limits to growth. new research shows we are nearing collapse

[bcbm]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do civilizations collapse? Sure. Are materials finite? Sure.

But from that article there are some pretty alarm-ringing assumptions being made by these researchers. Specifically the related and overlapping assumptions that population and consumer-demand lead production; that the economy is neutral (I.e. a given that development can take only one form); that capitalism serves to fufil the needs of populations.

The only non-passive variable through human activity that they seem to incorporate are reforms of induvidual behavior/consumption and governmental reforms. I don't think revolution of the control and direction and relations of production was factored into their computer model.

At the same time that the population is treated deterministicaly, the capitalist system (or "growth") is also treated like a train on tracks. Capitalism is much more nimble however and booms and busts, grows brittle then bends, destroys and rebuilds. Capitalism's answers may just put off disaster or shift the problem to some other area down the road, but it's not just going to steadily march forward in a straight line.

Then again I'm reading an article, not the book let alone the research. So let's say they are correct, what is the political significance.

1) I think catastrophe doesn't really prevent or stop capitalism by itself. Catastrophe is just an investment waiting to happen. Anything worse and it doesn't much matter to speculate one way or another.

2) I don't this sort of prediction doesn't mean much in terms of resistance. First, because these sorts do scenerios treat people as possive objects and victims of history, it doesn't offer much of a vision of an alternative way forward (usually the twin answers of government reform or conservative isolationism/survivalism). So doomsday politics around the economy, environment, war etc (while reflecting real anxieties and threats) don't provoke resistance any more (and probably less) than they provoke reactions of cynicism and fatalistic pessimism. People do not tend to organize on this basis otherwise the u.s. Would have a huge militant labor and anti-racist movement. It simply reinforces the already existing feelings that regular people are helpless victims who need saviors or need to just watch out for themselves.

I recommend the pamphlet "catastrophism" that argues these points much better than I can and tries to explain why the more people know about climate change science, the less they care about trying to stop climate change.

The history of capitalism is full of doomsday predictions and these have always been right and wrong at the same time. Destruction and then reconstitution are part of capitalism; competition and unplanned accumulation are always pushing capitalism towards it's own destruction, but class rule and power ensures that it will just use that destruction to reorganize the same system until it hits another disaster.

[bcbm]

2) I don't this sort of prediction doesn't mean much in terms of resistance. First, because these sorts do scenerios treat people as possive objects and victims of history, it doesn't offer much of a vision of an alternative way forward (usually the twin answers of government reform or conservative isolationism/survivalism). So doomsday politics around the economy, environment, war etc (while reflecting real anxieties and threats) don't provoke resistance any more (and probably less) than they provoke reactions of cynicism and fatalistic pessimism. People do not tend to organize on this basis otherwise the u.s. Would have a huge militant labor and anti-racist movement. It simply reinforces the already existing feelings that regular people are helpless victims who need saviors or need to just watch out for themselves.

i think one of the primary reasons people point these things out is because they don't think people are helpless victims, but can in fact do something about it but so far haven't.


tries to explain why the more people know about climate change science, the less they care about trying to stop climate change.

so just ignore the science?


The history of capitalism is full of doomsday predictions and these have always been right and wrong at the same time. Destruction and then reconstitution are part of capitalism; competition and unplanned accumulation are always pushing capitalism towards it's own destruction, but class rule and power ensures that it will just use that destruction to reorganize the same system until it hits another disaster.

i don't think this is really comparable to previous disasters, nor should the staggering amount of evidence from a huge range of sources that we are in some seriously deep shit be just shrugged off as 'doomsday predictions' like its some naked messiah riding into town on a donkey proclaiming the kingdom of heaven.

[VCrakeV]

It only makes sense. Think of a hypothetical, smaller and more simple scenario. Every "unit" of population consumes x amount of food, uses y amount of consumer goods, and works z amount (adds to production, consumer market, etc.). Although more people means more consumer goods are needed, it also means more produced. However, we only have so much access to food, as a resource. Once population reaches this "cap", any growth in industry would only lead to waste. We only have so much room and resources on this planet.

It all comes down to a simple understanding; in order to grow, we must have the room and the resources to grow. We don't have enough of either to grow at the rate that we're growing, and it's going to be a while before we exploit outer space for resources and room, if ever get there.

It also doesn't help that waste from industry is taking up OUR room. I'm all for industry, as everyone should be, but we can only go so fast without crashing.

[GanzEgal]

Back when early Socialists thought up the doctrine of infinite abundance of material goods, an end to all scarcity, which in turn makes money and rationing unnecessary, these people were not aware of the finiteness of the planet's size and resources, neither were they aware of the coming exponential growth in human population on the planet.

[ckaihatsu]

Back when early Socialists thought up the doctrine of infinite abundance of material goods, an end to all scarcity, which in turn makes money and rationing unnecessary, these people were not aware of the finiteness of the planet's size and resources, neither were they aware of the coming exponential growth in human population on the planet.


Malthusian, huh -- ?

This 'sky is falling' line has been going on for over two hundred years now, at least....





Malthusianism is a school of ideas derived from the political/economic thought of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population, which describes how unchecked population growth is exponential while the growth of the food supply was expected to be arithmetical. Malthus believed there were two types of "checks" that could then reduce the population, returning it to a more sustainable level. He believed there were "preventive checks" such as moral restraints (abstinence, delayed marriage until finances become balanced), and restricting marriage against persons suffering poverty and/or defects. Malthus believed in "positive checks", which lead to 'premature' death: disease, starvation, war, resulting in what is called a Malthusian catastrophe. The catastrophe would return population to a lower, more "sustainable", level.[1][2] The term has been applied in different ways over the last two hundred years, and has been linked to a variety of other political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.[3]

Neo-Malthusianism generally refers to people with the same basic concerns as Malthus, who advocate for population control programs, to ensure resources for current and future populations.[2]




Malthusian terms can carry a pejorative connotation indicating excessive pessimism and inhumanity.[9][10]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

[Palmares]

I think the problem with throwing around the pejorative "Malthusian" is that it is a way to dismiss climate science wholesale. It's a bit of a trendy catchphrase these days.


i don't think this is really comparable to previous disasters, nor should the staggering amount of evidence from a huge range of sources that we are in some seriously deep shit be just shrugged off as 'doomsday predictions' like its some naked messiah riding into town on a donkey proclaiming the kingdom of heaven.

[ckaihatsu]

I think the problem with throwing around the pejorative "Malthusian" is that it is a way to dismiss climate science wholesale. It's a bit of a trendy catchphrase these days.


I don't mean to imply a dismissal of climate science -- I was replying to a certain comment that was more *population*-oriented.

According to the info and predictions that the article references, if anything there'd be a coming population *collapse*, rather than an *explosion*:


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/1/1409550848601/5b28736c-273a-4d9f-a25a-b0a523dd830f-236x420.jpeg

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

i think one of the primary reasons people point these things out is because they don't think people are helpless victims, but can in fact do something about it but so far haven't.

And what do the people who publish these articles think people can do?

They certainly don't think they (well - those of them who are workers) can overthrow capitalism. Or at least they hope they can't. What they think people can do - and what they want people to do - is consume less, have less children, particularly if they're workers or impoverished, make Congress pass some "green" taxes, fund the "renewable energy" industry, make Congress stop mean old China from polluting the environment, quality of life in China be damned.

The entire "finite resources" thing is pretty hilarious for a Marxist to say - it's not as if resources are static metaphysical categories.

[GanzEgal]

This 'sky is falling' line has been going on for over two hundred years now, at least....
Having 7 billion people on the planet is not a problem in itself, but it makes the idea of unrationed unlimited consumption unrealistic. But I give it the credit of maybe having been realistic back when people didn't know that the planet will have 7 billion people, nor did they know all what we now know about the limits of the natural resources, environment, pollution, food production, energy production, extinction of animal species, etc.

[RedWorker]

The more people, the more production (more production even proportional to the population), the faster technical advances, etc.

[BIXX]

The more people, the more production (more production even proportional to the population), the faster technical advances, etc.
This doesn't mean that we won't run out of resources...

[RedWorker]

1) We aren't running out of resources. Not for a long time.
2) Communism doesn't require infinite resources.
3) Population is going down soon.

[GanzEgal]

1) We aren't running out of resources. Not for a long time.
2) Communism doesn't require infinite resources.
We will never use more resources than exist, because more does not exist.

The limited existence of resources does limit our consumption, however. This will affect Communism too, goods will need to be rationed, because they are not infinite.

Scientists are worried about pollution, the finiteness of natural resources, and the damage all this does to animals -- already in the current situation, where 80% of humans life in relatively poor material conditions. The thought of the entire human population raising their material standard of living onto the level of the currently most affluent 20%, would cause major concerns for pollution and the finiteness of natural resources, even if the human population stopped growing.

[The Red Star Rising]

Most studies I read had the human population peaking at 9-10 billion and then plateauing barring expansion off-world. The simple fact is that when countries get more "developed" they become less inclined to have children (it's because we're exhausting handfuls who ruin your social lives :P), meaning the initial burst as infants who would have otherwise died now live on is almost completely leveled out in a generation or two. There's no need to artificially stop overpopulation, it'll happen on it's own.

While there are definitely limits to resources on Earth, particularly concerning fossil fuels, more efficient usage of these raw resources can stretch them out far more while harming the environment less. The difficulty right now is that investing in these more efficient methods is expensive and actually hard work, meaning companies tend to hold off on them until they absolutely need to or until it becomes profitable to switch over.

Some problems do have forseeable solutions, if Nuclear fusion works out, energy becomes easy as that power source is functionally a silver bullet to electricity generation concerns (and with the kind of energy surplus we could get, we could make hydrogen fuel cells practical even at a net loss of energy), Petroleum products I believe can be synthesized through Bacteria (currently I don't think it's cheap to do so however), and we already create a great deal of food surplus that shamefully goes to great waste.

Defeating aridification, another great environmental and agricultural concern, is certainly possible or else Israel among others would have no agriculture sector now. Deforestation has an on paper easy solution, but one that is in practice rather difficult. Climate change through greenhouse gas is a gradual thing, but stopping people from needlessly chopping down trees is something you can do more or less immediately. The problem is of course, making them no longer need to cut down trees to make a living.

In our current system, a lot of the deforestation, especially in poorer areas of the world, happens because these destitute people are unable to make a living without resorting to logging, slash and burn farmland clearing, or the like generally have no other choice to not go broke and probably starve and die. Slash and burn farming is particularly problematic as turning forest into farmland by definition precludes replanting the trees afterwards. Here, economic change is needed.

This problem, as well as that of poaching, will not go away until means of living that can provide for these people that don't involve mass environmental destruction are available.

[bcbm]

And what do the people who publish these articles think people can do?

They certainly don't think they (well - those of them who are workers) can overthrow capitalism. Or at least they hope they can't. What they think people can do - and what they want people to do - is consume less, have less children, particularly if they're workers or impoverished, make Congress pass some "green" taxes, fund the "renewable energy" industry, make Congress stop mean old China from polluting the environment, quality of life in China be damned.

article from the bourgeois press reaches bourgeois conclusion isn't much of a surprise. more interested in the data. should be obvious that destroying capitalism would be a necessary part of the solution, though perhaps an unlikely one.

[Magón]

If going by the data alone, and our future does turn out to be a collapse scenario like this, it won't matter if Capitalists are in charge, although I would say they're quite a big reason for such a collapse happening in the future, because the planet and the rise in global temperatures, etc. will just keep on rising. Eventually it will probably plateau, but who's to say if we'll be here to see that.

The planet doesn't give a fuck what politics are or aren't in charge, but definitely if a revolution in the future happened, hopefully, it would change things around for the better, environmentally, if we're not too far gone already, down the road to collapse/extreme catastrophic climate change.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I can't say that I've ever seen a really comprehensive write up regarding how post-revolutionary ecology could be managed. Aside from claims that it would just be better than under capitalism, which probably could have been the case 10 or 20 years ago. There's no point in envisioning a communism without the added feature of ecological collapse at this point however, such a thing could never exist now.

[Magón]

I can't say that I've ever seen a really comprehensive write up regarding how post-revolutionary ecology could be managed.

That's because I don't think anyone's written it yet. Or bothered to really think about it. But it probably should be on more people's minds, than it probably is right now.