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!*

[PuckSR]

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.

If capitalism dies, it will be because of its own success in a world of freedom and free people have moved on, and not because some power hungry snot in government decides for it on its own behalf.

Properly speaking, capitalism is a corollary of freedom, in the economic world.

I dont think anyone disagrees. Free-market capitalism is great. It is a bit like natural selection. You get very robust and successful specimens out of the process.
The problem is that just like natural selection, shit can get a bit out of control. The old animals don't simply move over and let the new animals in. The world has to burn a bit. You get malthusian collapses and periods of starvation. Everything eventually settles down and equilibrium is reached(after a few hundred generations), but it isn't a smooth transition.

Also, just like natural selection, stuff gets completely out of control if you pump unlimited resources into an environment. Imagine you had an aquarium, and you started pumping it full of fish food. The fish aren't simply going to eat until they are full and then allow the other animals to thrive. The larger fish will gourge themselves. Some of them will gourge themselves to death if you aren't careful. They will grow huge. They will still attack all of the smaller fish that they can now fit in their mouth. It won't be because of any need for food, rather it will be a basic predatory instinct. They will use their new size to dominate the fish tank. Even with the unlimited food supply, they will still be attacking all of the other organisms in the aquarium. They will pick the aquarium clean, until you have nothing in the tank but a few massive fish. The massive fish wont even be able to swim.

No one is saying that natural selection/free-market is bad. In fact, it is very good. Evolutionary algorithms are some of the best in the world to solve difficult computer problems. The issue is that they are messy. They are incredibly messy. They will require many generations of destruction to reach equilibrium. That is fine if we are talking about bits of data. It can be a bit more dubious if we are talking about human lives. They also frequently come up with solutions which are very counter-intuitive and downright cruel. Once again, not so bad in some realms. Awful when discussing human beings. The solution to the problem is to keep some hand on the system and make sure that the experiment of the free-market doesn't get too crazy. We don't want 5-year-olds working in mines or people being sold as slaves, both of which are free-market solutions.
You can debate how much 'regulation' you want on that experiment, but don't pretend for a second you want a completely unregulated free market. I can promise you that a world without regulation would be very messy and very ugly. After a few thousand years, it might settle down, but in the meantime many millions of people would suffer. So the real debate is only how tightly you want to rein in the experiment.

Now, as far as a post-scarcity world:
You want to get there more quickly? Why?
We have no idea how to handle that transition and the transition will be ugly as fuck. Lets be honest, we are pretty much already to a post-scarcity world.
Right now, the total energy cost to build a solar power plant is less than the output of the solar power plant. What does that mean?
Hypothetically I could build a 1 MW solar plant, and then exclusively energy from that solar plant over the next 30 years to build a 1.2 MW plant. That would include the mining, refining, fabrication, feeding the workers, harvesting their food, etc.
Unfortunately, the gains are pretty minimal and without an energy market it doesn't quite work out right now. However, we are on the precipice of a world where energy is basically just limited to how muc

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]

You're talking about free trade, which is not the same as capitalism.

From Wikipedia, take it for what you will, "Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."

There may have been very small scale capitalist like economies in the distant past, but nothing like what we have today which emerged maybe 500 years ago.

Too many people are ignoring history and definitions in order to promote their own definitions of capitalism and socialism in order to label one of them as evil. If it's one thing you'd expect from engineers and which is always lacking on slashdot is precision.

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.!!

[Gravis Zero]

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 think what they are suggesting is that unregulated/ill regulated capitalism is a serious problem because it doesn't act in the best interest of the people. However, socialism is intended to be directed to benefit society.

Do note, fascist dictatorships are not mutually exclusive to capitalistic economies and democracies are not mutually exclusive to social economies.

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.

I agree. However, the reason for this isn't because "capitalism will solve all the problems!" Instead, it's because a tax will eventually get applied to pollution output and thus there will be an economic incentive to pollute less. Until we use regulation to incentivize reducing and removing pollution from the environment, capitalism will continue to plunder the environment.

Regulation and taxation is the solution, not the problem.

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.

It would be more accurate to say it will be due to massively regressive taxation and the ever growing military industrial complex.

The nation only generates so much wealth each year, and it's a recipe for disaster to keep spending more than what's sustainable.

Agreed. If you are going to spend more money than you have then you need to raise taxes. The magical thinking that you can cut taxes and spend more is just absurdism.

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.

Re:"Scientists"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's take a look...

Paavo Järvensivu - Economic cultural researcher
Tero Toivanen - Political Scientist
Tere Vadén - Philosopher
Ville Lähde - Philosopher and Journalist
Antti Majava - Artist
Jussi T. Eronen - Scientist

So... I guess to answer your specific question, yes, at least some of them are likely applying the scientific method to their research. But I would definitely call this a multi-disciplinary group rather than a group of scientists.

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?

[tepples]

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.

As Accurate as the Summary's Claim...

[Roger W Moore]

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.

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.

3 guys/gals to do the math

[rsilvergun]

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.

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 .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.

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.