"The Era of Growth is Ending" - Jerry Mander
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2008/10...
Activist Jerry Mander describes America's current economic model as "unsustainable," and argues that a full return to pre-crisis levels of economic prosperity may not be possible "in our lifetimes."
-----
The fight for the environment does not stop at the edge of Antarctica's icebergs. The front lines stretch from the WTO and South Korean farms to our shopping bags and gas tanks.
With so many simultaneous environmental combat zones, many questions arise. Who is fighting this war? And who is going to win?
We have compiled a panel of leading authors, each with a unique perspective on environmental battles.
They use stories to explain what is happening to the environment around the globe, and look at how we are being directly affected at home and how each of us can play a part - The Commonwealth Club of California
Jerry Mander is an American activist best known for his book "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" (1977), and for his contribution to a book on an unrelated topic, "The Great International Paper Airplane Book" (1971).Mander worked in advertising for 15 years, including five as partner and president of Freeman, Mander & Gossage in San Francisco. In 1971 he founded the first non-profit advertising agency in the United States, Public Interest Communications, which worked on campaigns to prevent dams in the Grand Canyon, found Redwood National Park, and stop the American project to build a supersonic transport. He is currently the director of the International Forum on Globalization and the program director for Megatechnology and Globalization at the Foundation for Deep Ecology.
this guy is phrasing an objective truth very well. WHY do people dislike him? if someone can give me a thoughtful answer, I would appreciate that.
It's not just our lifestyles that depend on progress. If progress stops, the economy fails. If the economy fails (as it might) millions in the developing world will die for a multitude of different reasons. Many thousands have already died as a result of our current economic crisis.
It is those people who live in poverty that now depend most on technological innovation, so I don't see how trying to live more like the developing world is supposed to help anyone.
Fossil fuel shortages are a major problem that will probably cause worldwide economic catastrophes and political unrest. However, saying that "growth is over" is ridiculous. Each person contributes less than they consume to this world. This is the cause of growth. Humans are creating wealth we pass on generation to generation. That is the cause of growth, and thats why it isn't over.
Russell was saying that he could not find evidence that people behave rationally. That is quite different from saying whether or not we are capable of employing reason at all.
As for defining reason, choose whatever common definition you like. Without the ability to accumulate reason through culture, a brute is indeed more similar in value to that of an animal. With it, we can go to the moon and populate the stars. The difference is qualitative and significant.
JM talks about resources, but that has nothing to do with this crisis, because we don't live in a resource-based economy, but in a financial-based economy. There are enough resources because we could use water to drive cars and there is enough water around. The fact that people die of thirst and hunger in Africa has nothing to do with the lack of resources. It's all politics and money, not resources - the whole computer industry is based on "sand"! (silicon)
Growth don't mean just industrial growth. Its like saying a person stops growing at 20. Growth in information is the same as in industry. If more people comsume media like music and movies, it's still growing the gdp of a country.
I disagree.
1) We can image creatures more magnificent than humans. We can imagine them having such value, that even good humans would consider it more important to protect one of these creatures than another human. We can do this because we are rational. Lions cannot.
2) If you can understand a child's use of "good" and "special", then you can surely understand mine.
3) No one is arguing that worms are worthless.
For more arguments on sustainability, see my other posts in this thread.
We are surrounded in energy. We're swimming in it. We got enough geothermal energy for centuries. Enough nuclear energy for at least 1 century. Clean coal isn't really clean, but it's cheap as dirt and we've got enough of that for centuries. We've got enough natural gas to get us by for who knows how long. Any one of these by itself is a potential solution. Taken together they're more than enough. Right now we just lack infrastructure and investment.
I'm not arguing whether humans are the same as lions. I'm arguing that we needn't treat other animals as equals. I"m arguing that a world without humans is lacking in a way that a world without lions is not. I'm not making a category error.
I am arguing that:
1) The existence of reason (culture, ethics, etc.) has value.
2) Reason exists because humans exist, not because lions exist.
3) Humans have value that lions do not.
The logic is valid so you must deny the premises. Do you?
People exercise the options they have open- the more options a woman has to make her way in the world without having to have children or rely on her mail relatives, the fewer children she (on average) has. The more people can depend on pension programs, the less they need children to take care of them. And lower the infant mortality rate, the less people feel that its necessary to have a large family.
Watching the author of 'Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television' on YT is surreal.
I am not above that debate. I have already answered it. Technological progress will make sustainability a non-issue. If the developing world can become developed, we have every reason to believe that it will experience the same fall in population that the developing world is experiencing now.
Sincere or not, being cavalier about pushing an agenda that leads is millions of deaths is shameful.
The problem of our time is going to be how to survive with just what humans can make. The resources will soon be depleted, there will be a scramble for what is left, but in order to continue living prosperously, humans are going to have to come up with some drastically new ideas.
Infinite economic growth does not require infinite increase in population if the existing population increases its consumption. "Consumption" does not have to be material consumption. The music industry creates a very vibrant economy selling performances and digital data. Technology allows us to produce more such intangible goods of ever higher quality. If you would like more facts and examples, please let me know.
I'm not talking about artificial terms like IQ. I'm talking about value. I'm not asking you to give me an ordinal value ranking the value of different objects. I'm asking whether reason has value or not. When one asks, "Does gold have value?" The answer is not "meaningless", it's "yes". To argue that gold is not valuable to dogs or drowning men is to be pedantic to the point of absurdity. Perhaps now you'd like to argue over the meaning of "value"? Sometimes "yes" or "no" really is the answer.
@repfreedomforce
I mostly agree,
with this caveat:
It is 'corrupted' government that makes life unfair, government corrupted by
business/banking/war-mongering/military-industrial-complex.
The corporate partnerships are what has corrupted the gov.
Corporations should be TEMPORARY entities that address unusual situations.
They should disappear once the situation is over.
I have met many very smart people and talked to them about serious issues. Many are pessimistic about the future right now, but they give similar advise as what I just gave. You don't have to accept that advice, but it'd be well worth your time to give it some thought.
The site you pointed out appears to provide information related to the survival of tribal peoples. It does not appear to provide much help for the greater number of people that live as a result of population growth from technological progress. If the tribal peoples survive but millions of poor farmers die, that is frankly not much consolation.
You've never heard anyone argue that a human is more valuable than an animal? Seriously? Are you joking? And yes you are either evading or being willfully dense. A world without ethics would be one that is quite different from the one we have today. I suggest that it would be a much worse one. Do you disagree?
That's because I'm using "reason" in a non-controversial way. I'm saying that most definitions of reason encapsulate the idea that I'm getting at well enough. I'm not going to point at some definitions and say "those are valuable" and then point at some others and say "those aren't." If you work hard enough you might find some concept of reason that applies equally to humans and other animals but you won't have to work hard at all to find other that don't.
It is not a tautology. Humans are rational and rationality is valuable. Any creature that possesses rationality is valuable. Lions do not possess rationality. This doesn't mean they are valueless, but they are limited to the value of their other attributes.
If you cannot agree that rationality is something worth valuing more than the attributes of a lion, then you are almost certainly irrational and not worth talking to.
I am well aware of studies of behavior in animals that is both ethical and unethical. This doesn't necessarily say anything about their ability to engage in ethics. If you focus to narrowly on the biological, you will miss the fact that a great part of human consciousness is the result of participation in a larger culture. This results in differences that are exponential and qualitatively different from what is found in the rest of the animal world.
A lion isn't going to give you any consideration because it isn't going to be able to consider you abstractly the way a human would be able to consider another creature. That is a difference. There is no tautology. The fact that humans are capable of thinking about ethics and lions are not is a significant distinction. There's good reason to think that a world without rational, ethical creatures is lacking in a way that a world without some particular animal isn't. See above for a summary.
then why are these technologies not widely available, and cheap enough for everyone to afford?
It is not necessary to define "good" or "special". These are kindergarten words. We can wax philosophical about their precise implications for special instances, but here pretty much any ordinary definition will do.
Let's put it this way, we are special enough that If you had the choice between running down a child or a flatworm with your car and you were to choose the child, you would not be good, you would be a monster. If you can't acknowledge that, then you've really lost touch.
Technologies continue to fall in price. A $2000 dollar computer from 3 years ago costs less than $300 today. People at the time of the American revolution were lucky to have forks and spoons. Today the average person can easily take transcontinental flights. Technology moves much more quickly than most realize and it's accelerating all the time.
I use "infinite" in the common sense of "unlimited". Society always relies on material, but it does not necessarily rely on larger amounts of it (though larger amounts do make it easier). Digital music is stored on silicon. Most of the earth is made of silicon. The rest is easily made from metals such as recyclable aluminum. I don't want to give the idea that technology is a panacea; it is often used irresponsibly. However, progress lies in new ideas, not in Neo-Feudalism.
Are you able to actually make an argument without resorting to personal attacks? Aiming your aspersions on my comments is not different from aiming them at me. Really. All you have to do is give a counter-argument.
I'm not going to comment on the definition of reason either. I already made my point very clearly.
Did you read my post before responding? I said we have more than enough energy to last us for centuries. Without new technologies to tap into these new resources, wealth will continue to fall into the hands of privileged few and millions or even billions will die of easily preventable disease and starvation. I personally am not interested in living in a world of neo-feudalism and you better believe that's just what we'll get if we don't keep ahead of the curve.
Nope. The fact that we are capable of reason and sometimes employ it is relevant. You tacitly agree that we can do so by entering into debate in the first place. If you feel that reason is not at least instrumentally valuable, I wonder why you bother?
By saying "you choose" I'm saying that I am willing to defend any definition of reason that you hold up. It doesn't matter. Virtually any one of them will exist in humans to a degree that is qualitatively different from that of all other animals.
This man wrote a book calling for the abolition of television because it ENABLES big brother. Don't leave things half finished_read the whole story
I am not speaking primarily from a romantic tradition nor did I claim to; I'm speaking from plain reason. How is it sensationalist when I point out that that you seem to be disowning human values? I've made very direct statements that should be easily comprehensible to any fluent speaker of English. The fact is that you have disarmed yourself by abandoning the primacy of reason. Without accepting it, how are mere unsupported opinions supposed to convince anyone of anything?
@smujismuj It's governments that make life to be unfair. It's government enforced monopolies that perpetuate corruption in the corporate world. If you doubt that, think of the government enforced monopoly of the money supply. Also, think of why oil continues to be dominate in energy? It's the government that ensured the dominance of oil companies since they help to perpetuate one another. It's oil that fuels the weapons and militarism that keeps the American government dominant in the world.
Meaningless? Essentially the argument boils down to "Should animals be treated as equals?" This is an ethical question. You've steered clear of answering whether ethics is valuable, though you shied away from being called immoral. Clearly you feel that acting ethically is important. Next you engage in a lengthy philosophical debate. Clearly you feel that reason is important. Now you claim that attributing value to reason is meaningless? What? Shall I then launch into a volley of absurdity?
Moreover, ethics has nothing to do with romanticism. If you do not believe that ethics are important, then you are immoral and as such are worse off than a lion who is merely amoral.
My argument has nothing to do with an "anthropocentric culture". It has to do with one deciding to either admit that reason is important or stop pretending to be reasonable.
The problem is it's oil that is harder and harder to get to making it more and more expensive til eventually there may be oil but it will no longer be worth getting.
LFTR
The solution is 1,000,000 times as energy dense as coal, has no pressurized core, does not require solid nuclear fuel and thus does lot create long lived actinides. This solution is meltdown proof, has ample fuel supplies (in the US too) and has already been demonstrated in the 1960's. It was not the way to make weapons so, unfortunately, the world passed it by. Now, there is every reason to drop all others and develop this (almost) perfect unlimited energy solution!
LFTR and MSR
I'm not sure that pessimism is very helpful. Of course, being realistic is important, but we needn't accept a fatalistic vision of the future. If you believe in freedom and society, don't hole yourself up in a little bunker. Go out and find other people that feel the same way. Figure out ways to secure property and trade in your own local community. You have plenty of talented trustworthy neighbors without bothering with Washington.
Totally agree with Jerry. We need to develop a new economic system based on sustainability. We need to confront issues such as population size & voters need to vote for politicians who propose workable sustainable policies. Most politicians promise endless economicv growth & say it can go on for ever...fools!
Perpetual growth economies like we are living in are known as "Keynesian Economies". Check out the Austrian School of Economics for a different, and fundamentally different model.
What kind of answer are you looking for? A description of specific neuronal structures? Again, I'd warn that you not get too focused on the biology or even the brain. Virtually everything that makes us human is the fact that we augment ourselves: through tools, through language, through culture. The language of dolphins is sophisticated because it's communicating a lot of geospatial information. That's interesting but less significant than what we do.
Alot of people frown on the US, and i can see why theres alot of curruption. It does have the potential to be a better place, I mean the system we had was decent untill people began changeing things for the worse, In the end you cant really control population growth if you think about it, and we will end up adapting, large cities everywhere with im sure interesting architecture, smaller more effecient cars or even more advanced ways of travelin no NOT TELEPORTING. THINK MORE POSTIVELY PEOPLE.
Do you agree or disagree that reason has value? If you agree, then humans have value that animals do not. If you disagree, then you're irrational and the conversation is finished.
I'm not interested in romanticism. I merely clarified a point which you seem to insist on bringing up.
Sad that oil didn't peak back then. We wouldn't be in such the pickle we're in right now.
Inifinite economic growth is possible because technology continues to progress. Energy can be harnessed more efficiently and materials recombined into more productive forms. The people who play up this kind of crisis typically have one hand held out for donations and the other to take new taxes.
We had a nice run. But it's time to go back to basics. Tribal societies anyone?
@smujismuj You're right! Doesn't LLC mean "LIMITED Liability Corporation"? But this idea that government would somehow be free of corruption and a noble entity in the world if not for the banks / corporations seems to miss an important point. Sometimes people ask, 'without government, what would you do with all the psychopaths?" Firstly, I would not give them armies! It's government's monopoly on violence that attracts psychopaths into government, which makes government corruption inevitable.
You're wading in pretty deep and CZcams comments really aren't the best place for philosophical debates, but I'd stress two points.
First: humans are a part of Nature, so everything we do, including evil things, are natural. That doesn't mean we should condone evil, but neither should we kid ourselves about the righteousness of the natural world.
Second: we are special. If you haven't figured out that a human life is worth more than than of a flatworm, then you've got some living to do.
I think I've addressed the role of technology for sustainability in my previous posts. The fact that some people misuse reason is tragic but irrelevant to the issue.
No, you tried and failed to explain why my example was not relevant. I am familiar with the Luddite argument and it's just not very convincing. Bridges and towers are very poor examples of what we've accomplished. Or don't you like your CZcams?
These are truly scientific times. I believe that advanced machine automation will make such things as artificial photosynthesis and GaAs solar panels in such abundance that people will once again have jobs. But we all know that will not be allowed to happen...
What are you talking about? I'm saying that technological progress is necessary if starvation is to be avoided in Africa and you're talking about culture?
If you have accepted that CZcams is a product of technology then perhaps you've started to understand that technology is something that can help people regardless of their culture.
I'm curious as to why you consider my attitude to be dishonest. Perhaps you can provide a specific example?
Don't get me wrong. I think the American Empire definitely has Titanic written all over it. That's not my point though. My point is that if humanity is going to get out of this debacle, it's going to have to be through preserving the best of our past to spur future ingenuity.
Many of our current efforts led on both sides of the aisle instead seem aimed at propping up the mistakes of the past to maintain the current status quo and concentrate power into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
No, you said I had a racist view of the world. That is not different from calling me a racist.
I dont think we have just advanced to the point where we wont anymore thats pretty rediculous theres always more to study about everything around us. There are many unknowns in the universe.
You can't compare shale & crude oil 1:1. The EROEI of shale oil is very low, you have to mine tons of the stuff, and a huge energy cost to process useful yield from it! A better comparison would be how many net Btus each can provide. It's not 8 times.
Or is there another reason why the US stopped mining shale in the 80s and instead turned to oil imports?
Agreed, NG is definitely a better way but it's also non-renewable: that will start to run down when we all convert to it for electricity too.
How do you define infinite? Your examples don't quite explain how you find this possible. Consumption, especially in a technology reliant society always relies on material. How is digital music stored? How many ipods do you think are disposed of every year. I'm perfectly aware of the technotopian facts you speak of and they simply are not the answer. If you would like more facts and examples. Please let me know. I apologize for my earlier message. I wouldn't mind some healthy debate on this.
As for reason, anthropocentrism, etc. I think I've already answered this and I don't see any point in getting into it again.
I have read Russell. So what? Are you able to directly answer any of my arguments or will you continue to evade? There is no fallacy. I've insisted on nothing. I've used regular everyday language and dared you to find a definition of it that I cannot defend. I'm not talking about men or women. I'm talking about the fact that reason has value. Do you deny it? Yes or no?
Needs to re-think, and expand out definition (and perception) of those things which constitute growth.
has anyone the e-mail contact of this great man?
No it doesn't. My point has real implications. Your example is a joke and not a very funny one at that. Clearly you're looking for a way to end this discussion while saving face. Don't bother. You need to reevaluate your views on the matter. "Lions are less valuable to humans" may be a very general statement that can be misinterpreted, but it is basically true. Talk about "anthropocentrism" is misguided when it is used as a ploy to play down the importance of reason and technological advance.
I did understand you point about IQ and I don't think that you do. The point about gold is not absurd. You can have a discussion about gold beyond yes or no. And? I"ve said before, there's no tautology. There's not category error. I'm not enforcing anything. I'm asking a direct question using words with well understood meaning. "Existence", "reason", "have", and "value" all have non-controversial meaning.
This guys name isn't really Jerry Mander, is it?
true. But technology solves some problems but create new ones. In the beginning man created technology to control his environment.. but in the end technology controlled man due to his dependence on it.
LOL. My wife is Japanese. I'm American. I'm a racist? I've lived in Thailand. I know what Nature looks like and I know what poverty looks like. I also happen to know that if we were to every decide that progress and technology wasn't worth the effort, billions of people would die. Most of them would not be Europeans or Americans. Who then is the real racist? Are you so worried about lions and flatworms that you're willing to let the world die of famine and disease? Shame on you.
@jursamaj -
Someone scientifically minded would understand its foolish to expect we can match what we're used to in the industrial age - splurging through a pre-stored energy resevoir.
it is the basic process that is at fault - drawing down the earths capital , whilst the $-based accounting only tracks relationships between people.
[i understand there's a chance we might solve fusion or harvest offworld resources, but i'd hardly bet on it as inevitable]
I am from 2019 from 2008 to 2019 oil need is raised from X to 1.25X...
There is obviously something strange in San Francisco's water supply
I have said nothing about your ethics except that your argument logically entails that you do not value ethics.
I am interested in your views. I'm less interested in your commentary. If you really believe that you aren't pushing for something that's going to lead to millions of deaths then I'll spare you my scorn and simply lend my sympathy. That said, I wonder where you think the explosion in human population came from and where you think it'd go if the source of its growth were to be cut off?
As for culture, humans possess all relevant types in ways that are qualitatively different from animals.
@taostoner1 North America in general is an issue as a whole, look at the populations of both Canada and the US and look at the percentage of overweight individuals in both countries, and you'll see that is apart of the issue as well, alot of people in either country, or NA as a whole, take sustenance for granted, unlike other portions of the world who would kill for a loaf of bread, that we seemingly assume comes from an unending supply.
Wow. In one breath you claim to answer all my questions and in the next you refuse to do so. Brilliant! False dichotomy? I asked whether reason is valuable or not. There is no dichotomy. What part of the question didn't you understand? It's true or false not apples or oranges.
@HigherPlanes its far more efficient, effective, and superior in every way.
Same here, 39 and no kids yet.
@smujismuj
Yes there is... But look inward first to see if you have cheated and stole first before blaming your own lot in life on some one else. if you work hard and are a good and descent person then you have a right to complain but there is to much blame placed on people just because they have more money. My neighbor has 4 cars and I have one, oh its my neighbors fault that I do not have an extra car.
I like it how people continue to look elsewhere for someone to blame for their lot in life. Oh its the Wall Street Bankers and their greed that ruin thins planet, not the Wii I just bought! Look to yourself first not outside.
@HigherPlanes
Utilizing permaculture principles that could work out quite well~
Well said
TECHNOLOGY WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS
@HigherPlanes
No, thank you. You can go live in a hut, but science will instead work on the next energy source.
@JohnF30Music .... until the oil runs out, then we're all in for hell
@IntronDepot1 That must be it.
You have a book? Gee whiz...
he bleaches his hair to look smart and einstainish
How the Beaver has aged!
first comment, view and rating!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Malthusian Twaddle.
@matchbox555
i hope caps denotes sarcasm
i guess that makes you the da[p qwuuns!
Jerry Mander? LMAO