schekn_itrch
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP, the article is clearly not written by a specialist and is full of logical errors, for example here:
“The composition of affluent economies changes as well. Manufacturing once accounted for 20 per cent or more of economic output and employment in most developed economies. Today, it is as low as 10 per cent in some, with the vast majority of economic output coming from knowledge and service sectors with significantly lower material and energy intensities” – the author is trying to make a point that when all countries become affluent economies, they all will have “significantly lower material and energy intensities”, which is clearly false, as today these s.c. effluent economies heavily depend on the high material and energy intensities of the less affluent ones.
I think this is the article Alan was copying from when he wrote that “we have been engineering our environments to more productively serve human needs for tens of millennia.” which I already pointed out to be factually incorrect đ
The article does cite some interesting scientific articles though, for example this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912000833 – where the conclusion is that we cannot simply use âhuman appropriation of net primary productionâ (HANPP) as a simple measure of carrying capacity because highly developed countries use less land to produce more food, like Netherlands, for example (thanks Alan, I didn’t know!). At the same time the article also notes that those countries’ “efficiency gains require large inputs of fossil fuels and agrochemicals resulting in pressures on ecosystems and emissions”, which ultimately have to be included in the calculations of “carrying capacity”.
While it is commendable that authors like this Ted Nordhaus try to convince us the planet is capable of supporting more human beings, they are not on our side when instead of using rational thinking and solid science they get all emotional about the whole issue and confuse the reader. It is wishful thinking to say that humans are any different from fruit flies in their reproductive patterns in societies that do not provide sufficient education. Where is the scientific basis for such assertions?
I think in the end I failed in my attempts to be understood. “Despite their concern for the environment these people are not on our side.” – this is exactly the hostility I was talking about, Alan. “These people” are only talking about environmental collapse, and it is entirely possible to join them so that they would be on our side. There is nothing fundamentally un-socialist in trying to estimate the footprint of humans on the planet and its resources, it is rather un-socialist to be blindly optimistic and to discourage research. Instead of being hostile to them, we should join them and convince them to fight on our side, because we are proposing a solution to the problems they are so concerned about.
I really don’t think cost enters the equation at any point when you calculate EROEI, it should just be energy in whatever you measure it, joules if you want. Of course it may be difficult to measure it precisely, but just intuitively you would agree that in order to get oil which is gushing from a well in 1919, you don’t need nearly as much energy/work as in order to squeeze oil from shale rock using tonnes of water and sand that you have to transport from somewhere else, no?
Here by the way we also have to look at how convenient a source of power is. Not all sources of power are created equal. If oil is liquid and you can directly load it into a car or a truck, solar power is not so. First you have to harvest it using PVs, then charge a huge heavy battery in an EV, and only then you can use it. This is part of the reason creating a heavy duty truck has been such a challenge for EV producers: most of the weight these trucks would have to haul is their own batteries. It would also be quite difficult to make such a truck run on nuclear energy. At the same time, our way of life is heavily dependent on trucks. Just look around you and try to find a single thing that has never in its existence been on a truck. I really recommend this entertaining, short, and highly educational book on the subject:
When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of TransportationBook by A.J. FriedemannI don’t think capitalists use EROEI much, I mostly read about it in energy policy or geological research literature, for example here:Â https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513006447
Wikipedia article explains the concept quite well, including criticism and problems of calculation, but in any case price shouldn’t be included there, as this is a purely energy-calculating concept. Apparently in the beginning of XX century EROI of oil was close to 100, and since then it has been steadily decreasing, being around 10 now, or even less for shale oil. An important implication is that the effects of this decline seep through into the slowing down of capitalist economy and even lower standards of living for the dispossessed. All of the renewables (or, as one author noted, rebuildables, as PVs and windmills need to be constantly exchanged) have much lower EROEI than most easily accessible fossil fuels. Moreover, even when/if we decide to switch to the rebuildables on a mass scale, it will lead to the so-called “Energy cannibalism”
This would in turn exacerbate the energy crisis of peak oil. About the rationale for the peak oil timing you can read also here:Â https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Permian-Slowdown-Could-Start-In-202021020.html – especially the last paragraph.
ALB, all you said is true, and I know this, except you are missing one important detail: EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). This is what ultimately determines the ability to extract oil, not price. It can cost millions per barrel, and still no one will get into business of getting the rest of oil if it takes more oil to get it out than what you will receive in the end. Shale oil is marginal in EROEI, and now the whole industry is in the vicious cycle of extracting more and more just to cover borrowed costs, making oil cheaper and cheaper as a result, and shooting itself in the foot. Their own CEOs are saying that there is not that much left in the most productive areas, so the time when the industry goes belly up should be quite soon.
Bijou, I must admit I am probably wrong. The opinion I expressed comes from my personal experience: I have unfortunately never in my life met with a socialist worker, but have met quite a few socialist professors. At the same time I have time and again failed to convince well educated people in the shortcomings of capitalism, as they often find craftier pretexts to defend it. Plus, as someone put it well, “âit is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding itâ.
Instead, I will ask again what comrades think of my suggestion of insisting on rational approach in communications with other groups. If socialist party takes it as one of its principles and thus differentiates itself from other parties as the most science-friendly, it has a much better chance of looking as a viable alternative when climate crisis becomes even more evident.
I think a crisis may actually be very close indeed. My logic is as follows: most countries have already had their peak oil, with only a few now supporting ever growing demand. The one thing that “saved the day” back in 2014 was American shale oil revolution which brought millions of barrels per day into the market. But as shale is more expensive, they have been burning cash for several years, and are already slowing down. When shale oil industry finally goes belly up, it will trigger a huge price spike, and a worldwide recession. My prediction is for end of this year or beginning of the next.
Alan, this is great to hear, I agree that you can’t make the horse drink. I am not sure why XR has no public discussion platforms, it may have something to do with security, or their non-transparent structure, I don’t know, but to be honest it has been quite frustrating trying to figure out how to contact them, the same as the people from libcom.org. I will try to approach them in person, but if their “structurelessness” gets in the way, then there is really nothing more we can do.
I never read anything disrespectful coming from you, nor from any of the other comrades on this forum, it has actually been a very pleasant experience, and a refreshing one. When I wrote about “hostility”, I did not mean that in your post, but only the attitude towards other groups. I can understand it very well though, I have also experienced a lot of attacks coming from people who simply do not care about what is actually correct but just want to appear right and feel good about it. Do you think that insisting on rational approach in communications with other groups would be a possible solution in these situations? I have actually heard someone say at an XR meeting, “after all, we are trying to be evidence-based”, and this got my attention as a possibility to approach them.
I really cannot add much to the debate about where the hostility comes from, as I am sure you know this a lot better than me, you have more experience. I can imagine that the less educated people are going to be more stubborn and so harder to convince. From this point of view many greens are not easy to work with. I have experienced it firsthand, when dealing with locals protesting against labs working with animals. Some would even come into labs and switch labels, or worse still – “free” the animals, leading to millions in losses and setting back research for years. GMO fighters, anti-vaxxers, there is a lot of hostility in these groups, I know this, you don’t have to tell me. All I’m saying is that it is worth remembering all the time to focus on the end goal, without getting entangled in details unless they are absolutely crucial. I think now is the time when public opinion is slowly shifting towards questioning capitalist monopoly. I think we could use this opportunity to educate people about alternatives, there is a chance they will listen now, even if they didn’t before.
“Take/Wez”, are you Polish? đ Believe me, I have no illusions about science. I know how corrupted the whole institution is, and that it is ultimately made up of people, with all their imperfections and weaknesses. However, it is the accumulation of knowledge and science that made it possible for 7 billion people to feed themselves, for a man to get on the Moon, and to work out the details of the first seconds of the universe. Yes, scientific knowledge changes all the time, but at the same time it is growing and becoming more and more robust. People are so different with all our different languages and cultures and sets of beliefs. If anything will make it possible for us to collaborate, it will be the common understanding of rationality. Wouldn’t you say that socialist principles are fundamentally rational in their pursuit of prosperity for all?
Bijou, did you read any of my other posts? I wrote in the beginning that at the current rate of population growth and resource use we will enter a crisis very soon. To which I received an answer that whatever the population, we will be fine. I did not even want to talk about it to begin with, I wanted to focus on working with environmental groups. But OK, since we do talk about this, I can provide information that no, it is not fine, we really are nearing a crisis, and population, being a necessary part of capitalist system, is clearly involved. Finally, recently I have read an agreement on this, and now we can go on. Since 2 days ago, I have written quite a lot on the subject. Did you really not understand what I am focusing on here?
Bijou, I entirely agree with you: we cannot estimate resource depletion in socialism based on capitalist data. Where did you see me claim that we can? I am really not sure what you are arguing against here, as my position was never to concentrate on overpopulation.
I would insist on exactness of language, however, because it reflects on exactness of thinking. You write, “I differ with regard to the view that this is caused, or can be solved in terms of human overpopulation.” First of all, I never said anything about causality, so you cannot disagree with me on this. Secondly, it is in fact possible to solve environmental problems in terms of human overpopulation: reduce it 100-fold, and voila, problem solved. Now, this would not be my choice, but technically you are wrong, because it can be solved like this.
Alan, yes you are hostile, in the way that you do not believe dialog is possible and hold preconceptions about people you never met. I have personally been to XR meetings and talked to real people who are not “greens” or “paleo-diet freaks”, just normal people. They are open to new ideas, they would like to hear a good explanation for what is happening to the planet. By just remembering your old battles, you are limiting yourself to the experiences of the past.
People in the XIX century may not have been able to agree on the way to build socialism because they did not possess modern technologies we now have. So the case we face now is not so similar at all. Importantly, end of the XIX century and beginning of XX was the time when oil was extracted with extremely high EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). The slowdown of economy nowadays is very likely the result of lower EROEI, and young people everywhere can feel it (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/17/one-in-three-uk-millennials-will-never-own-a-home-report). The situation is different for young people, because if before progress was the word determining the way to describe the future, now it is environmental collapse and economic recession. There are many people now, and there will be even more in future, who are not satisfied with the answers capitalist propaganda feeds them. It is your choice whether to stay hostile and keep saying that “we have irreconcilable differences”, or to become more approachable and say, “yes, the environment is in danger, and profit-based economic system is to blame. Let’s work together to change it.”
You write, “In many cases with certain proponents of the eco-movement our differing approaches are incompatible.” Let’s ignore for a moment the weasel words Wikipedia moderators like to weed out so much, like the “many cases” (what cases?) and “certain proponents” (which proponents exactly?), but why do you have to insist on incompatibility of approaches? Don’t you see that this is exactly what Republicans and Democrats are doing in the US? Instead of focusing on real problems, they just keep stubbornly fighting with ghosts in their heads. And the result is that nothing gets done. Do you know why in science and technology things get done? Because people agreed to use common language and get persuaded by evidence. This is why scientists can work with, not against, each other.
We should become the first party to officially propose rational and evidence-based thinking as a basis for unification and toppling capitalist system.
Alan, thank you for the article, it is good material. It is not very new, unfortunately. I will try again to emphasize the points I have already made several times, yet they are being ignored completely. Not rejected, not approved, just ignored, as if they were never even uttered.
- It is possible to change your opinion on a part of the issue without necessarily giving up the rest of your position or switching camps entirely. I know, it is difficult, but please try to not be so dogmatic: if you agree on the fact (and it is a fact, backed by the majority of scientists worldwide, which again you never addressed in your replies, not once) that we are indeed approaching the limits of our planet in the levels of greenhouse gases, the number of species extinct, the amount of aquifers depleted, etc. – if you agree on this issue, it does NOT mean that you will automatically have to change your views on the fact that capitalism is what is responsible for all this, and that socialism can solve most of these problems. We can still insist on changing the system, even though we agree that right now we are approaching a crisis. Just because the greens are also saying this does not mean we have to agree with them on the rest of their beliefs.
- It is not smart to focus on differences between positions when the main issue is shared and agreed upon. I believe this is what is also responsible for our meager numbers, this “being hostile” to every other party. It really doesn’t make us very much different from the Militants. Yes, I know, there are some deal breakers that we really don’t want to compromise on, such as the money-less society and equality, but this is not what I am talking about. How exactly does it hurt the party to agree with eco-people on the fact that the environment is being destroyed at unprecedented levels? Thankfully, ALB understands this (“We shouldnât be antagonizing them”), yet in the article there is nothing but hostility (“being apologists for over-population advocates makes us allies with the racists and the various greens who accept capitalism”). As long as we keep pushing other people away, we will stay in low numbers.
- Â OK, this one is new, but I will still write it. You know what made me go back to university after my humanities studies and start a new education in hard sciences? This scientific principle of agreeing on facts, or the best approximation based on the latest scientific understanding. It is actually often celebrated among scientists when you are shown to be wrong because it allows you to develop a better vision of reality, the one that represents actual state of things more realistically. I developed a system for myself that whenever I encountered some information that challenged my world view in any way, I would not stop until I got to the bottom of the issue and then I had to change the whole “wallpaper of my mind” to accommodate this new knowledge. I suspect this could also work for groups of people or even movements. The only thing required is an agreement that whenever one group shows to another something that is convincingly true, people in that other group would have to accept it and continue together, spreading the knowledge. All it takes is integrity and willingness to accept scientific consensus. Failure to do so may well result in the ruin of our civilization.
I sincerely do not understand why these points are being ignored. Is what I am writing too difficult to understand?
Let’s not kid ourselves, Wez, we are not just ordinary people like everyone else. In order to properly understand the case for socialism one needs to at least read quite a lot of literature, and this alone would make us different. Just by reading this forum I can already see that most participants rarely misspell, have few typos, and use good grammar. This places us in the top 5-10% of the population. Most of us would have some background that connects us to the movement: parents who struggled in labor unions’ attempts to improve working conditions, maybe older friends who introduced exciting new concepts. Many of us would like the socialist agenda because of its ethical standing: we are essentially fighting for the good of all, not just a few or even only ourselves. This gratifying feeling is somewhat similar to what religious people experience when they “love their neighbor”, but this is also not for everybody, many prefer to just be independent and never care about others. Capitalism made it entirely possible, even though for most of our history we had to live in communities and rely on each other’s help. Finally, there must have been some kind of lucky coincidence that allowed us to not be fooled by the capitalist propaganda which says, “Stalin and Mao is what socialism leads to, forget about it, even if it worked (it doesn’t) it would just be a tyranny”. This would likely also require a lot of reading. But of course, I cannot answer for all people here. Please write what you think, would be very interesting to hear your opinion, and everyone else’s.
“I only made the reference to hunter-gatherer to give support to … the sign of that we were a successful species.” – biologically speaking, we have always been a successful species, with or without affecting the environment. What changed in Americas and Australia was that we became an invasive species, up to the point that we wiped out all that big mammal food bonanza, and then we went back to the same normally successful species we had been before moving into the new habitat. So referencing hunter-gatherers does not support the point that we are a successful species, it rather supports the view that we are an irrational species that will undermine the progress of the society for the temporary benefit of short-term profit.
Why do I insist on this particular point? Because it is important to let go of some harmful beliefs in order to become a more successful revolutionary. I do not think you have a confirmation bias, Alan, I believe, as I already wrote, that you would retain some beliefs just because you firmly hold others, which means there are packaged beliefs that are tied together. You say, “We can supply and support many more billions than there are presently on the planet.” This is quite possible, I do not know. I don’t think this is important to discuss. How is it really imperative to talk about this? Then you say, “We are no way close to exhausting or even approaching our limits.” This is a crucial point which does need to be discussed, right now. Why? Because if you are wrong, it could jeopardize everything. According to the latest scientific environmental predictions, there is a good chance of runaway global heating. This would change our environment in the way that would take away a lot of currently usable resources (land, water, good climate, etc.) for the foreseeable future, it would be very difficult to reverse. Now, this position happens to be in perfect agreement with the eco-guys. The only reason you do not want to assimilate it is because it somehow contradicts your beliefs that there is and always will be plenty. Please try to separate these two. I agree that we already possess all necessary technology to eradicate poverty. I agree that capitalism is the very thing that brings scarcity, there is no need to convince me of that. But I do insist that we really are on the verge of ecological collapse, and that there is a real danger of the sixth mass extinction. Animal and plant species are also our resources. 1 million species already face extinction (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/world/un-biodiversity-report-end-of-nature-sutter-scn/index.html).”We are no way close to exhausting or even approaching our limits.” Well, I must say that in this it is your opinion against the current scientific consensus of some of the smartest and most well-informed people on the planet. We are approaching our limits, and fast (http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/climate%20emergency%20Ripple%20et%20al%20%208-8-19.pdf).
Why not, instead of promising bonanza of plenty, just agree with environmental activists on what we can already agree on, based on scientific evidence, and explain to them that the real reason this is happening is profit-based economic system? This way we can actually agree, without any “comradely disagreements”, and work together rather than against each other.
“Socialists will always be treated with suspicion and skepticism” – what a defeatist attitude, not suitable for a comrade! Sure, now the attitude is rather negative, but we must work on changing the image of socialism and the party, there is no time for skepticism or gloom.
“Self-education and self-liberation is the only way this dichotomy can be overcome” – this is a dangerous belief. This is the same as when people say that personal choices of consumers are responsible for the environment. No, we are not responsible. When they build cheap fast underground mag-lev trains I will stop flying, but demanding that I alone stop airplane industry by refusing to fly is nothing more than capitalist propaganda, it is impossible. The same way we can expect people to self-educate forever, it will never happen, as long as they are imprisoned in wage slavery and exposed to capitalist media all the time. We need to reach out, and do it based on the beliefs that we share, not the differences that separate us.
I completely agree with Wez, “The paradigm shift from emotional individualism to a rational social being” is a very important goal, and a difficult task for many. I wouldn’t even isolate XR specifically, I think it’s a common problem, and if we are to succeed, we really need to make some strides in education, to spread the importance of rationality as the basis of technical side of social structures. We are, of course, human beings, and emotions are at the very foundation of our thinking process; moreover, emotions are central in interpersonal communication. However, it is imperative that we put our emotions aside when building an airplane, for example, or when building a well-functioning society, as this is largely a technical problem.
What makes 21st century vastly different from the 20th is the new communication technologies. I would even argue that socialism is impossible without the Internet and modern computer technologies that automatically detect lack of products and send requests to production centers. Even this alone would already suggest that no, we have not tried everything, as those 20th century attempts could not make use of our modern technologies, and it is possible this is the reason they failed. I wouldn’t just dismiss all of our history as failed junk. I am sure there is a lot they did wrong, but we should be thankful to them for making an example of what not to do, and for providing some examples of what went well. I am sure there is a lot we can learn from and use again, this time with rationality and the modern technology of our time.
