introduced species are notorious for upsetting the 'natural' balance of things.

People are different though. There's a book called 'The Day Before Yesterday' by Colin Tudge http://www.alibris.co.uk/search/books/qwork/1502160/used/The%20day%20before%20yesterday?cid=LG4DQj3tPIVxUcF9hDKdaA==
(run don't walk; it's on a par with 'Guns, Germs and Steel').

It's basically an ecological history of human evolution. Tudge talks of 'ecomorphs', ie the fact that all grasslands have (had) the same *types* of animals in them - large browsers (elephants, rhinos), big grazers like cattle, antelopes etc, then various others, along with a suite of carnivores* and smaller animals. The basic body plans and ecological roles are roughly the same wherever the grassland is, eg sabre-toothed 'tigers' evoved independently among cats about 6 times, plus once in marsupials. It's an 'ambush' carnivorous ecomorph.


Humans, on the other hand, are a totally new ecomorph, and not just because we are physically different to what's come before. If animals were grouped by their ecomorph instead of their DNA, we would be worthy of a new *kingdom*, not a new genus or class. Few of the things we do are unique, but the fact that we eat elephants, deer, gazelle, fish, tubers, fruit, oysters, nuts, leaves, domesticate other plants and animals is utterly unique. We can slaughter every mammoth and not die out, because we also eat fish, turnips and berries. Storing meat lets us

This ability means that we've decimated ecosystem after ecosystem around the world. The big animals get killed first, then habitat destruction puts pressure on all the rest. Climate change will destroy or alter even the habitats we've left alone so far.

There's natural and natural. One thing about capitalism is that living standards have increased to fantastically wonderful levels. Average life expectancy is about 70 now, as opposed to 25-30 for the last 100,000 years, incomes are through the roof, and so on and so on. Hopefully, sometime we'll figure enough is enough, and just *stop*. This will require either abandoning the current form of capitalism, which is inherently expansionary, or modifying it severely.

Maybe by the time we stop there will be some other animals left, except for livestock and pests.

And, fxxk me! Ed recommended SF. I think I'll go for a lie down.

I have King Bomba to thank.

>>Maybe by the time we stop there will be some other animals left, except for livestock and pests.

And pets.

What, prey, is the difference between keeping a cat in a home and a lion on several square miles of veldt?

And if we need other livetock (sheep, cows, chickens, rabbits) to feed our pet cats...don't we also seed livestock (zebra, gazelle, wildebeest) to feed our lions?

Again...all covered by Kim Stanley Robinson.

You'll need to print out a decent Mars map, mind.

>>What, prey

Freudian slip. PrAy!