27 November 2011 – SolidarityEconomy.net via Foreign Policy in Focus
War: The Wrong Jobs Program
More than 40 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama, before the collapse of Bear Stearns, and before contemporary debates about bailouts and debt ceilings, two authors, Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy, considered a tricky problem. In times of downturn, the government must spend to stimulate the economy. Yet getting the political establishment to agree on one particular program of spending seemed nearly impossible.
Baran and Sweezy phrased the conundrum as a question: “On what could the government spend enough to keep the system from sinking into the mire of stagnation?”
Continue reading this post...
jason 00:08 on December 10, 2011 Permalink |
Can’t handle the truth, eh?
jason 07:06 on December 9, 2011 Permalink |
So the Earth can support 700 trillion people? Oh, it can’t? Then there are limits to how many people it can support? Oh.
To say that our overconsumption of the planet’s resources is caused only by per-person consumption and has nothing to do with our ever-multiplying numbers is pseudo-science at its worst and so ridiculous, it’s amazing that anyone but rightwing nut jobs would take the idea seriously. The science of carrying capacity is the rockbed of sustainability. And anyone with a brain the size of a pea should know that it is not possible for a population to grow indefinitely without also increasing its total consumption and severe negative impacts on people and planet.
Carrying capacity is also social as well as biophysical in scope. Just because it may be possible to crowd more people into one place doesn’t mean that it is wise or compassionate to do so. What happens to quality of life when solitude, quiet, elbow room, and sensitive connections to unconfined nature are taken away? What other kinds of losses in quality of life transpire as more and more people take up less and less limited space, piling up higher and higher away from solid organic ground?
Quoting Betsy Harmon is like quoting a braying donkey, for few people write with as much hatred in their tone as she. It’s like a person who keeps their dog tied up in their yard all day barking constantly and doesn’t ever take it out for walks, and when a neighbor complains, the owner says, “you’re complaining because you don’t like dogs.” No, the owner is the one who doesn’t like dogs, in particular her own dog.
So why is it okay and compassionate to suggest to people that they reduce their per-person consumption but it’s not okay and hateful to suggest to people that it’s okay not to have kids if they don’t want them or to only have two or fewer? Maybe you hate people because you don’t want them to enjoy being able to have nice things and to play with their toys or to have more leisure time with their friends and family. Maybe you hate people because you want to see more and more of them imprisoned, miserable and dying off under increasingly crowded and desertifying conditions.
What is the cause of overpopulation? The dominator style economic and political system. Whenever communities live free of such systems, they naturally keep their populations in check because their continuance is dependent upon staying within the limits of local natural resources. The dominator style systems disrupt the co-relationship that communities have with these limits and thus they start overpopulating and overconsuming unaware that they are not only depleting their own local resources but also depleting resources in other regions and thereby causing hardship and suffering abroad.
To suggest tacitly or otherwise, then, that our population can and should keep growing unchecked is not only boneheaded, but cruel.