who wouldn't agree with you?
The question is, what to do, when we know, that
the present economical structure is not
able to cope with global environmental and social
problems.
Giving money to failing economies means
giving western financial institutions back what they
"risked" in investment, while when the going was good
they contributed nothing to any social or environmental
betterment.
"Financial aid" to a poor country is more or less the
same, lending them money to buy western goods - mostly
arms.
The system doesn't work, the system has to go, to be
replaced by local and global democracies, initially
collating local resources and then having a global
stock-taking of what we can do to survive and sustain
what we can...
Eva
>
> I find Jay Hanson's position a bit contradictory. On the one hand, he argues
> that we are all going to hell in a handbasket, and yet, on the other, he
> suggests the involvement of "systems scientists" in the analysis of "the big
> picture" and the development of of an action plan that would save "whole
> enchilada". During my career, I have been involved in several "big picture"
> social and environmental impact studies, and would suggest that there is
> absolutely nothing less frustrating than trying to understand "big
> pictures". No matter how objective one tries to be, one always approaches
> the "picture" with preconceived notions, perspectives and illusions. To
> undertake the analysis with some efficiency, one starts by distinguishing
> the really important things from the unimportant, only to find, half way
> through, that the important isn't important and the unimportant or
> unexpected is. Meanwhile, one is dealing with an enormously complex moving
> picture into which new events are forever intruding themselves.
>
> But having said that, I would agree with Jay's main point: that we are
> pushing against the limits of the Earth's ability to sustain us, a point
> which many have made, including an economist, Herman Daly.
>
> We are not the first people to have pushed up against the limits of
> sustainability. Many peoples have done so, but when this has happened in
> the past people have usually always found another place to go. If people
> depleted their water table, they might have died, but if they were strong
> enough, they would simply have take over someone else's water table and have
> them die instead. This is no longer possible. We are all using a common
> water table now.
>
> I for one have serious doubts about our ability to remain confined within
> our ecological limits. We are an imperfect animal, not nearly as rational
> as some would like us to be. There are too many of us now, and we are
> greedy and self-serving. And as Jay and many others have pointed out, we
> are moving from an energy surplus to an energy deficit position too rapidly.
> In my opinion, the problem has already shifted from how we might be
> contained to what might happen if we are not.
>
> We may, in fact, already be getting an early taste of what the
> unsustainability of our industrial culture could mean. The Asian Miracle is
> unraveling. People who just a year ago were reasonably well off are now
> poor and in many cases destitute. Solutions which cannot possibly work in
> the longer run are being applied in some desperation; for example, attempts
> to prop up Russia and other failing economies by massive transfers of funds
> via the IMF. There is a pessimism abroad which suggests that people are
> subconsciously if not consciously aware that there is something very wrong
> in the global basement. We no longer believe in things the way we used to
> (or, perhaps more accurately, we no longer have our sustaining illusions).
>
> Even "big picture" analysis could probably not tell us whether we are
> already in a downward spiral, but let us for a moment consider what chain of
> events might materialize if we were. What might "winding-down" mean? One
> possibility is that it could mean the life- boat effect made real - an
> increasing concentration of wealth in the few very rich countries which
> could continue to afford the increasing costs of energy as supplies begin to
> dwindle, and an increasing impoverishment of the rest of the world. A shift
> in global distribution is already happening. The distribution of income
> between rich and poor nations is already highly unequal and is becoming less
> equal. UN data reveal that, between 1985 and 1995 the rich world's share of
> global GNP grew from 78.9 percent to 81.2 percent, while the poor world's
> share shrank accordingly. I doubt very much that this trend is reversible.
> It may even accelerate as economic conditions in Asia, eastern Europe and
> Africa worsen more rapidly than conditions in a few rich countries improve -
> if indeed they do improve. What might the distribution be by, say, 2020?
> Will the rich world then have 90% of global GNP? And, of course, the rich
> world is not homogeneous. A relatively few people would have a
> disproportionate share of that 90%.
>
> The specter that emerges is reminiscent of Poe's story of the last of the
> wealthy aristocracy holing up in a heavily fortified castle to escape the
> plague. They were having one helluva party until the plague snuck in and got
> them. Our position is not quite like this yet, but if we continue on the
> present course, we could shut down. Step by step, little by little, the
> lights would go out. This would not happen to us of course, it would happen
> to Asians, Russians, Africans and Latin Americans - and to our great
> grandchildren.
>
> This is a very bleak picture. Its bleakness is probably the main reason for
> our failure to confront it - better to party, like Poe's aristocrats.
> Perhaps the only sane view one can take in the face of it is that even if
> our industrial culture fails, humanity will continue. Even though Poe's
> aristocrats and one third of Europe died during the Fourteenth Century
> plague, people regrouped, rebuilt, and got on with their lives.
>
> Ed Weick
>
>
>
>
