Thanks Andrew,
OK, you have convinced me. I WAS being arrogant, obnoxious and egotistical.
(so much for Rorty's hypothesis, these types of discussions can be effective
at changing our views). You also pointed out at least two statements that I
agree I should not have written this month. Thanks! I will highlight both.
The first was:
“The problem with free enterprise isn't with free enterprise, it is that
markets aren't actually free enough.”
I think you saw enough of my position through the exchange to realize that I
think Lassaize Faire (sp?) capitalism is a bad thing. Let me rewrite it as
"distortions and poorly chosen limits on free enterprise actually cause much
of the problems that are attributed to free enterprise. On the other hand, a
lot of problems are caused by expecting free markets to solve problems that
it is incapable of solving, or that it can actually make worse. (examples of
both were provided throughout the month)
Andy:
I don’t
think it is a mischaracterization to say that you have been a consistent
defender of 'free markets' as practiced and endorsed by America.
Granted, you have been critical of some aspects of these practices and
have pointed to some deficiencies, but you are quick to point out that
nobody has (yet) developed a better system.
Rog:
By your lack of a counter, can I assume you agree that there isn't a better
option out there yet (to modified, modern versions of free enterprise as
practiced in most nations with a high standard of living...Canada, GB, US, S
Korea, Australia etc)
Andy:
I merely argued that it was
the negative low quality traits of American style free markets and
capitalism, that led to these positive high quality art forms (jazz and
Blues) and inferred that the exploitation and injustices of American
influence (endorsements of free trade and infliction of military might)
on the rest of the world were responsible for the dynamic quality of
American culture – not the intrinsic dynamic quality of ‘free markets’
as proposed by you.
Rog
Why would endorsing free trade be exploitation? What makes you believe that
military might is responsible for the dynamic quality of American culture?
Do you believe exploitation leads to quality? I would argue the opposite --
that exploitation is self defeating over time and that the extent of
America's specific use of inappropriate force has led the nation backward,
not forward.
Andy:
Lets get to the source of the arrogance. These are a few examples out
of many of the truly obnoxious and embarrassing attitudes I was
referring to.
Rog:
I still suspect that what makes them MOST objectionable is that they run
counter to your views. You seem much more tolerant of arrogance and
obnoxiousness when used by those that agree with you. That's not important
though...
Andy:
We can just address the sustainability question. I am
stunned by your assertion and I don’t know where to begin. I might
start by asking for your source for “5000 year supply of oil...based
upon known currently extractable reserves.” I am sorry, Roger, but this
is completely fraudulent. Even with your qualifier “including shale,”
which is beyond current technologies to be a feasible source of
‘energy,’ this is nothing short of a lie. Most estimates for the supply
of oil range from 50 to 200 years and for coal from 500 to 1000 years.
These estimates are for both known and, as yet, UNDISCOVERED reserves.
These estimates are also based on existing rates of use, and NOT
estimated for the contiued growth rates of energy use and economies
(which go hand in hand btw, according to all available statistics).
Rog:
Where we disagree is probably rooted in the area of economics. I accept your
numbers on coal and petroleum, and will even consede that as a worst case
scenario, it is possible that the trend of finding reserves at a faster rate
than we use it could suddenly reverse itself on all three resources at the
same time. Doubtful, but not impossible. However, when we add in the
energy potential of uranium, geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, shale
and tar sands we find that there is no shortage of energy sources. The issue
isn't that the energy is unavailable or that it will run out for future
generations, it is that the specific forms of cheap, nonrenewable sources
currently in use will someday run out. As long as gas, oil and coal are
widely available and cheap, the economics are such that these are the sources
that people will use.
However, as current supplies eventually dwindle and future discoveries
become fewer and farther between, the result will eventually be lower
supplies of these energy sources, and a corresponding increase in their
costs. This makes alternative sources relatively cheaper, and it incents the
investments into energy efficiency and R&D into new technologies (either of
finding or extracting more of the non-renewables, or of designing more
efficient alternatives.)
Unless my knowledge of economics is way off, I can safely predict that if you
are correct and the supply of these non-renewables becomes inadequate some
day in the future (a reasonable assumption), then the response will be a
steady increase in the price of oil, gas and coal along with:
1) Conversion to any alternative sources that become more economical in light
of the higher costs
2) A stronger incentive to find new supplies of energy
3) Better economics to find various sources of energy that were once
unaffordable
4) Better economics to research into extraction, processing or conversion of
the various types of energy
5) and/or a reduction in demand for energy
So, will energy run out? Of course not. Not as long as the sun keeps
shining.
Will the particular types and costs of energy differ over time? Of course.
Luckily, the higher the price, the greater the incentive for society to find
alternative means, especially of clean, renewable energy sources.
So, what was my initial suggestion concerning energy?
"the
solution isn't less growth, it is to invest into different, more
environmentally-sustainable types of energy." (which I will add can include
investments in conservation)
Do you disagree? If so, please be specific and provide your recommendations.
Andy:
If
we include the growth rates of the wealthy economies, we get an even
more dismal outlook. If we try and bring the rest of the world to par
with our rate of consumption we are in even shorter supply of the
plentiful resources you insist are available. If we begin to address
the dilemmas associated with 'negative externalities' from growing
economies of the wealthy nations the unsustainability of our economies
becomes even more obvious.
Rog:
Are you suggesting that we suppress growth in other nations? What exactly are
you suggesting?
Andy:
How do you answer the known statistics for
sources for pollution and consumption of fossil fuels that are the main
byproduct for the World's largest economy? What are the known
substitutes for the limited supply of finite resources such as oil.
Rog:
I am advocating (pro-growth) investments into, and conversion to, clean and
renewable (virtually unlimited) energy sources. I also gave evidence that
wealthy nations are more environmentally friendly than poor nations, and that
free enterprise has a better record of environmental sustainability than
socialism or totalitarianism (with the caveat that we still must address
greenhouse effects, though this again goes back to my first point)
What exactly are YOU advocating?
Andy:
You
call this ‘debunking’ the sustainability ‘myth?’ I ask for more
conclusive evidence. And please don’t cite free market apologist’s
Julian Simon or Bjorn Lomborg, without presenting the long list of
scientists, economists, environmentalists, and others who have provided
detailed refutations to their arguments. You conveniently (like Simon
and Lomborg) ignore many of the arguments that "sustainabilty" advocates
make.
Rog:
Can I state a position and give the facts that I know? If you find fault in
my argument or facts, please continue to point it out (see below).
Rog
PS -- The 2nd dumb statement I made was the "5000 year shale oil" comment.
After further research, though the supply may be there as indicated and be
used in some nations (I think Estonia gets 75% or more of its energy from
shale oil), this is doubtful to ever be a cost effective and clean energy
source for widespread use in modern nations. Furthermore, it isn't really a
type of petroleum. Thanks for pushing me on this, I only learn by such
assistance.
>>Old Roger quotes:
“This unsustainabilty thing is another myth that I have debunked a half
dozen times in this forum. (to clarify -- I argue that modern standard
of living is not only sustainable and self amplifying, but MORE
sustainable than poverty. I DO NOT argue that overpopulation is
sustainable.)”
"There are ample resources (as long as we stop over-producing people).
The global ecosystem is taxed not by wealth, but by poverty. Wealth and
environmental sustainability are strongly correlated. Granted, current
contributions toward theoretical global warming may be an exception to
this rule, but I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE (Andy's emphasis) that the
solution isn't less growth, it is to invest into different, more
environmentally-sustainable types of energy."
“The truth is that modern wealthy societies -- the ones you seem to
believe the earth can't sustain -- are the ones that are best capable of
sustaining their population in harmony with the earth and her resources.
The data shows that as income/productivity/consumption rises in a
society, that the environment and the environmental sustainability of
the society increases dramatically. The World Bank Environmental
Sustainability Index shows the exact opposite of what people assume. It
is the US, Canada, Germany and the UK that are on the top of the list
and it is the collectivist/totalitarian countries and the emerging
nations that are at the bottom.
I could go on for hours about how the rate of discovery or the pace of
extraction knowledge outpaces the rate of consumption on virtually every
nonrenewable resource. Or how dramatically air and water pollution have
been reduced in modern nations. Or how much better the wealthy nations
are at preserving and protecting and rationing consumption of renewable
resources (forests, fishing populations etc).
The truth is that there is a 5000 year supply of oil (including shale)
based upon known, currently extractable reserves -- more than enough to
last us until we learn to replace current energy processes with cleaner
and even more bountiful sources such as hydrogen.
The truth is that modern, free market economies are much more efficient
and environmentally friendly than collectivist or primitive agrarian
societies
Overall, the accusation that wealth and western levels of productivity
is the predominant strain on the earth is a myth that leads to all the
wrong answers. The real problem is poverty, overpopulation, stupid
exploitation of resources (the tragedy of the commons) and
totalitarianism/collectivism.”
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:16 BST