Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise (vice.com)

Capitalism as we know it is over, an anonymous reader writes. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. From a report: The main reason? We're transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet's environmental resources. Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all. Rather, these crises are part of the same fundamental transition to a new era characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and the escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict, or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age, the paper says [PDF].

Comments

But.. they're *Scientists!*

[mkoenecke]

This time socialism will totally work for the whole world, because the *right* people will be in charge and won't be greedy, or self-interested, or power hungry like those awful capitalists. Because they're *scientists.*

Re:But.. they're *Scientists!*

[anegg]

I recognize your sarcasm, and appreciate it. I am inclined to also point out that these results predicting the demise of capitalism come from folks who I suspect were never all that fond of capitalism in the first place. So there may be a little confirmation bias in their work, regardless of their standing as scientists. I *think* capitalism works in a variety of environmental contexts, but it sometimes takes a while for long-term consequences (downstream costs) to get factored into current decisions. I'm not sure that "other than capitalist" economic theory will do any better at incorporating downstream costs; they may do it differently, but not necessarily better.

Re:But.. they're *Scientists!*

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, the Star Trek replicator "post-scarcity" world believers ignore how to get there the most quickly, which is the freedom to innovate with free market economics, aided by university research.

Marx himself believed that capitalism was necessary before socialism, and that successful socialism could not happen without completing a capitalist phase.

Re:But.. they're *Scientists!*

[HornWumpus]

Your problem is there are people on this site that lived through it, plus many more directly descended from those that lived through it.

Your lie might work in another 100 years, until then, fuck right off.

Re:But.. they're *Scientists!*

[Darinbob]

With natural selection you never really get to settle down and have equilibrium. It only looks that way when you look at relatively short periods of time.

You can't even point to periods of time of more than a century where the free market was relatively stable. We are most definitely still in the early experimentation phase of capitalism.

Re:But.. they're *Scientists!*

[Opportunist]

False dichotomy. There is a middle ground between state-run planned economy and corporation run governments.

First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!!

[King_TJ]

Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule? These issues somehow ONLY cause problems for people living in Capitalist systems?

I've got some news for the Capitalist haters out there .... The majority of innovations in technology that will help the whole planet transition to cleaner forms of energy, and possibly even mitigate some of the climate change issues are being developed in Capitalist America.

If the American Capitalist system fails, it won't be for any of these reasons. It'll simply be due to our leaders constantly increasing the levels of our national debt, in efforts to extend and expand the role of central government into all sorts of areas it was never originally intended to get that involved with. The nation only generates so much wealth each year, and it's a recipe for disaster to keep spending more than what's sustainable.

Re:First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!!

[Rick Schumann]

From TFA:

In short, according to Grantham, “we face a form of capitalism that has hardened its focus to short-term profit maximization with little or no apparent interest in social good.”

..which is 100% correct. "Profits above all else". The Rich get richer, The Poor get poorer, the Middle Class disappears, replaced with an ever-widening gulf between The Rich and The Poor (which then includes what used to be the Middle Class), and essentially no way to bridge the gap. We're already seeing this happen. There's other dangerous signs: barriers to ownership of things like homes or vehicles, with ownership replaced by perpetual renting. Home Owners Associations with the power to literally steal someone's self-owned home out from under them. Even things as seemingly innocuous as 'streaming' media services, 'cloud' services, and even e-books, which discourage owning of what used to be common things, and encouraging a perpetual cycle of monthly payments. Payday lending practices that amount to loan sharking. Predatory lending practices by major banks. Even something like the privatization of the prison system, which seems like it's entirely out of left field, plays a part in this. Left on the course it's set for itself, we may end up in a feudalism-like civilization. Maybe you personally don't think you're feeling any of this yet, but you will.

Re:First, let me say: What a crock of B.S.!!

[ljw1004]

Are you telling me that struggles with climate change, scarcity of natural resources and so on will just vanish into thin air by embracing Socialism or perhaps a Fascist dictatorship, or Communist rule?

No one is telling you that (save for the click-baity slashdot headline). The article itself boils down to this:

1. Economies are changing to less energy-efficient energy sources for the first time in history (I assume that means wind+solar+hydro), which will disrupt things. The economic models used by governments and industry have traditionally assumed energy abundance, which is becoming a poor assumption.
2. Sink costs are rising - economic growth used to be straightforward with profligate use of energy, use of materials, creation of waste, will become less possible.
3. The models are fine at handling slow incremental changes, but we'll likely see more dramatic changes than they'll be good at handling.
4. Carbon pricing hasn't worked very well and doesn't seem likely to work in future.
5. Post-Keynesian models about the relationship between the state and the free market will give different predictions and metrics-for-success compared to neoclassical economic models. All of them still boil down to free markets with government tweaks+nudges of course.
6. The article sort of tails off into more or less wishing the whole world were like Finland - not surprising given the authors and the paper are from Finland.

Capitalism is the worst economic system...

[Anubis IV]

...except for all the rest. Or, at least, that's how the saying goes.

Given that capitalism is fundamentally based on an assumption of greed, which seems to be a fairly consistent trait among humans, it has functioned remarkably well up to this point. But given enough time and not enough regulation, it's inevitable that the greed of some will outpace that of others, resulting in the system approaching a state where wealth has accumulated in the hands of a few, as well as that those who (or that which) are less capable of defending themselves will inevitably be exploited by those who are more capable. For us, that means the exploitation of the middle-class, the lower-class, and the things we share with the wealthy, such as our shared natural resources. Unsurprisingly, this sort of exploitation is exactly what we're seeing happen on a more and more frequent basis.

I think parts of the US are slowly waking up to that fact, but a cultural awakening of this sort usually takes decades or generations to complete. We're just starting to recognize the problem. It'll be decades more before we're willing to fix it. And, at least in the case of the US, the necessary changes will almost certainly require changes to the Constitution, but we won't be able to make those changes until the people are demanding those changes en masse, and we're nowhere close to that point yet.

Good.

[OwP_Fabricated]

Now we just need to start educating people on what a social democracy actually is, since we've let thinktank dipshits say everything but rampant laissez faire capitalism means the government just take's everyone's stuff.

You're already living in a relatively fascist society thanks to the right and centrist liberals. You're spied on, can be disappeared with no trial for any reason someone can just make up, the cops can just shoot you dead for any reason they feel like any get away with it about 90% of the time, capital is working on basically owning the IDEA of ideas, and if you're not the top 0.0001% every system is made to deny you any sort of help and funnel your money to said 0.0001%.

I think maybe kicking these people out for people who maybe, possibly think you deserve an ounce of dignity if you're not ultra-rich isn't really that crazy. Yeah- they're all wholly corruptible as any of us but that's not really an excuse for inaction.

Re:"Scientists"

[OwP_Fabricated]

Well to you it looks like that condition is, "Do they agree with me or not?"

Re:"Scientists" ... the scientific method

[petes_PoV]

at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research.

Which "method" would that be?

Is it the one where they conduct repeatable experiments?

How about the method where they take quantitative readings of known, agreed, observations and then extrapolate the results?

Maybe it is the method where a group of people have a few beers and bemoan the propspects for the world. Then (after a few more beers) arrive at the conclusion that we're all doomed.

Re:"Scientists"

[Xylantiel]

The connection to the UN seems pretty tenuous, and putting it in the title is disingenuous. From the article they were : "asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report". The attribution given in the summary appears earlier in the article and appears intended to make it seem as if these people and their report have some direct relation to the UN when they really don't seem to. So this is a step up from "some guy yelling on the sidewalk outside the UN building says capitalism is doomed." But closer to "I wrote a letter to the UN to complain about capitalism." None of this may make it into the report. This is like the IPCC, where the report came in two parts: the part with the science and conclusions and the part with a broad survey of peripherally relevant material whether it was junk or not. Then the report is attacked for citing junk in the second part, junk that was not used to support its conclusions in the first part.

Re:The U.N.?

[luis_a_espinal]

UNESCO, UNICEF, the blue helmets, etc. I get that these things probably do not touch your life. But your life does not define human existence in this world, nor the functions of these things are limited to "political agendas" (whatever the hell that means.)

Re:"Scientists"

[morethanapapercert]

It's my understanding that political and economic scientists are in much the same boat as astronomers. They can look at known facts, examine and critique those facts to make sure we understand them. Then they can come up with theories that explain those facts, use those theories to make predictions about other facts not yet known and then look to see if there are real world examples of those predictions being accurate. Where facts contradict the theories, the theories get revised or junked altogether.

What they *lack* is the same thing astronomers lack: the ability to create and run carefully controlled experiments, especially those that are designed to limit the number of variables as much as possible. True, you can run short term experiments but the real world contains so many damn variables (economic, political, religious, human nature etc) that the sort of small scale experiments that can be run do not model the real world very well.