Slashdot Mirror
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].
Shit's falling down, brah
Get out of the way. You can thank me later.
- CL
I love how people use the word "scientists". It is a completely meaningless term which is supposed to engender feelings of respect. Are these people applying the scientific method to any of their research, or are they just a bunch of lifelong academics looking to avoid real work.
The problem in a sandbox is better seen in Europe where the Euro is building tensions rather than relieving them. Earlier it was Greece that was the problem, now Italy is sailing up as the next big problem with a debt of 130% of the GDP.
Virtual currencies like Dogecoin, Bitcoin, Monero etc. with no actual backing at all will be like ping-pong balls in a hurricane, flying all over the place rendering some people winners and others losers.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.*
TANSTAAFL
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.
Nothing the U.N. produces is worth anything outside of political agendas.
These developing countries do not need to begin by dismantling the fossil-fuelled infrastructure that has provided a range of low-cost production and consumption opportunities in rich countries for decades.
This would require economic thinking that enables large public investment programs on the one hand and strong regulation and environmental caps on the other.
Same old leftist/establishment group think, now new and improved with added Scientists!
Stay tuned; next week we'll have headlines about how "science" isn't universally trusted as impartial and what a terrible shame that is.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
[SARCASM] How do we give up our rights as sovereign nations in order to have 1 ruler care for us and the environment?! [/SARCASM]
I would posit that forms of government are much more likely to change more quickly than economic systems. As resources (water and food especially) become more scarce and people become increasingly desperate, I envision that harsher forms of government rule will take hold in places like Central America to try and quash any uprising. Venezuela is a bit of a canary in that regard, showing just what can occur when resources are limited (artificially in their case, since the scarcity is driven by an oppressive government and not the other way around). I would expect increasing mass migration and refugees, putting strains on first-world nations which will, in turn, have to tighten their rule. Capitalism will continue to be around until fiat currency falls due to weak or no government backing, at which time we'll move back into a barter economy until (if) new government is established.
...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.
The problem is the energy and agriculture sector is so far apart from the free market.
There is so much government subsidies to energy that it makes it more affordable vs the true cost.
True Capitalism would let countries die from starvation and freezing to death, because the supply and cost of materials to survive would exceed the wages of the business, due to excessive human supply.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
What kind of scientists are experts on social and government construct, and associated economics? Political scientists?
I hope they wore their white lab coats.
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.
We have perverse incentives, where even the real estate agent and health insurance company that should be working for you have a vested interest in maximizing what you pay someone else because it raises the dollar amount of their fixed percentage profit. And never mind that it might be tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket to get them a couple extra hundred. We can also count un-serviceable consumer electronics and really any product where "planned obsolescence" is a factor.
Moral hazards, where folks who know that someone else will bear the cost of a loss do nothing to mitigate the loss (know anyone who's diabetic that doesn't eat right because they've got insurance that'll cover treating the resulting problems?)â" or even act to cause a covered loss because they've got an angle where they can profit from it. See also any company that knows it's "too big to fail" and any company that's managed to protect it's financials, HR records, and trade secrets while having their customers' data liberated.
And finally, the tragedy of the commons, where common resources are monopolized, damaged, or destroyed for the profit of a select few. Here we have oil spills fracking, water pollution, industrial air pollution, etc.
The problem isn't capitalism. It's that we live in such a hyper-competitive world that old niches are disappearing and it's a struggle to find new ones where we can add value to earn an honest buck and get a decent standard of living. For some it's easier to find and exploit flaws in the system to make a great profit while fob off the actual costs on "the other guy."
Venezuela has effectively been wiped clean. Perhaps they could start there.
Can someone tell me which hypothesis they tested and what data set they used to draw these conclusions.
The paper presents the hypothesis that private sector activity alone or even a carbon emission tax will suffice to transform human society to sustain itself. Then it cites previously published articles to refute this hypothesis.
From what? Do you really live in the illusion you get to choose? Did you choose where you were born? Who your parents were/ are? The language you speak first?
Did you choose education you were given?
There are only two rationally sustainable world views on freedom:
1) Freedom exists as a gift , granted to us by a transcendent and absolute truth which is also a will or a being and is the cause of the physical forces and the whole universe as well as all ethical and moral principles.
We are free in as much as we are allowed by that being to choose or reject what is good.
OR
2) freedom is an illusion , all human beings are simply the composite of their environment and genetics absolute truth does not exist ( or is unknowable) and personal desires of a human being no more or less important then those of an ape or an elephant. In which case as pavlov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov) was prone to say. "The sooner we get over this idea that free will exists and go about governing the human race, the better off we will all be".
HINT: If something inside you tells you that the second option 'just can't be true' you are right, because the cause of the universe within the first option has made every creature in such a way that experience draws them towards truth. Your desire can be your first piece of evidence in a long discovery of what is true and false. Or try to embrace number 2 fully and feel the utter coldness and meaninglessness of that world view, perhaps then you will realize it is incorrect.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
So... Capitalism is the problem...
All of those extremists that said Global Warming was a proxy for Socialist Communist totalitarianism... were right ?
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Actually, your headline is about as accurate as the summary's in that calling them chickens is about as accurate as calling them scientists. The lead author, Paavo Järvensivu, is a independent researcher of economic culture which is not science, the next author is a PhD student in the Department of Political and Economic Studies at Helsinki (again not science), and the next two authors appear to be philosophers only the last author claims to be a scientist.
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.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
None of them are economists. They are biological/environmental scientists.
THis is about as stupid as reading the far right scream that AGW is not real, and few of those claiming it, have even a degree in Climate, and most are not even scientists.
Now, with that said, much of what they claim is factual. The environment is being heavily polluted all around. Worst yet, we have boneheads all over claiming that we must allow large portions of the population to pollute, while claiming that a small portion drop to zero (so foolish).
Then they go on to point out how little energy comes on the AE side. Basically, we CAN/SHOULD get energy from wind/solar/hydro/etc BUT, it can/should not be the main sources. Oddly, the one source that can be cheap, is nuclear power and yet, they ignore it.
Without nuclear power, the globe IS in for SERIOUS trouble. We need to STOP ALL building out of new fossil fuel, esp. coal, plants. At its best, coal remains a disaster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The discipline of economics has 'accurately' predicted everything. It has also inaccurately predicted a much larger set of outcomes.
The problem is there is not one 'economics' and politicians pick the ones telling them what they want to hear.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There are only two rationally sustainable world views on freedom:
1) Freedom exists as a gift , granted to us by a transcendent and absolute truth which is also a will or a being and is the cause of the physical forces and the whole universe as well as all ethical and moral principles.
OR
2) freedom is an illusion , all human beings are simply the composite of their environment and genetics absolute truth does not exist ( or is unknowable) and personal desires of a human being no more or less important then those of an ape or an elephant.
This is a false dichotomy. There could be a deity, and it could be the case that said deity does not grant free will to us (as the Calvinists believe, in essence). It could also be the case that no divine beings exist, but we are self-directed agents. The universe is nondeterministic.
From 0 to 18000 kronor you have 0 tax. Sure 18000 kronor is not much (2000 dollar yearly!) but then up to 460K kronor, that is 50K dollar yearly the tax rate is only about 30%. So far off your 76%. In fact only the top marginal tax have 76% and ONLY if you count the VAT (the top tax is 57% not 76% and if you count 25% from VAT then only then you come near 70% at most and that is assuming you think all tax goes to the same entity the state, which is untrue as about 20% of that is municipality). So I would qualify your claim as not only untrue, but if the people having less than 70K$ per year have any brain they will vote to continue the system.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
First of all - it is clear that there are more than your two original options, which I will summarize as 1. We have freedom and a god, and 2. We have no freedom and no god. It is certainly the case that we might have 1b. We have no freedom AND a god. This is the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.
On the second statement - the question here is really about the definition of freedom. I tend to be an empiricist, and so for me a useful definition of this property called "freedom" would allow us to detect its presence or absence by observation. In the simplest terms, I would define freedom as the ability of an agent to perform an action at will. Can I decide to raise my right arm, and will my right arm raise? I can, and it will. I can likewise decide not to do that, and see the results I expect.
Based on that observation, I would conclude that I have freedom. And I would say that I am a "self-directed agent".
Now, for determinism. I consider a deterministic system to be one in which we can predict its future state with perfect accuracy, given complete information about its present state. A non-deterministic system does not have this property.
So, is it possible that I am merely a collection of deterministic events, following inexorably from the initial state of the universe? Could I be just a Newtonian ball in a very complex but ultimately predictable billiards game? No, because that's not the universe we live in. Observation has shown us that the universe is fundamentally unknowable AND unpredictable - Heisenberg uncertainty being one of the simplest examples. So the billiards ball argument against free will is not compatible with our reality.
2 to write and 1 to make the docs pretty. What's the problem? You do understand that pol science is hard, right? It's essentially statistics. Same with being an Economic cultural researcher. Again, math.
.com boom? The housing bubble? Regular people made money because there was just plain so much of it. But a lot of that money was real and was due to massive increases in productivity. Manufacturing's doubled in 50 years. Farm yields are through the roof. Did you know those farm yields require oil, and not just to run tractors? We use oil by products to replenish soil so we can grow without waiting for the land to recover.
And it's not even hard to imagine why they're saying all this. Capitalism as we practice it today makes people's lives better by growing faster than the ruling class can monopolize the wealth. Remember the
Their point is we can't keep that up. Climate Change won't let us. We can't "grow ourselves out of a recession" anymore. At some point we're going to need social solutions. That means reigning in what we let the ruling class have/do. It means that the scraps the working class has traditionally been left with, which have been mighty tasty scraps of late, are about to go back to what they used to be; scraps. We either fix that with socialism or we go back to feudalism with kings, queens and knights being the crap out of us peasants.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> Capitalism is "the astonishing belief that the nastiest motives of the nastiest men somehow or other work for the best results in the best of all possible worlds"- jmk
Socialism is this on steroids.
Capitalism is merely economic freedom.
Socialism takes the evil distributed in many smaller entities and concentrates it into one single source of evil that there is no escape from.
Socialism turns commerce into a capital crime where people risk their lives providing bare basic necessities for their fellow citizens.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> The $20,000 luxury car has now turned into a $50,000 subcompact.
You are confusing the United States with Denmark. I bought my last truck for less than $20K.
This kind of deranged hysterical bullshit just makes you look like you've never bought a car for yourself ever in your life and still live in your mother's basement.
It's like you are confusing bad Facebook memes with real life.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Every Libertarian with whom I've had such a discussion has mostly convinced me that he doesn't actually understand his worship words. My sig is actually a kind of key, but I'll go ahead and include the longer version (but still somewhat constrained by Slashdot font restrictions):
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful + Truthful - Coerced) Choice{~5} != (Beer^4 | Speech | Trade)
I bet I could do at least 18 minutes TED-style on it, but I doubt you can figure out any of it. The typical Libertarian tends to get especially confused about the last term. Hint: There is no perfect knowledge.
I think you can advocate for a completely different form of capitalism if you stop with the money and start with the time. Every one-dimensional metric is dubious, but money is perhaps the most meaningless. In joke form, the bean counters know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This "Global Warming Will Be The Downfall Of Capitalism" nonsense has been around for a long time. Decades.
There is a very strong correlation between how strongly one believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming and political ideology.
I used to get a lot of chuckles when I'd see the warming alarmists saying "there's a correlation between deniers and right-wing politics!"
When they so obviously did not understand that necessarily means there is also a correlation between believers and left-wing politics.
I'm just plain tired of hearing it. This "capitalism is against the environment" crap is nothing more than that: crap.
Tell me: why is the United States the only country asked which did NOT agree to the Paris Accord, yet it is also the only country of all of them to reduce CO2 emissions?
Chew on that one for a while.
You think a command economy is the solution? You want fascism? If the CEOs are so selfish and greedy, why can we trust that the komissars, politburo, and general secretary won't be just as greedy?
I mean, a CEO is a CEO.. Be he the head of a corporation or a country.
We will never achieve anything like a communist utopia. It is against our very nature. People will always aspire to be a little better than those around them. That makes for a pretty tail and very pointy pyramid.. With someone always at the top. ALWAYS.
I love how you think employees will run the company better than "greedy cunts".
Mass decision is even more ineffective and dangerous than smaller pluralities. Mass decision was one of the reasons the Roman Republic fell into dictatorship.
Have you never read this famous quote? Or do you think it's bullshit?
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of The Republic.”
Benjamin Franklin
Why is there only about ten employee owned companies on the Fortune 400?
Do you really think Joe's (in legal) vote on where to direct the company should be worth the same as Sam's (in accounting)? You don't think that a person with a legal degree should have more to say, in the running of a company and it's compliance with various laws, than a guy who does math all day?
Yeah.. Let's have companies ran and owned by the employees.. I can just see how many times the "let's vote ourselves a raise" vote will fail.. And then will be the inevitable bankruptcy....
What color is the sky in your world?
Even _if_ command economies worked, they would still put too much power in the hands of those in command and inevitably lead to totalitarianism. Power corrupts.
Congratulations, you now know the key, unfixable, flaw in socialism and can get on with your life.
Krugman is a moron, there are no Keynesians. Keynesians save during good times. There are just deficit spenders with an excuse: 'Keynesians'.
There is no Nobel Prize in economics. Economists just made one up to lend themselves credibility. Next: 'Nobel prizes' in chiropracty and scientology auditing.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ahhhh the no true scientist fallacy
I think you need to look up the "no true Scotsman" fallacy again. I'm not trying to redefine scientist to exclude people who write such reports I'm pointing out a factual error that, these people themselves, claim to have professions which are not scientist. This is not a logical fallacy but a factual error.