To: Andy
ROG Previously:
"I get a lot of satisfaction at the US's reticence to enter a misguided
international court and a wasteful Kyoto agreement."
Andy:
I am curious why you did not choose this as one of your dumbest
statements? How could one receive satisfaction from this? There are many
other global issues that the US also chooses to buck the rest of the
world and continue to function as if the rest of the world's opinion of
our lifestyle is motivated strictly by envy. This is an arrogant view
that is counter to my views - true enough. But it is the source of much
hatred towards Americans and American politics that sooner or later we
will have to address. It would be a pleasant surprise if we looked at
ourselves to see what we might change about our lifestyles and values,
instead of building smarter and more effective bombs to reign down on
"terrorist elements" around the world in order to preserve our way of life.
Rog:
Sorry, but I see value in the debate -- the competition of ideas. Just as
importantly, I do not trust the international court and I think Kyoto is a
mistake. You are right, there are a lot of forces that want to destroy
liberal democratic, free enterprise values and the world that it creates. A
few countries have weathered the storm and guided the world out of the
mistakes of the 20th century. I hope we can contribute as much in the 21st.
The current threats (to grossly oversimplify) include:
1) Religious fanatics
2) Idealistic socialists desiring totalitarian control so they can implement
a better world
3) Intellectuals out to eliminate the rule of law
4) Environmentalists out to protect the environment or resources by
dismantling the economy
Andy:
If we look at other nations, we may not be able to find a better option.
There are definitely some nations that our more successful at some
things than Americans... The main takeaway is that even if we believe
that our system is the best there is, this does not exclude the
possibility of improvement or adaptations that draw on examples from
other countries around the world.
Rog:
I strongly agree. No one system has all the answers. Various nations,
cultures, states and communities try different tactics and their neighbors
can learn from their successes and failures. As for socialism, it certainly
can deliver some things well, especially since it can also borrow ideas and
technologies that are created in the free world (though this works both ways,
but for different things).
Andy:
I agree that overall, the exploitive powers of "American style"
capitalism have led the nation backward.
Rog:
As opposed to what? Soviet style exploitation? Maoist exploitation?
Feudalist exploitation? Theocratic exploitation? You need to give me a
benchmark for progress and compare it to realistic alternatives.
Andy:
To be sure! But, don't worry, you are not alone in this regard. Orthodox
economics has a vice-like grip on the minds of Americans.
Rog:
Ah yes, after the collapse of socialism, the economists all woke up and
started singing the praises of free enterprise. So now we must consider them
"programmed using modern double-think techniques" and we must dismiss those
listening to them as having their minds imprisoned in a "vice- like grip." I
suggest we just debate the ideas, trust peoples ability to decide and
evaluate the effects of our beliefs.
ROG previously:
"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"
Andy:
Your knowledge of economics is right on. And that is the source of your
misconceptions. I don't have time to go into all the reasons that the
field of economics has stagnated into a very narrow spectrum that relies
on an abstract model (which was a "wholesale appropriation of the
mid-nineteenth-century physics of energy" by the Marginal revolutionists
- Mirowski, 1989) which, at best is irrelevant when analyzing complex
economies. At worst, it leads to attitudes and arguments such as the one
you make above.
Rog:
And which at best leads to exactly the results I listed above. And I assume
no "perfect substitution."
Andy:
It
takes knowledge of the natural sciences to understand how truly unique
oil is as a product. There is no perfect substitute for oil.
Rog;
I would argue that COST-EFFECTIVE solar, geothermal and wind are cleaner,
fully renewable and won't contribute to global warming. There are pros and
cons. I would suggest we use clean renewable sources for energy, and use
petroleum for other purposes. Until the price goes up for oil or down for the
alternatives, this won't occur.
Andy:
Yes, The only solution is less growth. Is that specific enough for you?
Rog:
Yes. I agree with you if you limit it to population growth. But not at all
if you mean economic growth, especially in poorer nations.
ROG Previously:
"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:
I am not really advocating anything. I am a bit of a fatalist on this
topic. Nature will ultimately correct our mistakes. However, if I am
wrong and we are able to make any progress, we first need to change
values and belief systems in America... I think investments into
clean and renewable energy sources are a step in the right direction.
The only sustainable economy is one that lives off the flows of energy
(solar, geothermal) and not the nonrenewable stocks (Fossil fuels). The
only examples of renewable economies in the annals of human history are
hunter and gatherer and very primitive slash and burn agricultural
societies. I wouldn't advocate a return to these kinds of economies, but
we should understand that these economies that lived off of flows
supported only a very small fraction of our current population. We
cannot support the current size of our economy, much less a growing
economy, much further into the future.
Rog:
I am not a fatalist. (Remember our discussion last winter ended up revolving
around a similar point). I fear that changing our beliefs will amount to the
rejection of what has worked and lead to the failure of the "developing
world." You say yourself we can't go back, I would argue that until we get
past the 3rd world population explosion of the 20th century that we can't
afford to stand still either.
Andy:
We can either prepare for this by limiting our growth now or we can wait
for oil to run out and/or be overcome by "negative externalities"
associated with a growing economy (global warming, pollution,
biodiversity loss, etc.). Tough choice. Perhaps dynamic quality and
intellect will come to the rescue... It is my opinion that the hope is truly
in the hands of
individuals who did not live through the cold war years. We have been
marred by this experience in America as can be seen by the lack of
contribution to the intellectual level during this time.
Rog:
The era from 1950 on has been a golden era of science, technology, equal
rights, worldwide improvements in health, wealth and literacy and the almost
worldwide rejection of communist totalitarianism. This was also the era of
western environmental consiousness, and vast improvements in the quality of
our (western) air, water and forests. Developing countries (most of which
DIDN'T listen to Western economists) do indeed still have issues with
environment and biodiversity, but again this is due primarily to their
poverty and overpopulation, not to liberal values. (and you know my
suggestion on global warming -- invest big time into clean, renewable energy
technologies)
Obviously our values differ dramatically. I doubt either of us is totally
right or wrong, but as time goes on I am sure we will both learn and evolve.
Thanks for the great dialogue.
Rog
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 - 16:06:17 BST