Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970213134630.00764c88@ilhawaii.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:46:32 -1000 From: "Jay Hanson mailto:mailto:j@qmail.com" <j@QMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: THEORY: Population and Development To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
At 05:07 PM 2/13/97 -0500, SE wrote:> <<If one sees the flow of solar energy as a fixed "flow"
> of energy, then for all practical purposes, the amount
> of natural capital is limited and finite.>>
>
>Yes. If one begins as you have begun, if one sees the world through the lens
>of "capital" ( a capitalistic image?) one will inexorably keep talking about
>fixities, and conclude as you have that our "inherited natural capital" is
>limited and finite.
It is. A ROUND planet is, by definition, finite. We can not increase the FLOW of solar energy, nor can we create matter/energy. We can only transform naturally-occurring matter/energy.
>It seems reasonable that some day the sun will cool and our planet may die.
>Is it quite clear to you that this probability means that for "practical
>purposes" we must assume that we will shortly run out of "natural capital"?
No, that is not what I said. I said that "natural capital" is fixed and finite -- not that we will shortly run out of it.
>If we can and we do that shift [to renewables], won't all the predictions of imminent doom be
>spectacularly wrong?
Concerning the renewable energy question. I will set aside the question of whether or not it is technically feasible to run our present society on renewables (I don't think it is) and just look at the politics. In order to accomplish such a task, we in the US would need a different kind of government that we now have.
In his recent book, Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, Yale historian Paul Kennedy argues that the political system of America is simply not up to it:
"While an impressive array of American individuals, companies, banks, investors, and think tanks are scrambling to prepare for the twenty-first century, the United States as a whole is not and indeed cannot, without becoming a different kind of country. Perhaps a serious program of reforms might be undertaken following a sufficient shock to complacency, like a financial crash or a broadly perceived external threat; but just how likely that is to happen is impossible to say. Even if there should be such a catalyst, there surely could be no coherent response by the United States unless political leadership -- especially the president -- recognized the larger challenges facing the country and had the courage and the ability to mobilize opinion to accept changes which many would find uncomfortable. That in turn, would require leadership very different from the sort demonstrated by recent incumbents of the White House, whether it concerned domestic deficits or global population and environmental issues. It remains to be seen, therefore, whether traditional approaches will carry the American people successfully into the twenty-first century -- or whether they will pay a high price in assuming that things can stay the same at home while the world outside changes more swiftly than ever before."
See also p. 242, William Ophuls, ECOLOGY AND POLITICS OF SCARCITY REVISITED; W. H. Freeman, 1992. ISBN 0-7167-2313-1
"[In the US ] we practice 'process' politics as opposed to 'systems' politics (Schick 1971). As the name implies, process politics emphasizes the adequacy and fairness of the rules governing the process of politics. If the process is fair, then, as in a trial conducted according to due process, the outcome is assumed to be just -- or at least the best the system can achieve. By contrast, systems politics is concerned primarily with desired outcomes; means are subordinated to predetermined ends."
In short, we would need a political system that focused on "ends" rather that on "means".
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/