Bcc: contributors.
============================================================================
From: Paul Isaacs <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:57:03 -0500
Subject: Re: rkm> A new economics & politics: starting with the community
Richard,
My feeling is that sustainable and harmonious with the world
around us implies 2-3 billion people if you want to use
renewable energy sources.
We live in rural Ontario and I have considered - many times
- ways of going "off-grid". There are, however, problems:
- to get power on-demand requires an energy storage system.
Very expensive and not very long-lived ( about 8 years for
batteries - if you don't draw them down too often )
- to get power at the level that we currently use ( hot
water, refrigerator, electric stove ) requires a huge
capital investment. The best dollar/watt is currently wind.
There are lots of people like me who would jump at the
chance to be self-sufficient - but it means a drastic change
of life-style made at significant expense. The
back-to-the-landers of the sixties all gave up. With reason;
it was far too spartan. It is possible, the Mennonites live
a very low energy lifestyle.
I have been an engineer for 35 years and I just don't know
of any way to have a lifestye that is more "advanced" than
1800 with renewables. Our entire transportation
infrastructure has to go back to rail and horse. We can't
have refrigerators, electric stoves or hot water.
The biggest problem that I see is that at least 1/3 of the
world's people are dependent on oil energy to keep them fed.
The green revolution is not possible without feretilizer and
fertilizer is not possible without oil for feedstock and
process energy.
I just don't see how it is possible to get where you want to
go and have a planetary population of 6 billion too.
In addition, I don't see how it is possible to use energy at
anything near our current consumption levels by utilizing
renewable sources.
Politically, I don't see any willingness to even admit that
there are - or even could be - serious problems afoot. Most
people are at least aware of pollution and climate change
problems but virtually no one is willing to make any
significant concessions to solve those problems. The thought
of being without a cold beer and a hot shower is totally out
of the question.
So... I don't see how it is possible to make the physical
transition that you envision - even in the very unlikely
event that a collective willingness condenses to do so.
In the end, energy supply will determine what happens. No
amount of human willpower is going to overcome the laws of
physics and the laws of physics are clear in telling us that
"modern society" has energy demands that exceed the
practically available renewable sources.
Renewables are low density sources and the size of the
structures that would be needed to gather a renewable energy
supply equal to that of oil are beyond the material
capabilities of the planet and beyond out engineering
capacity to build them.
I suspect that a low energy future awaits, that it will be
here soon and that we will be completely unprepared.
The transition is going to be ugly and I anticipate that
capitalism will not survive it. Neither, unfortunately, will
several billion people.
Your optimism is sadly matched by my pessimism. I see no
real point in being a continuing prophet of doom but silence
does not seem to be morally acceptable either.
Regards,
Paul Isaacs
============
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your message. I actually think our viewpoints
are not that far apart, although we choose to emphasize
different aspects.
> My feeling is that sustainable and harmonious with the
world around us implies 2-3 billion people if you want to
use renewable energy sources.
Yes, we need to find a humane way to reduce our population
levels. And if we don't move to renewable energy sources
then we are not sustainable, regardless of how many of us
there are.
> There are lots of people like me who would jump at the
chance to be self-sufficient - but it means a drastic change
of life-style made at significant expense.
As your arguments show, sustainability is not something that
can be achieved by individuals or small groups. Our whole
system is set up to prevent that, by our tax structures,
debt-based money systems, building codes, etc. etc.
Sustainability can only be achieved by a total
transformation of societies globally.
> The biggest problem that I see is that at least 1/3 of the
world's people are dependent on oil energy to keep them fed.
The green revolution is not possible without feretilizer and
fertilizer is not possible without oil for feedstock and
process energy.
You seem to have bought into the myth that the green
revolution has been a good thing. Rather than reducing
starvation, it has actually been the cause of widespread
famine, depletion of water tables, excessive energy use, and
environmental pollution. You might want to take a look at
an excellent little book, "World Hunger, Twelve Myths', by
Frances Moore Lappé & Joseph Collins.
> In addition, I don't see how it is possible to use energy
at anything near our current consumption levels by utilizing
renewable sources.
We must utilize renewable sources, and we cannot continue to
use our current levels of energy. No disagreement here.
> I have been an engineer for 35 years and I just don't know
of any way to have a lifestye that is more "advanced" than
1800 with renewables. Our entire transportation
infrastructure has to go back to rail and horse. We can't
have refrigerators, electric stoves or hot water.
Basically you're right, about the need for a major change to
our infrastructures, but why do you assume I would disagree?
But your detailed assessment is entirely too pessimistic. I
don't agree we can't have hot water, which can be supplied
directly by solar heating, nor that we can't have
refrigerators, which can be many times more efficient than
our current ones - which distribute heat upward from the
condensers, which is incredibly wasteful. Electric stoves
certainly need to go, but that doesn't mean we won't be able
to cook. Rail and horse? Hooray! Can't wait! Have you ever
been to Amsterdam? Not many cars there, and it works great.
> Politically, I don't see any willingness to even admit
that there are - or even could be - serious problems afoot.
I can't agree with this. Practically everyone I talk to, of
every walk of life, agrees that we are headed for serious
trouble. They may not understand very well why, and they
many not have many ideas about what to do, but they are
concerned.
There are hundreds of thousands of organizations around the
world actively seeking to promote fundamental change in
various ways. And even more important, there is a growing
spirit of seeking to collaborate in a larger movement.
> I suspect that a low energy future awaits, that it will be
here soon and that we will be completely unprepared.
You've made your point. Now why don't you think about how
we can 'get prepared'?
all the best,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Marc Bombois" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Cc: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: root causes
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:45:54 -0800
Dear Richard,
I greatly appreciate and enjoy your messages. I agree with
John Bunzl's comments "The key to success, I think, will be
greater understanding" and "We need to move on to root
causes..." In response to this I'd like to point out a root
cause, one of the nuts-and-bolts variety. No doubt there are
many others, and in the psychological and spiritual realms
as well.
The source of elite power resides in the banking system.
Very simply, virtually all money (say 95%) is supplied as
debt i.e. principal plus interest, but only the principal is
created/printed/supplied. No provision is made for the
payment of interest. It is extremely important to grasp this
concept. Because interest is an extra debt obligation that
is unfunded, there is vastly more debt than there is money
in existence. For example, in the U.S. official Federal
Reserve figures clearly show that there is about 2.5 times
more debt than money, and this situation is comparable
around the world with a few exceptions like the Channel
Islands.
Since virtually all money is supplied as debt, these
additions to the money supply also add to total debt, but
interest charges only add to total debt without any
corresponding increase in the money supply.
The implications of this situation, once grasped, are
breathtaking. And unacceptable. Yet, it is accepted because
of lack of awareness. We see in our world today the result
of this method of supplying money via the banking system.
Structurally and systematically, wealth is transferred from
the many to the money creators: the financial elite. The
rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Debt-plus-interest
is the mechanism.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Marc Bombois
=============
Dear Mark,
Thanks for joining in.
You say the banking system is the problem. John St. John
insists it's 'the corporation as machine-out-of-control'.
Others say it is the corporate-dominated media. Others say
it is the corrupt political system. Others refuse to
discuss anything but the population problem, while Marxists
say it's capitalism.
What purpose is served by these kinds of debates? Isn't it
clear that all of these things are part of a single system?
Don't we need to change the whole system? Do you want to
change only banking, and leave the rest alone?
puzzled,
rkm
============================================================================
From: "Dave Silver" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: rkm> Empowering the movement: unity through harmonization
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 16:17:43 -0500
Brother Moore- I note the abscence of the words class or
socialism??
Dave Silver
===========
Dear Dave,
That is very intentional. What is socialism? If you
interpret it broadly - roughly equivalent to 'a
democratically established economy' - then the word
'socialism' has nothing to offer. We might as well say we
want to democratically restructure the economy and leave it
at that. On the other hand, if you give any concrete
meaning to socialism, such as 'centralized state planning',
or 'abolition of private property', then it's not something
I would endorse. There is certainly a great deal to be
learned from thinkers who have called themselves socialists,
but that does not mean we need to buy into socialism as an
ideology.
And 'class' is a concept that no longer has any relevance.
We no longer have a well-ordered, semi-stable ladder of
social privilege. Instead, we have everyone being
exploited, at an accelerating rate, by a tiny elite. Under
these circumstances it makes more sense to talk about a
_universal uprising against rule by this tiny elite. It is
a strategic error to focus on a 'revolutionary class',
whether it be 'workers', 'proletariat', or even 'cultural
creatives'. That kind of thinking is divisive, and the
regime is very adapt at exploiting that to our disadvantage.
Instead of 'Workers of the world unite!', I suggest 'We are
all in this together!'.
solidarity,
rkm
--
============================================================================
Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
email: •••@••.•••
URL: http://cyberjournal.org
A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication.
- Frantz Fanon
"One cannot separate economics, political science, and
history. Politics is the control of the economy. History,
when accurately and fully recorded, is that story. In most
textbooks and classrooms, not only are these three fields of
study separated, but they are further compartmentalized into
separate subfields, obscuring the close interconnections
between them" -- J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 2,
(Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 22.
Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.
============================================================================
.
