rn- re: facing eco-collapse and preparing for it


Richard Moore

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:14:36 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: "Mike Nickerson, Inviting Debate" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: RN: facing eco-collapse and preparing for it

>Dear RN,                      Oct. 20
>I think you will find the two message from Paul Isaacs (below) and a
>subsequent bit of dialogue between Paul and I interesting, if maybe a bit
>discouraging too, but our outlook is indeed pretty grim.

Dear Jan:
        It looks like it is time again to polish our Percian shields.
        Percius, as you may recall was the Greek hero who killed Madussa.
Madussa was a monster so horrible that anyone who looked directly at her
turned to stone.  A problem very much like the one you and Paul Isaacs
outlined in this post.  Percius killed Madussa by looking at her only via
the reflection in his polished shield.
        Our monster is different in ways that require a different sort of
shield. You can see the one I use at "Why We Will Succeed" at:

        To shift social priorities we have to overcome two sorts of denial.
It is a well known characteristic of the human mind that we tend to block
out information that is contrary to our interests.  For the 5% of people
who call the shots, the growth paradigm provides wealth and power.  This
personal enrichment virtually assures that change will not be led by this

        For the rest of the population, environmental degradation is well
known.  It has been in the news for thirty years and in our back yards
through ozone depletion and climate change for a decade.  Most people know
we are in trouble but few see much cause for hope.  To know of the dangers,
without hope that we can overcome them, leads either to despair or denial.

        The key to overcoming this barrier is to provide a promising vision
to those without heavily vested interests.  As "Why We Will Succeed"
illustrates, humans are capable of inhabiting the Earth until the sun burns
out, but the present management system has to acknowledge social and
environmental realities.  There are ways to manage our activities that
don't require sacrificing future generations on the alter of profit.
Basing policy and action on the single goal of expanding Gross Domestic
Product is like driving a bus using only the speedometer.  The "7th
Generation Act" would establish a broader range of factors to consider.  By
paying attention to this broader range of indicators there is a good chance
that we can steer around the obstacles ahead - good enough to risk coming
out of denial, at least long enough to insist that those in charge watch
where we are going.

        The Earth is too beautiful and people too extraordinary to give in
to bad management practices.

                Yours,  Mike N.


        If you agree that a GDP-guided economy and
GDP-justified political system are not adequate
to provide for human needs, we have cause for cooperation.

        The "7th Generation Act" aims to establish
ways of measuring progress which include:
economic inclusion, the recognition of unpaid work,
involvement in decision making, opportunities
for personal development, biodiversity, long-term
management of renewable and non-renewable
natural resources and pollution.

        Are you with us?


"7th Generation Act" draft at:

Sustainability Project - Inviting Debate
P.O. Box 374, Merrickville, Ontario
K0G 1N0
(613) 269-3500
e-mail:  •••@••.•••

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:41:36 -0700
To: •••@••.•••
From: Ed Deak <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: RN: facing eco-collapse and preparing for it


Your exchange could be one of the most important postings that ever came out
on this list.

I'm 72 and have lived in 4 countries under every ideological hue known, have
seen just about all the stupidity known to mankind and by now have spent
over 50 years on the search for the "common denominator for history's
tragedies and mistakes". I found it in 1985 in an Economics 1-01 textbook in
the form of the definition, or rather the "misdefinition" of economic
efficiency. I followed this up in other textbooks and writings and came to
the conclusion that the teaching - not the study, but the irresponsible
brainwashing of students with the biggest collection of idiocies - in our
coleges and universities will ultimately lead to the collapse of our
economic and possibly of our ecological systems.

I followed up this theory and found that every empire, ruling and economic
system in history collapsed for the same reason: The misdefinition, or if
you like the misunderstanding of the concept of economic efficiency, which
caused reactions, chain reactions and ultimate self destruction. E.g. Rome
was not knocked over by the barbarians, it committed suicide. So have all
the colonial and ideological empires such as the nazis and communists in our
times, because they were forced to use more and more resources/energy to
maintain their power, until the inefficiency caused by these inputs knocked
them down.

The ecological disasters predicted by Paul Isaacs are the calculable
reactions to energy/resource inputs, regardless of the need, want, demand or
purpose. These reactions are inevitable and the only way to mitigate the
consquences is by using less physical inputs into the economy. I didn't
invent this, it has been common knowledge since Newton et al.

Capitalism is just another form of licenced and forced collectivized
resource exploitation in the service of a self appointed ruling class and
also on the verge of collapse, again because of it's misdefinition of the
concept of efficiency. It is a self destructing pyramid scam and the only
purpose of this phoney "globalization" is to widen the base to feed the tip.

Based on these I formulated my own definition which has been in circulation
for close to 14 years among scientists etc. It came on the Net in  May '96
on the ecol-econ list of the U of Colorado, and on other ecological
economics lists, mai-not, sustainability lists etc. In all these years
thousands of scientists and economists have read it, but nobody broke it or
could prove it wrong.

My definition is based on  the laws of engineering/physical efficiency,
thermodynamics, the laws of speed and reaction. Here are a few odd points to
explain the theory:

1. The lowest energy/resource intputs into a product are the most
economically efficient. This means that when the lowest monetary inputs
bring the largest monetary returns, as economic efficiency is defined today,
is wrong and fraudulent.

2. Efficiency can not be defined in monetary terms, as in neo-classical
theory, because of the infinite variability of values under the control of a
sector. In short, present monetary figures are temporary and infinitely
corruptible perceptions, therefore can not be used for economic calculations.

3. The present monetary system is "The licence to control energy", issued by
a special interest sector, not for economic, but ideological reasons to
maintain the same fiduciary rights that were held by the aristocracies,
ruling classes, priesthoods and politbureus throughout the ages.

4. Although the right to create money is given by governments to this
sector, the responsibility to maintain the value of the money, through the
release of resources remains the responsibility of the government and the
public. The public has no right to control the money creation process, but
has to carry the burden of the damage caused by the reactions, i.e.
environmental destruction, destitution, illness, etc.

5. Monetary competition, the basis of neo-classical theory, does not lower,
but always increases ecological and also monetary costs, as it works on the
laws of speed: small increases in speed require multipled increases of
energy. The reactions are inevitable and calculable, based on Newton's
"action causes equal reaction" law. Therefore, the credits are cancelled out
by the debits. Every miracle, hi tech invention of our century
fell flat on the long run because of the reactions caused by the inputs.
E.g. Chemical farming, pesticides, herbicides, nuclear power, antibiotics,
DDT, automation, etc. etc.
The list provided by Paul shows the results.

This could go on and on and I'm bored to tears writing on this subject and
then listening and reading the stream of academic moaning and groaning over
the effects, without any attempt to look for the causes.

The basic promise of every economic theory and empire is the cutting of
costs, the creation of prosperity and so on. The problem is that neither
wealth, or prosperity, or anything can be created, because we can neither
create, or destroy anything. All we can do is convert resources and
particles into other forms, but as we do this we are also causing reactions
and conversion into lower forms, i.e. pollution, garbage, etc. What people
call wealth is the temporary control of a certain resource base.

Having established the basic paradigms and discussed it with scientist
friends for 6 years, I formulated my Principle for economic efficiency in
1991 and copyrighted it to establish the date.

"An efficient product, or economic system, contains/uses physically
efficient or ideal amounts of energy and matter, regardless of numerical or
monetary considerations. Monetary cost efficiency can not exist outside the
concepts and limitations of phsyical, or ecological efficiency and becomes
cost transfer on other sectors. Therefore it is not efficiency, but
temporary convenience."

"Nothing can be made cheaper than the limits of physical efficiency of "no
waste". Fiduciary money is a concept and it's values are temporary
perceptions, not a reality.
and can not change the laws of physical, or ecological efficiency. Somebody,
something, somewhere, some time must pay the full costs and those of the
reactions caused by the inefficient inputs."


The examples quoted by Paul and many others are simple "cost transfers on
other sectors"

If anybody can break my efficiency law, please do so. Nothing could please
me more. At last I could get out of this boring nonsense of economics and do
something more interesting.

Cheers, Ed  (Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC, Canada)

PS: having lived under all of them, I claim that there's no ideological
"left and right"
only what I call an "idiot's ladder", where the L and R are located like the
F and C on a thermometer. There's no difference between the mentalities of
nazis vs. communists, etc. They're facing each other across a thin red line.
The worst place is reserved for social democrats (I mean the real ones, not
the Third Way, or is it Turd Way bunch ?), right at the very bottom, where
they're hunted down and kicked around by all the others.
Capitalism is just another form of forced collectivization in the service of
another form of ruling polibureau system.

Cheers, Ed


    an activist discussion forum - •••@••.•••
    To subscribe, send any message to
    A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
        •••@••.•••     http://cyberjournal.org

  **--> Non-commercial reposting is encouraged,
        but please include the sig up through this paragraph
        and retain any internal credits and copyright notices.
        Copyrighted materials are posted under "fair-use".

    Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance

    To review renaissance-network archives, send a blank message to:

    To subscribe to the the cj list, which is a larger list
    and a more general political discussion, send a blank message to:
    To sample the book-in-progress, "Achieving a Livable World", see:

            A community will evolve only when
            the people control their means of communication.
                -- Frantz Fanon

            Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
            committed citizens can change the world,
            indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
                - Margaret Mead