Another reason why I think Capitalism is doomed

[Taverner]

Besides all our arguments about ethics, social change, a better system and what not...

Capitalism cannot sustain itself.

When the rule is "grow or die" and you are living on a finite planet, you will eventually run out of resources.

Let's look at history for a minute.

Easter Island - Polynesians had arrived there to find a lush, verdant island and an edenesque paradise. The population swelled and at one time it rose to 10K people. Ancestor worship was a big part of their religion at the time, and the custom was to build huge Moai in honor of them. Stone carvers would carve the Moai out of rocks, and then they would roll the Moai on logs from harvested trees to their eventual location. Soon, the Moai became a status symbol, and the richer Rapa Nui (the peoples of Easter Island) would build more and bigger Moai. Soon everyone was getting in on the act, and the island was deforested. When it was, the resources soon dwindled and there was no food, because the food they ate depended on the topsoil that the trees protected. Lawlessness followed, and factions went to war. Cannibalism quite possibly happened, and the population dwindled to 2K.

Think of this as a microcosm for our planet.

We will run out of resources. It's not an if question, but a when question.

And for all of the economists laughing at Malthus, remember what took us off the path to Malthusian Catastrophe: The Green Revolution. And what resource does the Green Revolution depend on? Crude oil. Petroleum. A finite resource.

So what happens when a planet or country suddenly cannot fertilize all of its crops? Or move the finished product to the cities?

Yep, the Malthusian nightmare we delayed will make up for lost time.

[Denninmi]

1. Great post.

I think you are exactly right. The biggest issue, IMO, is whether we're going to be like the Easter Islanders and have a hard, bumpy crash landing, or if we could possibly, just possibly, have enough intelligence to see it coming and work on a "soft landing" scenario that doesn't look like something out of "The Road" or some other apocalyptic novel.

[Taverner]

5. Thanks. How did the recs go down so fast?

I guess Ayn Rand IS alive and well on Democratic Underground

[Karenina]

6. I registered a +1

Woik wit me here kids! Good post T!

[Denninmi]

23. Spys or "bots"

Freepers and Teahadists run amok, no doubt.

[Ishoutandscream2]

30. Agreed. Excellent post.

[TBF]

2. We can argue about how we replace it - but we gotta get rid of it one way or another.

It's destroying our planet and we will have nowhere to live :(

[Odin2005]

3. Anyone who belives infinite exponential growth is both necessary and good...

...is either insane, or an economist

[Taverner]

4. LOL

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Unnecessary Shot

Lots of economists don't think that. Actually anybody who has a theoretical position based upon the analysis of data won't think that. I don't.
GAC

[dkf]

7. None of what you talk about is unique to capitalism. It's a generalized doomsday thing.

[white_wolf]

8. It is unique to capitalism.

Capitalism is based on profits and the way to acquire profits is through growth and expansion.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Same With Socialism

In its pure form, socialism requires unfettered growth to accommodate population change and the equivalent of Maslowe's hierarchy.
GAC

[Taverner]

13. Population Growth can be controlled easier in Socialism than in Capitalism

Capitalism requires a growing population. Socialism does not, and can deal with stasis.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. If You Say So

Sorry, i just don't agree. And you conveniently ignored an established social psychology concept. How do you stop that? Maoist lawgiving?
GAC

[Nye Bevan]

36. "Population Growth can be controlled"? That's pretty chilling.

You're not selling your version of "socialism" very effectively here.

[Taverner]

37. Relax. Tax the hell out of parents with more than 2 kids.

[EdMaven]

18. capitalism requires growth *regardless* of population increase. Profits must grow, period.

socialism doesn't require unfettered growth at all. ever.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. That's Just Incorrect

There is NO SUCH THING AS A SOCIETAL STRUCTURE THAT WORKS IN STASIS.

You can pretend that such a thing exists. But, it never has existed and it never will. The human condition doesn't work that way.

If you have any questions, read Maslowe's book. BTW: Even Engels would disagree with you.
GAC

[EdMaven]

28. I have no idea what you mean by "stasis" or "work" but history contains examples of plenty of

societies that continued with no population growth or even negative growth.

The fact is, a capitalist economy *requires* growth by its very nature. Capitalism is money begetting more money. If there is nowhere to invest profits to engender more profits, it's not capitalism.

Maslow (not Maslowe) is not a theorist of capitalism or socialism.

And if engels would disagree with me, why don't you link that?

[ProfessorGAC]

32. It's Not Maslow

You don't even know how the name translates, and your challenging my understanding? The name in his native country would be pronounced "MAZHLOVAY". When it got adjusted to english the "e" was silent.

You're hilarious, silly boy.

And, THIS ISN'T ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH. For the 3rd time. Get back to me when you actually catch up to the point.

First, you can't control popluation growth without draconian measures. Secondly, the real impact on growth would be based upon the human continual need to attain more than they already have.

This is really simple stuff. Why are you being so oblivious?


GAC

[EdMaven]

33. Gee, I thought you were talking about Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Apparently you're talking about some unknown guy named Maslowe and his theory about how people always want more and more stuff.

No one knows who that is, so you I'll leave you to discuss it in self-referential solipsism.

You can be rude to yourself in that closed circle.

PS: You never provided the Engels ref, I assume because there isn't one.

[dkf]

14. That is overpopulation and die off theory.

That doesn't depend on capitalism.

[EdMaven]

20. no it's not. yes, it does.

[banned from Kos]

9. As a capitalist myself I recognize what you say is mostly true

but its true in nature too. All populations increase until resources are exhausted. Socialism only increases the depletion of resource.

IOW, you blamed capitalism instead of population and scarcity.

[Taverner]

12. "Socialism only increases the depletion of resource" - Not sure your logic there

In a centrally planned economy, resources are easier conserved than in Capitalism, where a good percentage is wasted.

[randome]

17. In a centrally planned economy...

...there is less freedom. And the reason centrally planned economies don't now prevail is because it's human nature to grow and expand. We would not have computers, space program, the Internet, our increased life spans, etc. without capitalism.

That's just the way it is. And I think most people want to retain some semblance of capitalism. I know I want my daughters to succeed in the world, not spend their lives eking out a living in their vegetable gardens.

We will likely reach a 'pull-back' point and it could be a painful one. But then we'll just go on the way we've been going. People have a way of adjusting and continuing.

Every time the stock market falls, investors leap in and it starts to rise again.

Again, human nature.

[banned from Kos]

19. my premise is that capitalism allocates on ability to pay

vs need (which is global).

Global warming, for instance. What if all 7 billion people were allocated US-type power consumption?

It would be disastrous for life on earth (which may be where we are headed eventually anyway).

[ProfessorGAC]

25. And, What About Maslowe?

I know i'm hammering this point on this thread, but human nature, as established in Maslowe's hierarchy. This is a longstanding and broadly accepted social psychology concept.

The only way to limit this natural outgrowth of the human condition is through draconian measures.

That has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. It has to do with embracing authoritarianism.

[laundry_queen]

29. I'm wondering

if you could elaborate on how Maslowe's hierarchy predicts perpetual need for growth? I understand how in order for each level to be reached, the previous level of needs must be satisfied. However, other theories disagree that we must satisfy our lowest needs before moving on to the next level and state that we can strive for satisfaction at each level concurrently.

I think that capitalism does have something to do with natural outgrowth - when you have a system that simply cannot function with growth then the system is part of the problem. Human population is also part of the problem. When you mix the 2, you have an exponentially worse problem - with corporations looking for ever increasing growth marketing to people to appeal to their basic needs and aspirations and make up an environment where people are worthless unless they have MORE in order to fuel the further growth of profits and in turn the expansion of resource depletion in a finite environment - it's a self-perpetuating cycle. If it continues, we are doomed. I don't think socialism is the cure all either. Both issues have to be solved, along with our dependence on fossil fuels before we can even think positively about our future as a species.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. It Predicts Nothing

Apparently, you have no understanding. The theory states that as people attain, they NEED to attain more. Hence the term hierarchy of needs. The rest of your screed is irrelevant, since you fail to grasp the basic concept.


When people attain basic needs, they want more. They want comfort. When they attain comfort, they want luxury. It's only when they achieve luxury that they pursue self-actualization.

Under a socialist system, nothing changes. They still want to live as comfortably and luxuriously as possible. The demand on resources is identical.

If you want to achieve a society where everyone is pursuing self-actualization (a noble goal, indeed), you need to invent warp drive. That's how it happened on Star Trek.

In the meantime, i'll deal in reality. As long as there is something for the masses to want that they already don't have, they'll pursue it.

If you choose to debate a social psychologial principle that's been accepted as valid for decades, do it with someone else. I accept the concept and don't feel a need to argue for an idea that someone else developed, with substantial data.
GAC

[EdMaven]

35. It doesn't state they need or pursue more "things" at all. The opposite in fact.

You refuse to spell the guy's name right & you haven't read his work.

[EdMaven]

34. It's Maslow. The poster insists on using his own spelling. Hate to see others carry it on.

[hifiguy]

15. Indeed. Earth is a closed system

and will be for a long, long while until interplanetary space travel is feasible on a mass scale. Closed systems are finite. There is a ceiling on how many inhabitants a closed system can accommodate.

[BadgerKid]

21. Earth is open w.r.t. energy thanks to the sun. n/t

[NickB79]

22. But we need finite resources here on Earth to utilize that sunlight

IE, we need raw materials to build solar panels, or fertile land and sufficient water to grow crops.

[Taverner]

26. We also need petroleum for fertilizer

[The2ndWheel]

27. Civilization is grow or die

All of our economic theories are based upon that infrastructure. The larger issue though, is that we take a very anthropocentric view when it comes to those resources. That's like allowing Exxon to regulate itself. What's going to happen?

Privatizing the profits, and socializing the costs. That's what civilization has allowed humanity to do on a planetary scale. Once we stop privatizing the profits of the planet for a single species, then we can talk about how bad capitalism is.