 |
| |
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
Impaler, your idea is actually an argument against the U.N. gaining any more power, in particular the power to tax.
If the U.N. had the authority to levy taxes, it would invariably use that power to impose its own vision (or more likely graft) on member states, by denying them funds unless certain requirements were met.
Naturally countries could "opt out" of receiving money, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't work the other way around.
A country could either conform and get some of its money back or effectively pay a huge tax for the privilege of being different.
The sad part is that some sort of world law absolutely needs to exist to protect such interests as the environment, sensible intellectual property protection (the U.S. has gone to one unhealthy extreme and China the other), and slavery (in particular the terrible global crime of forced prostitution.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
The problem with the EU is that France and Germany are giving themselves special exemptions from the EU's economic stability requirements.
Even if cutting some slack on budget deficits is by itself no big deal, it sets a dangerous precedent: one set of rules for France and Germany, another set for "everyone else" is no way to run an economic alliance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RoadRash
|
|
San Jose, CA, USA
Apr 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
Establishing a common currency is extremely worthwhile. Likewise it's good to have a common defense plan etc. Beyond lie treacherous waters indeed.
Political organizations tend to micromanage. I predict the EU will gradually sink into this trap, stifling economic growth and freedoms for millions. All in the name of prosperity and benevolence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
Like Germany's desire to "normalize" tax rates?
"Normalize" in this case means "force", and "normal" is defined as "whatever Germany's doing", in case you were wondering ...
I can't really knock the EU right now, though, because Germany seems to be on the losing side of this one. To achieve their goal of regulating member states' tax policies they would have to change the EU's Constitution, a measure the UK opposes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Very interesting conversation, and I’m sorry I didn’t stumble on it sooner. A couple of comments:
Political system: What we understand as a FM system on earth (in the SMAC sense) is the combination of economic and political systems, so we need to be careful when comparing what we know and understand with SMAC. I would argue that the FM system, by itself, is not protective of the environment. Property owners (more properly considered ‘business owners’ in a FM system) typically have a short term view, and are perfectly willing to rape and plunder to meet quarterly profit goals and leave the mess for the next CEO. What does protect the environment is the political system that the economic system works in. For instance, there are varying levels of (effective) regulation on what is acceptable economic behavior, ranging from reckless pollution in the nominal democracy in Mexico and the dictatorship of China to strict environmental standards in the democracies of Western Europe (with the USA being in between these extremes). FM by itself does nothing to protect the environment, except for preserving value in what is owned or when regulation forces property owners to decide it is less expensive not to pollute.
FM forced to be ‘Green’: Any improvements the West sees in its environment is due to social pressure (e.g. – democracy), where laws that regulate business are enacted due to public outrage. A typical business will happily dump methyl-ethyl-death in the local river or groundwater system, as long as it is ‘allowed’ (either because there are no regulations or regulations are not enforced) and costs them nothing. When these costs are forced on them they then will consider changing their behavior; or they will hire lots or lawyers or consultants (like myself) to put off the day of reckoning as long as possible (or until the next CEO comes along, so it will be his or her problem). There are very, very few altruistic business owners who will voluntarily ‘do the right thing’ when that ‘right thing’ costs them money but gets them no defined gain (I’ve worked for exactly one such business in 14 years; others fight tooth and nail to minimize or eliminate liability for contamination they’ve caused, or force someone else to clean it up).
‘Green’ FM Illusion: Another factor influencing the perceived ‘clean’ nature of Western FM economics is due to outsourcing, typically to areas where there is less regulation cost (Mexico and China come to mind) and less costs for this and other reasons (labor being the other). The result when combined with regulation is a cleaner Western economy, but this is due to smokestacks being shut down (sent to China) or muzzled (regulated). This, again, has nothing to do with FM since 1) they fight regulation that increases costs or 2) simply move the pollution somewhere else.
Technology: FM is good at being innovative in technology to reduce pollution, but I would argue it does so only because it has depleted resources and needs more to stoke its engines (rising energy prices prompts efforts at efficiency), or it is forced do by regulation (putting scrubbers on smokestacks). So, is FM innovative in an environmental fashion? Yes, but only when force to by outside political and economic forces.
As you can tell, I’m pretty jaded about the FM system (as we’ve defined it). It does nothing to mitigate the degradation of the environment or horrors of tragedy of the commons since it has a short term mentality (three months is a long time for FM, but a millisecond for the Earth) and it places no ‘value’ on the commons. Only a political system can do that.
Hydro
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
You've explained all the reasons it doesn't work, but I'm more interested in why it does.
For their population size, free markets have proven the lesser of evils.
Why?
My guess is that a large share of private interest overlaps environmental interest, which shrinks the regulatory problem to a more manageable size.
It could be even simpler than that, though: maybe free markets produce enough prosperity that a critical mass of people have worked their way down Maslow's Heirarchy to a point the environment actually matters to them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Quezacotl06
|
|
I usualy find it cheaper to just run psych/wealth to get +2 with Gaians than to do the merchant exchange. Not like morale can get worse right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
SC – I think you missed the point. FM doesn’t ‘work’ since (as others have said) it is the default economic model humans have used for a long, long time. It’s been tweaked, and given a fancy new name and new abilities as technology has improved. Face it – there have been markets and trading since some enterprising neolithic man traded his clovis point flint spear head for some nifty cowry shells. Let to its own devices (and bereft of other controls) man will consume everything in its path since demand is almost insatiable. This would lead us on a straight road to extinction since, like bacteria in a petri dish, at some point all the food is used up and you’re done.
The controlling factor is the political/social system in which the economic system resides. If that political system sees value in preserving the environment then it will force the economy to give up a portion of its prosperity to get that benefit. If the society is amenable to rivers bursting into flame, toxic air, and groundwater that tastes like jet fuel then that is what they will get.
Hydro
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RoadRash
|
|
San Jose, CA, USA
Apr 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
Property owners (more properly considered ‘business owners’ in a FM system) typically have a short term view, and are perfectly willing to rape and plunder to meet quarterly profit goals and leave the mess for the next CEO.
|
Agreed, though you are simply describing human nature. Greed and shortsightedness also characterize government bureacracies.
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
FM by itself does nothing to protect the environment...
|
Again I agree. The level of freedom in the marketplace has little connection to law enforcement. If anything, laws are easier to enforce in a free market. Central control brings a black market inversely proportional to market freedom. Such enterprises are utterly unregulated, and are a boon to organized crime, which in turn erodes political integrity and weakens national security.
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
...others fight tooth and nail to minimize or eliminate liability for contamination they’ve caused, or force someone else to clean it up.
|
Worst of all, their attempts to shifting the responsibility is often done with the quiet collaboration of paid government lackeys. Which should be an ominous note to those who want government to play a bigger economic role.
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
Another factor influencing the perceived ‘clean’ nature of Western FM economics is due to outsourcing, typically to areas where there is less regulation cost (Mexico and China come to mind)
|
A good point. But it doesn't refute the horrendous economic disasters endured in various communist countries BEFORE the west started shipping jobs over.
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
As you can tell, I’m pretty jaded about the FM system (as we’ve defined it). It ... places no ‘value’ on the commons. Only a political system can do that.
|
For myself, Free Market does not equal Anarchy. Poisoning the water supply is a crime regardless of the level of economic centralization. Decentralizing the economy remains a vital and separate goal.
It sounds like you are mainly upset about corrupt business practises. I agree, it's a serious problem. It won't go away by centralizing the economy. It simply requires that governments start cracking down on the cheaters, swindlers, polluters, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
RR – I think you may have missed my point, too, and that we are talking past each other. Economics in any form is not a mechanism for conservation of anything, be it resources, human life, or the biosystem in which we reside. Only the political framework in which it resides can put limits on an economic system (notice I didn’t say FM, since that is a description of a variant of all economic systems).
Corruption: With less regulation (e.g. – government) how, pray tell, will the polluters, cheats, and corrupt individuals and unethical corporations be brought to justice under a largely unfettered and freewheeling FM system? We can pass all the laws on ethics and behaviors we want, but if they aren’t enforced then they are ineffective and useless. Like it or not, Law requires Government. The question is the trade off between the two. To have less Government you have to trust in human nature (HA!); those who advocate more Government see the economy as an animal to be managed lest it get out of control.
Communism and pollution: the Communist ‘planned’ economy produced massive pollution because it didn’t value any form of environmental protection. This does not mean that planned economies can’t do this, only that the government in the former USSR and Eastern Block countries didn’t. And, keep in mind that the USA has had its share of environmental disasters (Love Canal, Three Mile Island, all of Northwest Indiana, the Saginaw River that had a nasty habit of spontaneously bursting into flame, dead estuaries of the Delaware River, and Lake Erie which was dead by the 1960s) and chronic problems (sucking aquifers dry, horrendous air pollution that is getting worse in Houston, and slightly better in LA). Those little environmental problems and disasters happened in the USA under our enlightened FM system. So, why is the economic system as formulated in the West and adopted by the industrialized world seen as environmentally ‘better’, and why is the USA cleaning up its act (slowly, oh so slowly)? Answer: because we’re willing to invest some of the riches of our economy to do so. The Communists in the USSR didn’t, and their people will pay the price for a long, long time.
Again, the point is that the government (and the laws it chooses to enact and enforce), not the economic system (which is simply a vehicle or mechanism), defines the level of protection of the environment for its citizens.
Hydro
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
RR – I think you may have missed my point, too, and that we are talking past each other. Economics in any form is not a mechanism for conservation of anything, be it resources, human life, or the biosystem in which we reside. Only the political framework in which it resides can put limits on an economic system (notice I didn’t say FM, since that is a description of a variant of all economic systems).
Corruption: With less regulation (e.g. – government) how, pray tell, will the polluters, cheats, and corrupt individuals and unethical corporations be brought to justice under a largely unfettered and freewheeling FM system? We can pass all the laws on ethics and behaviors we want, but if they aren’t enforced then they are ineffective and useless. Like it or not, Law requires Government. The question is the trade off between the two. To have less Government you have to trust in human nature (HA!); those who advocate more Government see the economy as an animal to be managed lest it get out of control.
Communism and pollution: the Communist ‘planned’ economy produced massive pollution because it didn’t value any form of environmental protection. This does not mean that planned economies can’t do this, only that the government in the former USSR and Eastern Block countries didn’t. And, keep in mind that the USA has had its share of environmental disasters (Love Canal, Three Mile Island, all of Northwest Indiana, the Saginaw River that had a nasty habit of spontaneously bursting into flame, dead estuaries of the Delaware River, and Lake Erie which was dead by the 1960s) and chronic problems (sucking aquifers dry, horrendous air pollution that is getting worse in Houston, and slightly better in LA). Those little environmental problems and disasters happened in the USA under our enlightened FM system. So, why is the economic system as formulated in the West and adopted by the industrialized world seen as environmentally ‘better’, and why is the USA cleaning up its act (slowly, oh so slowly)? Answer: because we’re willing to invest some of the riches of our economy to do so. The Communists in the USSR didn’t, and their people will pay the price for a long, long time.
Again, the point is that the government (and the laws it chooses to enact and enforce), not the economic system (which is simply a vehicle or mechanism), defines the level of protection of the environment for its citizens.
Hydro |
While I agree with your main point, I'd like to also point out that the FM economies of the West produced a lot more wealth (which was the whole point of the exercise) for the amount of pollution produced than the planned economies of the former Soviet Union etc. Efficiency is good, even in ways that may not have been intended.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:35
|
|
Here’s my take on the SMAC Free Market and Democracy and justifying the penalties.
Politics refers to the command structure
Police State involves a military command structure, very rigid, people are ordered what to do, and do it or get beaten.
Under Fundamentalist a religion is created to suit the faction leaders goals and "priests" appointed, the "priests" provide guidance, and the temples/churches act as hubs of organization. Fundamentalism actually isn't dissimilar to police state, except everything gets wrapped up in religious dogma.
Democracy is not like the party democracies of earthly nations, that much should be obvious by the lack of leadership change.
Rather it's like elected/volunteer/random selection councils that govern each community, every community is governed by members of the community (which really is very much the spirit of democracy). Naturally they will choose to promote growth (as is human nature) and efficiency is better (because the councilors are strongly aware of local issues rather than being arrogant sods from faction HQ). Finally support is low, because each community is natural going to want to use their resources within the community. And on the whole they are pretty content with their little power to the people setups and tolerate the military issues because they aren’t morons and know that security is important.
To summarize:
Police State – The state sends a bunch of arrogant and armed military officials to ruthlessly command each base.
Fundamentalism - The state forces their religion upon and appoints high priests at every base.
Democracy - The state allows each base to form their own council, comprised of members of the base selected in a democratic manner, giving a high degree of autonomy to each base and a nice warm fuzzy feeling of freedom.
Now for Free Market. Free Market is much too broad a term because it can basically mean "Prices are set by supply/demand in the market and not set or manipulated by an authority". This is not sufficient to create negative impacts, especially under certain financial systems, for example interest bearing currency strongly promotes short term profits and un-sustainability, for example if you own a forest, you do best to chop it all down and sell the wood and put the money in the bank to earn interest. However interest bearing currency isn't the only possibility, it is equally possible to use currency with a demurrage charge (negative interest, basically), if your money is going to decrease in value over time you'll sell the wood from your forest only as you need the money so as to avoid excessive demurrage. Hence interest bearing currency promotes un-sustainability in a free market, while non-interest bearing currency in a free market promotes sustainability. (and in fact the solution to the worlds problems is that easy, change how money works and you change how people act - fortunately the new money systems can and are growing inside the old system and in fact even complement rather than compete with the old system, there is no need for revolution)
But I digress, even if the digression is fascinating in and of itself and highly relevant to any speculation of future economics, especially when in societies that form with no existing financial system.
The Free Market in SMAC refers to an economic system controlled by capitalists and ruled by greed. Competition for resources and money is massively promoted. All social security safety nets are stripped from the state, people work or starve. What’s more, the state taxes as much from the system as possible, "extracting" energy for it's own purposes, in an economy ruled by greed, it is only natural for the state to be greedy also. Under this system people work like dogs (they don't have time for any extra breeding), they are forced to be self-centered to survive and so have little tolerance for being told what to do by police or military (Usually like "We pay your ****ing salary with our taxes and you dare tell us what to do"). People are far too busy working to care about environmental issues, or really any issue other than their own survival in the dog-eat-dog world. It's a total free for all, and like most free for alls there are more losers than winners, yet there’s no choice but to play the game, because the other choice is starvation.
Before anyone commences holywars, remember I make it a nasty system to fit the penalties. I in no way say that this is the only way a free market can work, as I hopefully explained sufficiently earlier. In fact I would say the penalties don't fit a free market at all really, it's just that that SE setting got called Free Market, perhaps for want of a better term, or because the name Free Market can be applied to many different systems, or just because Free Market is an economic buzzword. So just remember first and foremost I am talking about that setting in the 1,1 slot on the SE table in SMAC and not Free Markets or Capitalism in general.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blake
Here’s my take on the SMAC Free Market and Democracy and justifying the penalties.
Politics refers to the command structure
Police State involves a military command structure, very rigid, people are ordered what to do, and do it or get beaten.
Under Fundamentalist a religion is created to suit the faction leaders goals and "priests" appointed, the "priests" provide guidance, and the temples/churches act as hubs of organization. Fundamentalism actually isn't dissimilar to police state, except everything gets wrapped up in religious dogma.
Democracy is not like the party democracies of earthly nations, that much should be obvious by the lack of leadership change.
Rather it's like elected/volunteer/random selection councils that govern each community, every community is governed by members of the community (which really is very much the spirit of democracy). Naturally they will choose to promote growth (as is human nature) and efficiency is better (because the councilors are strongly aware of local issues rather than being arrogant sods from faction HQ). Finally support is low, because each community is natural going to want to use their resources within the community. And on the whole they are pretty content with their little power to the people setups and tolerate the military issues because they aren’t morons and know that security is important.
To summarize:
Police State – The state sends a bunch of arrogant and armed military officials to ruthlessly command each base.
Fundamentalism - The state forces their religion upon and appoints high priests at every base.
Democracy - The state allows each base to form their own council, comprised of members of the base selected in a democratic manner, giving a high degree of autonomy to each base and a nice warm fuzzy feeling of freedom.
Now for Free Market. Free Market is much too broad a term because it can basically mean "Prices are set by supply/demand in the market and not set or manipulated by an authority". This is not sufficient to create negative impacts, especially under certain financial systems, for example interest bearing currency strongly promotes short term profits and un-sustainability, for example if you own a forest, you do best to chop it all down and sell the wood and put the money in the bank to earn interest. However interest bearing currency isn't the only possibility, it is equally possible to use currency with a demurrage charge (negative interest, basically), if your money is going to decrease in value over time you'll sell the wood from your forest only as you need the money so as to avoid excessive demurrage. Hence interest bearing currency promotes un-sustainability in a free market, while non-interest bearing currency in a free market promotes sustainability. (and in fact the solution to the worlds problems is that easy, change how money works and you change how people act - fortunately the new money systems can and are growing inside the old system and in fact even complement rather than compete with the old system, there is no need for revolution)
|
There has almost always been demurrage in the guise of inflation whenever currency has been used. The reason that currency has always been constructed of rare or difficult to manufacture materials is an attempt to minimize inflation by making the spamming of currency more difficult, with mixed results. But inflation has been the rule over time.
The countervailing tendency to inflation in the past was hoarding. As fairly safe interest bearing notes have been a pretty recent innovation, people in the past tended to hoard cash, which caused deflation by reducing the amount of cash in circulation. Deflation is a huge disincentive to investment, as cash becomes more valuable over time with no risk to the holder. One of the main positive economic results of warfare over the ages has been to reduce hoarding by either relieving the hoarders of their cash by force, or forcing them to spend it in order to protect themselves. One impact of Alexander's conquests was to put an immense amount of currency back into circulation, which in turn caused an immense amount of growth.
Of course currency is only a small percentage of capital. Agriculture had an enormous impact on the growth of capital, moreso than in the growth of currency. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, when one doesn't have to move around all of the time to survive it becomes possible to accrue a lot of capital in the form of land, tools, buildings etc. Secondly, agriculture requires a lot of labor, which makes capital more valuable because capital saves labor. Heavy tools like plows can't be dragged around the countryside easily, but they save an immense amount of labor for the farmer who stays put. Likewise, a fort substitutes the labor of many soldiers in its ability to defend the possessions of its owner.
It is interesting to note the relative percentages of populations engaged in the profession of arms over the ages. Simple agricultural societies could afford relatively small armies (percentage wise) contrary to popular belief. They were nonetheless generally successful over their nomadic cousins because they had much larger populations to draw upon, their members were typically professional or able to draw on a cadre of professionals unlike the nomad who is the consumate generalist. They were also able to make use of capital in the form of fortifications and superior arms and armor. Finally, armies from agricultural societies had staying power, as they had food surpluses from which to draw sustenance when they operated within range of their own stores. This was a powerful defensive combination, and it was very difficult for nomads to make much of a dent in it most of the time.
More complex trading economies can afford larger armed forces, as they make more efficient use of their labor. If one can buy grain cheaply and regularly from more efficient fields and farmers, it make sense to find a profession which can offer a better bottom line, as a tradesman, soldier etc. This was Rome's strength in large part.
The signal event in fairly recent times for the growth in the size of armies was the advent of the Republic, where every man was a stakeholder in the government and could be called to service in times of national emergency. Note the difference in the size of forces deployed in the middle of the 18th century vs the hordes that Napolean could call upon just a few decades later. This is why I have an extreme dislike for Democracy's support hit in SMAC. Yes, compared to the Police State, Democracies keep a smaller portion of their population in the military, but this is a choice not an inherent condition. One reason that the West went with smaller armies than the Soviet bloc was that their citizens were much more productive, and it was felt that it was more efficient to substitute capital for labor as capital was not in nearly as short supply in the West. This process fed back on itself, as with more labor available to the economy more capital was available for the military.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
I did say free markets were the "lesser of evils".
Free markets by themselves don't protect the commons, but "communal" systems do an even worse job.
The larger the commons, it seems, the more abuse they suffer.
Free markets would therefore seem to be simultaneously part of the problem and part of the solution, inasmuch as any other economic system would create a bigger problem.
I do agree with you, though, that all this talk about economic systems does "miss the point", as you put it.
Solutions to environmental problems, like all issues involving "The Commons", will derive from the wisdom of voters and officeholders in making and enforcing scientifically valid, peer-reviewed, common sense rules, not by increasing the scope of the commons through tried-and-failed Marxist economic policies. That, as history demonstrates, will only make the problem worse.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
"Hi, Jack!" isn't just something that gets you kicked off airplanes ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
smacksim
|
 |
Deputy Chairman of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Feb 2004
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Santiago_Clause
Free markets by themselves don't protect the commons, but "communal" systems do an even worse job.
The larger the commons, it seems, the more abuse they suffer.
|
IE, in your own family unit, it's harder to abuse resources without getting confronted/corrected, etc.. In a small town, it's hard to get away with anything b/c everyone knows how things are 'supposed to be', and changes you make are easily tied to you. In small cities, small companies are obvious, but individuals begin to disappear. In big cities and countries, noone can see obvious cause/effect relationships at a glance. Thus, the larger systems are less geared towards protecting common interests, just by their size.
quote:
{...}
Solutions to environmental problems, like all issues involving "The Commons", will derive from the wisdom of voters and officeholders in making and enforcing scientifically valid, peer-reviewed, common sense rules, not by increasing the scope of the commons through tried-and-failed Marxist economic policies. That, as history demonstrates, will only make the problem worse. |
If this is a satifactory conclusion to these issues, I'm pretty dissapointed. For one thing, the 'Commons' is not contained or defined by the people or their government. We can't decide 'Ummm, the Earth and her ecosystems are no longer part of the Commons'. What would that mean, that we have decided that our impacts no longer effect the larger environment? That we can no longer legally share the environment? Huh? It's an arithmetic dividing by zero error.
Two, since when have voters or their reps (officeholders) shown any wisdom in following scientific processes about setting environmental law? Politicians make decisions for political, not scientific reasons. Voters oversimplify issues because they 'just know' the right thing to do, or want to save baby seals, or can't understand that their God-Given-Right to Petroleum is in conflict with their leftist leanings about the environment. I just don't see it.
What I see in your paragraph here is an artificial comparison of 'Make better laws' vs. 'Enlarge the Commons'. Am I missing something? Surely. But I'll ramble anyways.
I'd argue that we will never make better laws r/e the environment until we undergo some sort of radical change. Mere scientific progress/research/conclusions will never be enough to stand against a tide of culture. Certainly there is a good chance that we Will eventually make much more comprehensive environmental laws, but I'd argue that this will be after the ZIT of our consumer culture has popped, after some unrelated cultural upheaval, or after a very long epoch of prosperity. With stable prosperity, eventually we'll be ready to 'afford' environmental laws that are strict, far-seeing, and comprehensive. I just kinda wonder how long that'll be? And I do worry that this last path will involve significant environmental backlash, just like any other non-Planned policy will.
Backlash: Overpopulation continues, increasing mass starvation. Increasing global disease (AIDS, west nile, Hepatitis, Cholera, etc.). Global disease peaks with decimation of even the (oh my god noooooo!) Western Countries.
Backlash: Thousands of years pass with little cultural change, or non-rapacious policies. Prime resources are fairly decimated (Timber, Oil, Fisheries, arable land, etc.). War, energy failure, breakdown in transportation system, or other 'fluke', knocks the world off this precarious precipice. Many hundreds of years to recover (considering there are very few resources for a more primitive economy to get started)
Backlash: Interstellar police come by and give us all a spanking for having ruined their Zoo. (See the Vogon invasion in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) 
Now, what's this bit about enlarging the Commons? The Commons is infinately large, eh? Bigger? But you refer to Communism as an enlargement, so I'll take it to mean that 'Enlarging the Commons' means to intentionally extend our interdependence. But this breaks down as well. The thing that causes the MOST interdependence between individuals in the modern world is Modernization itself. The more backwards and primitive a group/country is, the less interdependent the indivituals will be. Five nomads in central Brazil are completely independent, with the exception that in 50 years, they will no longer have any land/jungle/trees/food, and that the air quality, etc. is impacted by those far away.
So, there are really two sides to the ever expanding environmental 'Commons'. On one side is our increasing dependence on global resources and transportation networks. Very likely, the food you eat comes from all over the globe, etc.. On the other side, our increasing impact on global scales, such as CO2 emissions, deforestation, ocean pollution, etc., also increases the effect of the Commons on the individual. If both continue to increase, it will become ever more obvious that we are all living IN the Commons, which has always been true, but isn't visible until it slaps you (apparently).
The Commons is increasing in size irregardless of politics. It is increasing in size b/c population pressure and Modernization. B/C global environmental impacts. B/C global disease, etc.
This is not a good thing, and it has nothing to do with Communism. With this perspective of the Commons, any backwards political system in fact slows down our progression towards complete interdependence, and hence, slows down the expansion of the Commons. For example, as I know you all are thinking of it anyways, what about the U.S.S.R.? If we can demonstrate that the USSR was slower to Modernize than the west, we can show that one variable in expanding the Commons was smaller there than in the West. It is arguable that another variable was larger: Direct impact on the global environment, from pollution, irresponsible harvesting, etc.. These variables are like particles and have different energies/masses as far as balooning the Commons is concerned. To grossly oversimplify all the variables a person could think relate to such an equation....:
Increased Interdependence (Modernization) * Number of people per hectare = Balloon factor one.
Increased Damage of global environment = Balloon factor two.
Balloon1 * Balloon2 = Volume of the Commons / Volume of Independence
Or some such 
-Smack
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2004 23:12
![Visit Impaler[WrG]'s homepage!](/forums/images/homepage.gif)
|