Our way of life is doomed.

Our American capitalist system is doomed, ultimately, to failure. Our way of life is not sustainable, yet almost no one seems willing to face this unpleasant truth.

Capitalism is predicated upon constant and ever-expanding economic growth. This growth requires as its engine several factors: A constant or expanding resource base, an expanding base of customers for the products of industry, and an ever-expanding pool of money to fuel the system.

We can see, already, that the system is starting to break down. Resources are limited, and many of the resources required for the maintenance of our economic system and way of life are seriously depleted and on the way to eventual exhaustion. Petroleum resources are projected to be exhausted sometime between 2040-2050. When that happens…indeed, long before, as decline in supply leads to inevitable problems of allocation…we can expect massive blackouts, fuel rationing, and in the worst case the collapse of society.

This is not a paranoid fantasy, not cynicism…this is almost a certainty. The flow of oil, in a very real way, is the life-blood of our economy. Oil fuels almost all of our transportation, and generates over sixty percent of our electric power. It accounts for over four-fifths of energy consumed in the United States. And there is no other currently known energy source which is as efficient as petroleum. When the oil starts to run out, the machinery that keeps our civilization running will grind to a halt, throwing large numbers of people into pre-industrial living conditions. The time to begin a large-scale shift to alternative sources of renewable energy is NOW, while there are enough petroleum stocks remaining to ensure a smooth transition. However, this isn’t going to happen, as leaders of the major political parties and industries, not just in the US but in most of the world, seem more interested in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as it were, than in keeping a sharp lookout for any icebergs up ahead.

I wish I could say I felt optimistic about the future, but nothing I’ve seen of human behaviour is particularly reassuring.

"The time to begin a large-scale shift to alternative sources of renewable energy is NOW

The time to begin shifting to alternative, renewable energy was in the mid-70s. There was a halting start, which was wholly reversed in the Reagan years. (Odd, isn't it, how conservation isn't a hallmark of "conservatives"?)

It may seem as though the Bush crew is blind to what's coming, but I don't think that's true at all. The radicality of their doctrine is indeed predicated by a unprecedented energy crisis. Their tragic answer to the challenge is to manage the looming chaos with selfish brute force.

I think it's too late for us, as a global society, to cut our oil dependency before diminished supply wreaks havoc with us. Solutions are still possible for smaller communities, families and individuals who can go off the grid. For those who can't, massive disruption in the coming decades is all but inevitable.

The inevitable collapse of society as a result of a severe energy crisis sets the stage for all sorts of things: the imposition of martial law, suspension of elections and invocation of dictatorial power on the part of the executive, a return to a feudal society...the implications and ramifications are almost unbearable to examine. Which is why they MUST be examined...but humans have an irritating tendency to put off coming to grips with unpleaasant truths as long as possible. By the time people wake up, it will already be too late.

Our society reacts to events. There is no planning for the future beyond the next TV season.

We have wasted 30 years in dealing with the energy and environmental problems that will likely make the lives of our children miserable.

The concerns of the '60s morphed into the self-centered society of the '70s and beyond.

Our public officials have been cowards, living in a fantasy which has been sold as reality.

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."

The brick wall's always been there; we're simply the generation who's lived to see the curtain pulled back.

Those who still labour under the illusion should expect ever-greater cognitive dissonance in the years ahead.

In fact the time to fix everything was pretty much the mid 70's.

I agree that America sat on its collective a$$ starting in the Raygun years to R&D alternative energy sources. (It certainly changed my career plans!) If they had kept up the intensity instead of squandering it, we would have seen vast improvements on solar cells energy efficiency, alternate fuels and combustion engines, and more varieties of hybrid cars.

ITA think it's way too late. We've supersized our energy consumption and we are going to run out before we can turn back...

What's somewhat ironic is that it's a belief in God that has made them live this way, and it's also a belief in God and that the American way of life is blessed that will be the demise of civilization when the resources run out.

Do you really think those people believe in God in any serious way? To me it looks more as though they're using 'God' as a prop and weapon. I have to think that if they really had any sincere faith at all, their behavior would be vastly different.

And they believe that God "blesses" the American way of life.

It's important to remember that while there are many religious/spiritual DUers who tend to focus on the more "humane" aspects of religious thought -- loving your neighbor as yourself, forgiveness, cooperation and sharing, etc. -- there are many religious conservatives who tend more toward the authoritarian teachings inherent in major religions.

I know a guy just like this in the Army Reserves -- he served under me as my platoon sergeant for a while. He works two jobs full-time, serves in the Army Reserves, is a "born-again" Christian, and has told me that he honestly believes that America is the "land of milk and honey" anointed by God. He also unfailingly votes Republican, believes that most people "just don't want to work", and supported the invasion of Iraq so fully that he is completely disappointed that he has NOT yet been mobilized for duty over there yet.

Despite the polarity of the way in which we view almost everything, we have been able to maintain a friendly relationship. But even when I challenged him to tell me, "who would Jesus bomb?" he simply replied, "nobody." But he still fails to see the innate hypocrisy in his stance.

But that doesn't mean that he honestly doesn't believe in God. I am certain that Dubya honestly believes that he has been anointed by God to do the terrible things that he has done.

that the God of fundamentalism, the God worshiped by most of those who classify themselves as "conservative", is the God of the Old Testament: Jehovah, God of wrath and storm, armed with a fistful of lightning bolts to strike down the unrighteous. This coupled with the inherently Calvinistic outlook of most American Protestants leads to a VERY warped worldview indeed.

Read some of the rantings of Paul against homosexuals. And Revelations -- a fave of the fundy crowd -- is just off the hook! But you are correct in pointing out that *most* of the "wrath and judgement" stuff is in the OT.

I also think that you may be unfairly condemning a vast majority of American Protestants. Those of whom you are referring are drawn more to the Pentecostals and Baptists. It's important to remember that the National Council of Churches (Protestants) was one of the biggest voices against the invasion of Iraq.

in large part, what we have today is not Christianity, but Paulism. Which is a shame, because Jesus stands with Buddha and Confucius as one of the great moral philosophers. And I did qualify by saying "fundamentalists"...I'm aware that the mainline Protestant denominations
(Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians) are a good deal more liberal than their fundamentalist counterparts...sorry I wasn't clearer on that. Didn't mean to give the impression that I harbour prejudice against Christianity in general.

Didn't mean to give the impression that I harbour prejudice against Christianity in general.

Personally, I'm a Unitarian Universalist because I came to reject many of the core teachings of "mainstream" Christianity. But I would also say that by entering a religious/spiritual community with a myriad of different viewpoints, including people who practice Wicca, Paganism and even Athiesm -- I feel that I have actually begun to learn how to be a better Christian (and a better person, in general).

I didn't mean to imply that you were smearing Christianity in general, it's just something that I believe happens a little too much on these boards -- sort of the photo negative of the imposition of certain religious beliefs by those on the Right. No matter what case we are dealing with, stereotyping is a foolish and dangerous thing because it can easily alienate many with whom we should find common cause. It's also a very slippery slope, and I don't mind someone pointing it out to me when I engage in it.

"mainstream" Christianity is something I have a few problems with, myself. It seems to be a very death-obsessed religion, with a focus on the next world rather than this one...and the emphasis on salvation by grace through faith and concomitant devaluing of good works as essential for a Christian life is another part of the problem.

My own interpretation of the core message of Jesus is this: do unto others as you would have them do unto you; share the fruits of your good fortune with those less fortunate; avoid hypocrisy in criticism and comdenation; and, when everyone gets with the program, it shall be as heaven on earth. This is based on a metaphorical reading of the Gospels, but I found that interpreting them thusly leads to much more sense and wisdom being found therein.

Practicing those ideas, no matter to whom they are attributed, works for me! The speed with which the degradation of our enviromnent, on all levels, appears to be on a collision course with a brick wall is mind-boggling. "Appears" is the key word. Can we alter the trajectory?

is the god referred to in the bible as the "God of this World", i.e. Satan. This God takes sides, likes war, wants to see the poor treated like cattle, wants the ranks of the poor to increase for the sake of cheap labor, promotes fear and xenaphobia...yep smells of brimstone to me!

Doesn't it seem that they become bigger jerks after being re-born? As if they weren't big enough jerks the first time around.

Somehow being "born again" gives them license to butt in to other people's lives because they feel that they've got their crap all sown up.

Just my dos pesos.

I think Bush believes in God, but more as a psychological defense, attaching himself to a God as an idealized father figure to compensate for repressed feelings about his own father.

I think most fundamentalists suffer from the same delusion.

I would love to see a political leader who actually walks a spiritual path and suscribes to true spiritual teachings.

How high can "it" go?

Housing prices, stock market, gas prices, salaries...

The number of Wal-Marts, MickyDs, Home Depots, etc...

Debt...

I have a very sick feeling for when "it" becomes too much. Unlike the universe, "it" cannot expand forever.

I would amend your statement just a little. I've been railing about this for some time now, namely, the "our way of life" mantra, as in "we have to defend our way of life".

"our way of life" is white supremacy. You are indeed right, it is coming to an end. Justice will prevail in the world. And apparently, we americans are the last to know it. We keep deluding ourselves that other peoples are listening to our bullshit. Get a clue, america, the world knows we are bullshitting it.

I don't particularly care about the labels we bandy about, i.e. socialism, capitalism, etc. There is no system that is completely one or the other. I think that if the system were allowed to evolve naturally, we would evolve to a form of socialism. Not a forced top down system, but a natural system. I still would like to have seen what countries like Cuba could have achieved if allowed to evolve its system without sabotage and sanctions, etc.

I see a lot of corporate socialism in our system which is why I don't like those labels. But all I see right now, (and the rest of the world sees this too) is stupid white men practically masturbating each other on television every night coming up with the weirdest justifications ever for why "we" are right and "they" are wrong.

I have reached the same conclusions over the past couple of years. Our current economic system is one that is based on manufacturing wants rather than meeting needs. Going as far back as the Eisenhower administration, his council of economic advisors cited the primary role of the American economy as "manufacturing consumer goods". The advertising business has played its role in instilling want for these consumer goods by playing to human psychology in increasingly invasive ways.

When people talk about the "American way of life", THIS is what they are referring to. The "American way of life" has nothing to do with democracy, community or civic involvement. It has to do with the mindless consumption of consumer goods and services with little or no thought to the impact of this consumerism on the world around us. It even extends so far as to include the rampant militarism that has become such an integral part of US culture. Our military is not used to "protect and defend the Constitution" as detailed in the oath that all armed services members are required to take. It is used to "defend American interests" which inevitably means opening markets and securing natural resources. Quite often, this results in actually suspending the "democratic ideals" upon which this nation was supposedly founded.

Of course, now I'm drifting off into :tinfoilhat: territory. But it is impossible to examine the "unsustainable lifestyle" that we practice without examining the power relationships that are essential toward furthering it.

If you want to read a couple of good books on this subject (along with ways to cut back on your personal consumption), I would recommend The Sacred Balance by David Suzuki and Affluenza by DeGraff, et. al. for starters. They are two books that definitely helped open my eyes to the false realities of consumerism that we have been conditioned to believe at the expense of our own self interest.

Well aware that our military is used as the enforcement arm of American Capitalism™...going into Cuba to protect the UNited Fruit Company's investment, going to Haiti to ensure Coca-Cola's sugar supply, among two examples that spring to mind. What we have now...indeed, have had since roughly the turn of the last century...is government which acts on a global scale to further corporate interests. Globalisation has only accelerated an already existing process.

And I'll be sure to check out the books you mention...haven't run across those yet, as this is a subject I've only really started delving into over the past few months. Thanks for the suggestions.

Highly recommend although I'm far from vegetarian, consider the use we make of our land and water.

Francis Moore Lappe and her daughter Anna take you around the world and show you how the thought patterns involved in capitalism (or any other "ism", for that matter) lead to exacerbating the problems of hunger and terrorism; and also how various peoples are developing peaceful (and tasty) solutions.

ie. Dissecting the Problem (old way)
Solving for Pattern (new way)


There are two chapters for the U.S.; one in Oakland, CA, the other in Madison and western Wisconsin.

:kick:

- something to the effect that "The genius of capitalism is to make people want what they don't need, and not want want they do need."

By the latter, he's referring to real human needs - adequate housing, nutrition, education, health care, decent neighborhoods & public services - all of which tend to be pushed on the back burner of modern life, while desire for trivial consumer trinkets is constantly reinforced.

Baran was one of the co-authors, with Paul Sweezy, of "Monopoly Capital."

which offers a more optimistic outlook on the coming changes. I have not read it, but my husband started reading it yesterday and it addresses many of the issues you bring up.

is that at present it's incapable of replacing petroleum as an energy source, and probably won't be capable of doing so for some time (if ever). Hydrogen requires more energy to obtain (from water) than it produces as fuel, causing a net energy LOSS for every cubic metre of hydrogen produced. Hopefully they'll find a workable solution. I'll take a look at the book...be interested to see if Mr. Rifkin addresses this issue.

current hydrogen production relies heavily on natual gas, and a shift to a "hydrogen economy" presumes an abundance of natural gas as a "transition fuel." But natural gas reserves are being depleted at a rate comparable to oil, and demands for its traditional household use continue to grow.

"Given the already low net energy from renewables as well as the net energy losses from both the conversion of electricity to hydrogen and the subsequent conversion of hydrogen back to electricity, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the 'hydrogen economy' touted by well-meaning visionaries will by necessity be a much lower-energy economy than we are accustomed to."

- Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over

cars are the number on problem

As liberal as I am, may I paraphrase Chuck Heston for a minute here??

THEY WILL GET MY CAR KEYS FROM ME WHEN THEY PRY 'EM OUTTA MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS!!!

considering how many people die in auto accidents. In any case, I wish you drivers would have to pay the FULL COST of your selfish driving habits, instead of people like me having to subsidize your gasoline, roads, and the wars to make sure your gas guzzlers have plenty of fuel.

but I understand there are worse gas guzzlers than mine. I do sometimes leave the car at home and take the bus to avoid having to search for a parking place at busy times downtown, and I even walk short distances, but it is so convenient to have a car. Maybe car owners should feel a little guilty, but it 's very hard to give up something you're used to.

twenty years max time left to drive a car in Texas (or anywhere else)
Look on the bright side, at least you wont have to worry about picking another one when the lease runs out.

60 X 24 X 365 X 20 = 10,512,00

If you get crackin you can make the first million miles before you know it

authors and your point of view, but he is backing up what you are saying about the end as we've known it...truly eye-opening! Thank you for beating the drum of reality for us to hear... :hug:

South American is waking up at least the where Chavez is and now in Bolivia. Interestingly enough, it is the poorer, third world countries who are getting it right way ahead of those in the purported first world countries! They are showing us the way if we will only listen. :D

http://www.pkarchive.org/

<snip>
If you look at what the introduction is about a lot, it's partly about what these guys are doing, but it's partly about why reasonable people have such a hard time facing up to what they're doing. The Kissinger quote is not about what the France of Robespierre was doing, it's about why the diplomats of Austria couldn't handle what the France of Robespierre was doing, and that's why they just couldn't understand that such a thing was really possible. And that's what it's addressed to, the intro is really addressed to the liberal or moderate who just can't believe that Bush isn't another Reagan, that this is something really much more radical even than that.
<snip>

<snip>
Well, that's what I don't understand. It's odd that the better things get if you are rich or a fundamentalist Christian, the more angry they get. That's the nice thing about the Kissinger quote. I'm not sure he understands it either, but this notion that if you have this kind of revolutionary power you don't feel secure unless you have a complete monopoly of power, that seems to be the way it's playing out.
<snip>

His book is titled, "The Great Unraveling."

EDIT: adding one more link and person to check out ..

Arundhati Roy link "Confronting Empire" here:

http://www.arundhatiroy.org.uk/

Please. Get real. The "capitalist system" is nothing more than human nature reduced to an economic and social system. It will be around for as long as there are human beings.

Capitalism doesn't depend upon an ever-expanding resource base. It simply depends upon people having the need for things they themselves cannot produce. When that occurs, they must find a way to make it in the best interest of some other party to produce them, and that is done by paying them with something valuable, like money.

Of course capitalism does not satisfy all of society's demands. Many needs are not simple, individual buy-sell issues. Insurance was invented to handle part of those problems. Insurance is a capitalist mechanism to create a socialist type safety net for those buying into it.

Beyond insurance, society's many additional needs that can't be met by pure capitalism must be met by the government. That's where we Democrats come in. We believe the government MUST play an active role in offsetting the vagaries of the economic system.

I prefer to refer to our economic system as a "free enterprise" system, since that's what it really is. It's essential role is to establish prices and distribution of goods. Price levels are set through billions of individual buyer-seller transactions. The system operates on the basis of human incentives. It is the best, most rational, workable system known to man. It is imperfect, of course. And that's why we have politics.

The 'Capitalism is doomed' crowd has been around since, well, Marx. History is still waiting...

that we were about out of oil back in the 70's.

We have as much known reserves today than we did back then, and living out here in the oil patch, I think most people have a general misunderstanding of oil in general. I think people think there are these swimming pools of oil to be hunted and found deep beneath the earth. In actuality, most oil resides in rock about the consistency of the asphalt in the street in front of your house. It is pretty much everywhere. The hard part is the technology and cost f extracting it.

And capitalism does depend upon a constant or expanding resource base, because capitalism (our form of free enterprise) is predicated upon continual economic growth, continual growth being necessary to provide continual return on investments. And the diminishing returns are fated to drop to zero, probably sooner rather than later.

You seem to be expecting some sort of deus ex machina to swoop down and save us from our own folly, without addressing or even realising the fact that the Democrats and Republicans both are committed to maintenance of a failing system and neither has offered any viable alternatives to the dead-end path we've set ourselves on.

Capitalism does depend upon a constant or expanding resource base, because capitalism (our form of free enterprise) is predicated upon continual economic growth, continual growth being necessary to provide continual return on investments. And the diminishing returns are fated to drop to zero, probably sooner rather than later.

What makes you think that a continual return on investments requires continual growth? Its simply not a requirement, and the fact that you think it is displays a disturbing lack of economic understanding. All you need to generate investment returns is profit, and profit is the result of work, not growth.

You display a disturbing ignorance of physics

And I concede that in a few billion years when the Sun burns out that we are doomed. Fair enough?

Perhaps you've heard of it? (And you suggest that I lack economic understanding.)

Unfortunately for you the law of diminishing return does not apply here because the input variable is not fixed.

one of the primary input variables is actually DECREASING. The energy-availability (from petroleum) is DECREASING along the x-axis, while total energy requirements are INCREASING (thus leading to more pronounced rate-change for the aforementioned variable).

This is what I was talking about, originally; your argument is one which is tangential, unrelated, and ignores the main points of my initial thesis.

has nothing to do with capitalism. Whatever political system we used, we'd still run out of it.

I failed to point that out in my response, so thank you.

Unfortunately for your argument, petroleum is not the only source of energy availible. There are numerous source of energy that are renewable and perfectly capable of sustaining the economy once petroleum becomes too expensive to justify using. Furthermore, you assume that energy use is non-elastic. Empirical evidence suggests otherwise, and improvements in efficiency are always possible when energy prices rise.

Furthermore, my argument is not tangential and unrelated. In your original post, you claim that "Capitalism is predicated upon constant and ever-expanding economic growth." I addressed this fallacy directly in post #30. Capitalism does not require growth, it only requires profit.

what "numerous" energy sources?

Wind, Solar, Tidal, Bio-Mass--the list is quite long actually. Fuel Cells and Fusion are also possible replacements for oil, although they don't technically qualify as renewables. The key is that the petroleum industry would have you believe that nothing can possibly replace oil. Evidently you've been suckered by their propaganda.

That is, if you ever want those living in developing nations to be able to improve their standard of living.

The average person in the industrialized world currently uses more electricity in six months than the average person in the third world uses in a lifetime. If those living in developing nations ever were in a position to use as much energy as those in industrialized nations, the demands for power would be staggering.

Whether or not we move toward renewable fuel sources, the reality is that we STILL need to reduce consumption. Otherwise, there simply wouldn't be enough to go around.

As you correctly stated, if those living in developing nations ever use as much energy as those in industrialized nations, the demands for power would be staggering. In a free market system, when demand rises to 'staggering' levels, the price increases to compensate. What is the result of higher prices? Lower usage.

In a free market system, when demand rises to 'staggering' levels, the price increases to compensate. What is the result of higher prices? Lower usage.

Let's apply this kind of approach to another commodity that is disappearing rapidly, and is much more important than electricity.

Water.

As we speak, water services are being privatized in many areas of the third world, with rates spiking and local residents unable to cope. Additionally, the Coca Cola company is buying up supplies of fresh water in other developing nations for their bottling facilities, with the end goal of making local residents dependent on Coca Cola as their source of hydration (I wish I were making this stuff up).

By your logic, the price of water should increase as demand increases. But, considering that it is something that is necessary for the continuation of life, and that it doesn't really "belong" to anyone but the earth itself, how do you put a price on it?

Personally, in matters like this, I am more in favor of an artificially low price to a certain level, and then an increasingly high price after that in order to penalize overusage. Could you see the same thing happening with electricity, or would you instead propose that those who are initially priced out of being allotted even the most basic levels of use simply be left out in the cold?

Comparing water to energy is a bad analogy because demand for water is inelastic but demand for energy is elastic.

but consider that the number of people who made it rich during the Great Depression was not large. From a business standpoint it is always easier to forecast demand when the ecomony/population is growing not in decline. What countries with stagnant or declining economies are thriving right now? Certaintly not Japan, Italy or France.

Because no ecomony has been able to deal with a steady state environment the end result must be decline or collapse. Growth cannot contiune indefinitely the mass starvation forecasted in Britian during the 18th and 19th centuries did not occur because improvements in agriculture and importation of foodstuffs from abroad. The same revolutions in modern agriculutre occured with pesticides and fertilizers. I would argue that life is good in expansionary periods and not so nice during "correction" periods which unfortuately in our non-socialist culture screws many many people.

it's gonna get real ugly and
people feel more comfortable ignoring the evidence

Jesus! And it'll be real soon now. Population explosion. Not enough food. Not enough living space. Hoh, wait. Wrong millenium...

Ok. Now we're talking Peak Oil and Fresh Water shortages and what else, polar ice caps melting. Right. Now I remember.

And all of these things are (a) because of capitalism, and (b) spell capitalism's doom. Of course. You're absolutely right. It all makes such perfect sense.

Capitalism is so inefficient. Far better to have a bunch of people sitting around at computer terminals all day deciding what the price of bread should be in Dubuque and how many loaves to ship to Boise on Wednesday morning, and whether it should go by truck or plane. And who's allowed to work in the bread store. And how many bread stores they should be. And how big the counters should be at each bread store. And how many registers each bread store should have. And how many workers on each shift. Bureaucrats make those decisions so much more ably than people who actually own the stores in a capitalist society. Socialism is so much more efficient...

NOT!

Capitalism is so inefficient. Far better to have a bunch of people sitting around at computer terminals all day deciding what the price of bread should be in Dubuque and how many loaves to ship to Boise on Wednesday morning, and whether it should go by truck or plane. And who's allowed to work in the bread store. And how many bread stores they should be. And how big the counters should be at each bread store. And how many registers each bread store should have. And how many workers on each shift. Bureaucrats make those decisions so much more ably than people who actually own the stores in a capitalist society. Socialism is so much more efficient...

I'm surprised to see you spreading this kind of mythos about what most advocates for some form of socialism really advocate, because it has little to do with what you just posted here. This is actually the kind of rant I would expect to hear more from a closed-minded individual than someone interested in honest discourse, which I have always found you to be.

Personally, I have found modern capitalism to be extremely flawed, and doing a great deal to contribute to the numerous environmental crises toward which we are approaching at breakneck speed. It is also, I believe, important to point out these failings (such as the fact that it is an economic system that is predicated on the manufacturing of wants rather than the fulfillment of needs).

Doing so isn't the equivalent of advocating a Soviet-style command economy. It's a desire to shed light on the gross shortcomings of an economic system that has in many ways gone haywire, in an attempt to right the ship before we're all toast.

it is an economic system that is predicated on the manufacturing of wants rather than the fulfillment of needs

Why do you assume that what people want is not what they need?

Necessity: food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. Desire: Wide-screeen HDTV, DVD player, component stereo system, Lincoln Navigator, u.s.w. See the difference?

I was not asking what they difference was, I was asking if Chris believed that people are in able to make the distinction for themselves. In other words, do you honestly think that people don't want what they need? Isn't it true that 'needs' are merely a subset of 'wants'?

Necessities to keep us alive and comfortable, and "the desires" to make life fun to live.

Number of people in the US without any health insurance: approximately 44 million
Number of homeless people in the US: approximately 3.5 million (of which 39% are children)

Now, I don't know about you, but when I look around at advertising ANYWHERE, I see much of the following:
- Hummer H2's
- Cigarettes and alcohol
- Brand name fashions
- Electronics gizmos
- Children's toys (marketed direct-to-kids on channels like Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network)

In short, the United States economy, since the time of the Eisenhower administration, has been focused on the production and sale of consumer goods. An integral part of this focus has been the role of the advertising agency to convince people to purchase things that they DO NOT NEED through psychological manipulation (connecting purchase of a certain product with youth and a sense of vitality).

Now, I have no problem with people buying things they truly want. However, I do have a problem with it when the more basic needs of so many people are not being adequately met, and when this kind of lifestyle contributes to the ravaging of the earth in pursuit of natural resources to fuel this ever-expanding culture of consumerism. To simply shrug it away as acceptable is, IMHO, completely unacceptable.

I fail to see how this is such a difficult concept for someone with your intelligence to grasp. :shrug:

I asked why you assume that what people want is not what they need. Isn't it true that 'needs' are merely a subset of 'wants'?

If you're talking about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, then no, "needs" are not a subset of "wants". In fact, according to Maslow's definitions, we have quite possibly regressed over the past 1-2 generations on the hierarchy of needs, due to our rampant consumerism and the selfishness that inevitably goes along with it.

Somewhere between satisfying the "love" need and striving toward the "esteem" need, it seems we have actually slipped back. In the drive toward satisfying "esteem" through "keeping up with the Joneses", we have lost the sense of community (love) that got us to that point in the first place.

As for self-actualization, it's even further off from those who have bought into the idea that material wealth can bring you happiness.

If this answer isn't satisfactory, then I'm afraid you'll have to further clarify what it is you're asking.

So basically you don't trust the average person to make the correct decisions? People are just sheep, buying whatever corporate America tells them to buy and failing to buy what they really need? Is that what you are claiming? I'm not putting words in your mouth. This is a question.

I'm not under the impression that you're trying to put words in my mouth -- this is a very complex subject and should be discussed.

I work in Manhattan every day, and I find it absolutely STAGGERING the amount of advertising that I am subjected to on a daily basis. I literally cannot walk ten steps anywhere in the city without being confronted with at least one advertisement for something -- whether it's on a storefront, a billboard, a bus, inside the train, on a screen at Macy's, wherever.

This weekend, I had to drive into New Jersey, on the NJ Turnpike. Everywhere I looked were billboards -- probably at least 10 per mile.

And forget about turning on the television (which I actually try to do more often than not). It's nothing but non-stop advertising. It's even reached the point where there is advertising in the shows themselves.

And you already know how I feel about direct-to-children marketing that takes place by just about every fast-food joint and toy company. The advertising industry has even admitted that their goal is to get kids "branded" before they start school -- meaning that they identify with (and demand from their parents) certain "brands" in everything. In fact, more and more kids (not to mention adults) identify themselves with these "brands" rather than qualities of who they are as people.

Resisting this cycle is very difficult. Our society is not structured in a way to support those who want to break out of it, because that is a direct threat to its continuation. It's an ongoing battle for me -- I still get the urges to impulse buy, it's just that I've become aware enough that it isn't wise and am able to deny that urge and realize later that it is an unwise one. But so many more are not, especially considering the fact that we live in a society in which most people are judged on what they have rather than who they are. I live in Westchester Co., NY -- and it's more prevalent here than other places. But I also notice it more and more when I go home to rural (but being developed more and more) Western PA.

I understand your concern, I just don't see a way around the problem that does not involve some small group of people deciding what everybody else needs. If you have an answer I'm all ears, because history has shown that is the road to dictatorship.

I just don't see a way around the problem that does not involve some small group of people deciding what everybody else needs.

We already have that here in the United States, even if it isn't an outright dictatorship. As corporations have grown and consolidated, along with the consolidation of media ownership and ever-increasing influence in the realm of public policy, we ARE ruled by a small group of people deciding what everybody else wants.

While this may not be the equivalent of an old Soviet-style Politburo, it is just as controlling (if not more so, because it gives the illusion of freedom).

The freedom isn't an illusion, its just not clear to everyone. I for one, am not controlled by corporate America. I have a six figure income and I drive a 15 year old truck. Think those multi-billion dollar auto companies would like to chage that? You bet they would--but they can eat shit and die because its not their money, its mine.

... but that only makes two people, and the last time I checked, we were vastly outnumbered by those who DO buy into and allow themselves to be controlled by corporate America.

I have another question for you. The money you pay in taxes -- do you really have a say in how that money is spent, or at least as much of one as those controlling the agenda of corporate America?

I have another question for you. The money you pay in taxes -- do you really have a say in how that money is spent, or at least as much of one as those controlling the agenda of corporate America?

Obviously I have precious little control over how tax money is spent. That's why I'm extremely leary of people that want to increase taxes. Like most people, I wouldn't mind if my taxes were increased so long as I was sure that the money was being spent wisely. I'm all for helping the poor and cleaning up the environment, but the reality is less than 5% of my federal tax money goes to those things. The vast majority of federal tax money goes into the pockets of the middle class, not the poor. When I compare the tens of thousands of dollars that I pay in tax money to the thousands of dollars I give to charity, I have absolutely no doubt which is being spent more wisely.

The vast majority of federal tax money goes into the pockets of the middle class, not the poor.

Personally, I think that even more of it goes into the pockets of the rich, either directly or indirectly. Personally, I have no problem with tax dollars going into the hands of middle-class people -- at least as it is being put to uses that will benefit society as a whole, like the construction/renovation of schools, development and operation of mass-transit networks, maintaining water distribution facilities, etc. But the fact that approximately $0.53 out of every $1.00 of every federal tax dollar goes to the black hole of the Pentagon is the biggest drain on the misallocation of resources, IMHO.

And judging by the post WWII boom, I would actually argue that measures that create and maintain a large, vibrant middle class with much smaller disparities of wealth are perhaps a greater measure for combatting poverty than monies that flow directly to the poor for measures other than basic needs, child care, and providing education opportunities.

providing people what they want, or what they need?

I've worked in water resources construction (dams and reservoirs), and am currently back involved in landfill design.

I'm also taking classes at night to get a teaching certificate for high school physics.

So, right now I'm involved in more providing people what they need -- but I'm moving even more in that direction for the future.

is that sometimes people have jobs providing the wants of others so that they themselves can afford their needs. So it might not be that simple. I agree that the damage to our environment and the waste of resources brought about through our consumeristic society may not be worth it. But can you imagine what would happen let's say, if after the next Democrat is elected President, we all go on a crusade to convince people to quit their wasteful spending practices, begin to save money instead of spend it, (which would actually be a good thing)and live a more simple frugal life? If the idea ever took hold, the economy would collapse.

You bring up a good point here, but I think it's one that shows how much the idea of "economic growth = good" is drilled into our heads at our own peril.

Case in point: Al Gore. When Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance, he talked about the need to steward the earth's resources and possibly (gasp!) cut back on our consumption. But there was an interesting transformation between Gore the author and Gore the presidential candidate. Gore the presidential candidate did not talk of the need to steward resources or cut back on consumption. He instead spoke of the need to "grow the economy".

The question is, what is the cost of this continual "economic growth"? What kind of world does it leave for our children and grandchildren?

Personally, I find the whole idea of "continual economic growth" to be a grand fallacy. It is overly dependent on squeezing more productivity out of workers, more exploitation of the earth's resources, more degradation of our environment. I would rather see economic sustainability, along with a concerted effort to vastly improve the quality of our lives by allowing people to spend more time with their families, more time in the arts, more time to be productive citizens in their communities, more of an effort to treat the earth properly -- as the source of our lives rather than just some collection of resources to be exploited.

Of course, this all flies in the face of conventional thought, because it actually lies in the basis of Marxist theory and would lead to a much more equitable society. But whether or not we realize it, we must choose between the earth and our economy as it currently functions. If we don't decide very soon, that choice will unavoidably be made for us.

"The "capitalist system" is nothing more than human nature reduced to an economic and social system. It will be around for as long as there are human beings."

No, it isn't. Capitalism is an economic system of rule by property owners backed up by the state (force). It has no more to do with "human nature" than any other legal system.

the definition of capitalism, and the direction of our current civilization.

the latter is the topic of the thread, and while i won't jump into the argument about capitalism and human nature, i think the initial poster is correct: resource use as currently practiced will not be continued in the near future, with catastrophic social effects.

and has anyone thought about plastic? not just the oil that powers our economy, but the plastic that we use to make everything that defines our first world status.

think about life with no plastic if you want to imagine something scary.

As long as humanity restricts itself to a single world, battered by human excesses, we are doomed, one way or another; but there are other worlds to colonize, where fresh starts can be made. Robert Zubrin's "The Case For Mars" suggests that it can be done, if only someone could ram the idea through the red tape.

And, if nothing else, the very first fresh start would have to be a break in dependence on petroleum; there probably isn't any on Mars. Even if us Earth folks were too lazy to come up with something more efficient, Martian colonists would have to out of necessity!

And there is no other currently known energy source which is as efficient as petroleum.


Yes there is, it's called HEMP. Hemp methanol can replace petroleum. This is one of the reasons the BFEE adamantly opposes ANY softening of the unconstitutional laws against marijuana. The other, of course, is their investments in Eli Lilly, which makes Prozac and Marinol, both of which become completely unneccessary when people are allowed to grow their own medicine.

I mean the relative amount of energy required to convert raw material into fuel in proportion to the amount of energy produced from that fuel. Petroleum has an energy efficiency of 80+%. Hemp-sourced methanol or biodiesel, while a sound alternative (since infinitely renewable), doesn't have the same energy efficiency as crude petroleum.

When oil prices go up due to shortages, there will be more hemp grown and converted for this purpose. It would be good to be able to do this in the U.S. as well.
While this is one of the best if not the best form of bioenergy, we should also consider other crops, waste, and garbage as forms of fuel.
It would be great if alternative fuel would be subsidized by the government but as oil becomes more scarce and prices go up, I think that it will come about through capitalism.

some people will push ANYTHING as long as it involves hemp.

"Cherish the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere." -- George Washington

When you talk about "hemp", you are not talking about the same thing as "marijuana". It is different strains of the same plant, bred for different uses.

Hemp is one of the most widely useful fibers around. You can use it to make rope, clothing, paper, and even biodiesel fuel if you want (although the last use is not that efficient).

Do you realize that with regards to paper alone, one acre of hemp can be used to create several times as much paper as one acre of old-growth forest? And considering its rapid rate of growth as compared to trees, a much smaller amount of land can be used for this purpose.

Hemp is one of the most useful plants ever discovered. Advocating its use in industry has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana, and everything to do with simply embracing common sense and using a more beneficial product that will result in less environmental degradation.

http://members.tripod.com/~NicoFonseca/motaen.htm#p1_1a

for example.

It's just my observation that the promotion hemp in the one kind goes hand in hand with the promotion of hemp in the other. No flame, just my observation.

Just a matter of time until we learn to tap this limitless energy source safely. (Besides solar energy.) Then you will see global prosperity like never before.

but behaving in the present as though some future technological advancement (which may or may not happen) were a fait accompli is hardly wise.

Sure, fusion and nanotech will make talk of energy problems and resource depletions things of the past, when they get here...but that isn't yet, so we should husband our resources carefully (while we hae them) rather than squandering them all because we think science will find a way to save us from our profligacy.

I agree that alternative energy is required, and that the sooner the better. But that a lack of oil will clog the wheels of capitalism, well it will take more than that. Imagine all the capitalist product of alternative energy technology etc. Our current economy is built around growth and around oil, but oil alone is not the foundtion of capitalism. Further, growth does not need to be the fuel of capitalism, although, a fuel built around quality would indeed take a huge shift that is unlikely. The more likely final death to capitalism will come when all meaningful competition is truly wiped out, and a few rich thugs are running things (or has that already happened).

President Cheney is going to build dozens of these, the repository for waste in Arizona is going to be built and we will be entirely on nuclear power by 2040. That is the BFEE solution to peak oil.

Since the problem is already solved, the only thing left is to seize the rest of the oil now to give us as much time as possible to move into the last phase of human existance on this planet. The dying phase where we trade the irreversible toxification of the planet in return for a few more years of life, right before the inevitable extinction of all higher life on the planet.

Luckily, most of us will be dead long before then but our children face a short life in a nuclear stew of deadly toxins.

The US possesses enough uranium to fuel its existing reactors for 40 years. Uranium must be mined, and that's an energy-intensive process, one mostly driven by petroleum.

... resultant from such mining.

Thanks for the pick me up ;-)

For a close standard of life. That can't still continue a long time.

In 1970 we were on a 1:28 ratio of exploration to crude. We are now on a 1:2 ratio it is tanking fast and the quality of the crude is not there. For those you who do not want to give up your cars; you will have no choice. When a gallon of gas is $5 you will find a bicyle or your feet to use! I suggest you start now.
What you are not identifing is it gets worse! In the next 20 years there will also be a shortage of food. Farming costs will sky rocket and those who learn to live off the land for their families will survive.
This maybe the most important website you need to read. This is not about political ideology. There are many article about the energy shortage and the consequences for the entire planet.


http://wwww.fromthewilderness.com/index.html

Thank you.

Sooner or later... Sun has a limited lifespan... -C

Has anyone stopped to realize,the way American towns are zoned,planned and set up as they 'grow'it requires cars? Suburbia was built for cars. You need a car to go to work,to go to school to visit freinds to DO anything besides sit on yer little patch of green.

I grew up in a small town,Bel Air.It's about 45 minutes away from Baltimore city in Maryland. When I was a kid Bel Air was kinda rural but because it was small transportation wasen't a crippling problem,people knew each other and because of this,when someone was running to town,you could hitch a ride with them.This however has changed as my hometown turned into another place,full of pretensious,strangers.

The tragedy of it all continues and it's growing.
Suburbian americans aren't into using taxes to create a good public transport system to go through thier miles and miles of clustered idyllic empty manicured neighborhoods (with stupid names like "Spenceola Farms, Upper Crust or Constant Freindship *har*)because they like to pretend they've moved up in the world to be able to afford life in suburbia. They hate taxes.They fail to realize they too depend on taxes to school thier kid they haul around in those huge SUVs.

So public transportation looks too "city" to those who don't need it.And evemore significant if it reliably connects people in the 'burbs to people in the cities reliable transportation might encourage"riff raff"(read black people) to move in and thier kids to move out to the city where you can find something to DO.
The public transportation out here SUCKS.Anyone without a car in some parts of part of town,would have to walk around 3 miles or more of winding roads and 'courts' with lawns and crap just to get to a WaWa or a cheesy grocery store.Then you gotta haul the bags home.

It's just disgusting how unrealistic and downright stupid towns in suburban areas in America are planned. Bel Air town planners by whom they favor when they lay out communities,do encourage carless folks like me,to leave and move closer to the city,just to have a life and be able to axcess grocery stores and whatnot without spending half a day trying to score a ride to get kitty litter or some food.In the city thre is public transport..And this car based segregation is exactly what they want because it SELLS.The uptight predominately white 'middle class'suburbanites fear "city people" because they *Are * classist. Because it is assmed by most people here who can afford cars they think in terms of why should *I* put money into a public transport system *I* think *I* won't need. Nevermind the gas guzzling thier hour long commutes create,so they can feel'prestigious'.If a problem isn't affecting thier immediate surroundings it just doesen't exist.Nimby rules the new people moving in out here and it shows. The haughty mouthy newbies out here mobilize to force communities to NOT build homeless shelters or food banks near thier precious patches of lawn,and they set policy agendas now.

The new people moving into Bel Air have different priorities than the original residents do.Bel Air was once very democratic,politically for many years ,now that it's 'grown'it's overwhemingly republican. And republicans could give a shit about people who don't 'have'.This tells you about the people moving out here.This town has become an activity segegated, overdeveloped,poorly planned, ridiculously zoned, inflated ,hyped up , over-expensive,unappealing,generic ,momnocultured suburb with ugly houses sprouting up like weeds.Still the growth of Bel Air was poorly planned by business interests because that's what sells.It has nothing to do with making life better or sustainable.It's about profit. It's unspoken classism that these town planners here appeal to.Living carless is a tell tale sign of what class you are from out here.

..as our petroleum reserves run out, alternative fuels will be used, such as Methane Gas, or Ethanol, or even Radio Isotope Batteries made from depleted Nuclear Waste to power electric vehicles.

Additionally new technologies will spring up which will address pollution issues.

Those who have the resources hoard them, and buy up more as to ensure that no one else can become wealthy. Then, you have a permenant system of very defined classes, that have a rift between them that is miles apart. The nobles will love that.