Economics and China

[kandrathe]

Sentimental sensationalism; to be sure, my reference to Capitalism was directed towards gluttonous waste and the pursuit of cheaper materials through deforestation, over-mining, and nonuse of recyclable goods when they are clearly available.

Ok, good, we have some specific examples of what you think might be conspicuous consumption. I've studied this topic well. Who is cutting down the trees? It is being done by desperately poor people who are trying to get richer by exploiting the only "capital" they can get their hands upon. But, not so simple. The populist governments in the area use the topic for their own power gains.

Much like the illegal drug trade, people knowingly break the law to steal the most valuable trees from the forest, while power hungry corrupt officials nod and wink getting to hand out the favors. Put in the best light, the government tried to be more democratic in distributing to the people government owned assets in an attempt to relieve their poverty.

I'm not sure what you mean by "over-mining". When we make a mine we keep going until it's empty, and know it's non-replenishing. Perhaps we sometimes use the metal for useless purposes. I think there is variable success in recycling programs. I was shocked to find that at the hotel I stayed at in South Dakota they had no bins for recyclables. Where I live, I feel we recycle or compost more than other places.

For most of human history, deforestation in the Amazon was primarily the product of subsistence farmers who cut down trees to produce crops for their families and local consumption. But in the later part of the 20th century, that began to change, with an increasing proportion of deforestation driven by industrial activities and large-scale agriculture. By the 2000s more than three-quarters of forest clearing in the Amazon was for cattle-ranching.

So, not so much the "big evil corporations", but rather the result of desperation in a large impoverished mass of people. In despotic terms, if you want to save the rain-forest, depopulate Brazil. Have you heard of the VHEM? It doesn't remove the demand side of consumerism, or those suppliers who are attempting to violate laws. *cough* Lumber Liquidators *cough* But, unlike the "Red Lobster Fleet" vacuuming up all the fish from mostly international waters, things like timber, minerals, or drugs are more of a national issue, where the "product" gets to the docks, or borders with complicity by the populace and local governments. Then, yes, awaiting them at the docks are the capitalist mega ships eagerly gobbling up all the available raw materials. Brazil is currently run by Dilma Rousseff who in the PT had a strongly leftist and socialist past, yet embraced moderation in the early 00's. When you have lots of money you can just entice poor people to commit ecological Armageddon, to rape the earth, in exchange for not having to watch their children die of starvation, or just get an education.

My next comment about sharing was attempting to tie this logic with *if* the world was conquered, and this leader (or even group, doesn’t have to be a singular entity) forced the wasteful corporations (cell phone makers anyone?) to use farms to grow as many resources as possible while also using recyclable goods. With the world starting to “recover” from its overuse and new mindset of living within its means, I assumed a natural sense of sharing would form from this unity hence I used the word sharing of resources, however I could be sadly mistaken and those in poverty stricken areas might find life even worse than before, and the greedy would find new ways to work within the current system so hence, nothing would actually change on a political level of how things run, but at least we’d have a few more centuries to ponder it.

And... to what specific end would more farming, and less phone or efficient use of goods produce? I would say that "whatever is desirable" is the outcome we are striving for now. Perhaps it is the Smart Phone, that enables pure freedom of thought and communication. The ubiquity of the inexpensive smart phone is a type of tech enabled democracy. We don't only hear about the stories of the down trodden, we get live video of repression, and rebellion.


When we decide to do something and make a change we get good results. Even in Brazil...

I see this leader not doing these things to “help” society, because our society is beyond all reproach of a level of cynicism for its leaders and institutions. No, this leader would be looked upon as a villain until the day they died, and only after that time would their great vision be realized. This leader would be doing what they do with the express intent of saving our species.

I doubt an despot could have an ultimate aim of generous benevolence. Power mongers lust for power and crush any hint of opposition. They merely manipulate the exploitation into their favor, getting the means of determining who gets the cream, who gets the whey, and who gets nothing.

In rebuttal, I would suggest that the technological solution is at hand, although slow to emerge. Our lifestyles, and culture are in a tremendous shift right now. Conspicuous consumption is not cool, or an aspiration for most people anymore. We will dance on the edge of the sword, but I don't think we'll succumb to self annihilation by apathy or ignorance. Through our awkward bumbling democratic process we inch towards solutions.

Democracy, then, is key and it is inversely related to inequality. An international study has found that, controlling for per capita income, a more equal distribution of political power, as gauged by degree of political democracy, civil rights, and literacy, correlates with higher environmental quality. In another study of the 50 American states, a more equal distribution of political power correlates with stronger environmental policies.