tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350817222950687276.post368403961333612976..comments2022-02-15T20:38:07.659-08:00Comments on sustainability not capitalism: Why Capitalism Isn't Sustainable - Part 2 of 2John Courtneidgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11858329311396026463noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350817222950687276.post-70693507771362741902007-11-28T10:33:00.000-08:002007-11-28T10:33:00.000-08:00Dear JohnIn regard to:Raw Materials + Energy --> ‘...Dear John<BR/><BR/>In regard to:<BR/><BR/>Raw Materials + Energy --> ‘Wealth’ + ‘Pollution’<BR/><BR/>You rightly point to the roles of knowledge and human activity, to which I'll add 'somewhere to do it' and 'working capital - borrowed money'.<BR/><BR/>In a fuller (I hope!) description, these are factored in - I'll blog that soon under the title 'Capitalism - what it is and what we can do about it'.<BR/><BR/>You are quite right that Gaia has the wonder-full ability to recycle 'pollution' - the trouble with capitalism (etc) is that it produces pollution faster than Gaia can cope with (eg capitalist CO2 production rate is higher than nature's naturalrate of photosynthetic bio-remediation/ bio-accumulation).<BR/><BR/>Ie, the problem in capitalism is that money-accumulations (through rent, interest, dividends/company profits and excess paid-work income) constitutes the feedback loop that drives pollution-generation faster and faster. (And sucks money out of the human-needs part of the economy - hence the inevitability for capitalism to create poverty and war.)<BR/><BR/>Thanks! John, for your comment!<BR/><BR/>Love 2 all<BR/><BR/>johnJohn Courtneidgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11858329311396026463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350817222950687276.post-48187103852267749522007-11-23T08:31:00.000-08:002007-11-23T08:31:00.000-08:00Hi,In the Part 1 you wrote:Thus, I’m going to asse...Hi,<BR/><BR/>In the Part 1 you wrote:<BR/><BR/>Thus, I’m going to assert – in the hope of reasoned rebuttal – that (so-called) wealth creation is the consequence of the following word equation (the arrow is read as ‘goes to give’):<BR/><BR/>Raw Materials + Energy --> ‘Wealth’ + ‘Pollution’<BR/><BR/>While this is correct as far as it goes, it seems to me that this equation is overly simple as a description of human economic activity.<BR/><BR/>On the left side, there are other important factors: labour, technological innovation, and social organization are three influential factors of production. Thus, for example, a new technology or a government policy can "create wealth" with a variety of consequences for the consumption of energy and raw materials.<BR/><BR/>In addition, there is a possible feedback arrow from pollution on the right to raw materials on the left. This is often the case in natural ecosystems, where the decomposition path recycles most raw materials and some energy.John Scullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04870723936136000822noreply@blogger.com