Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.95b.970110103948.46428A-100000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:08:38 -0800 From: Thor Skov <mailto:raijin@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> Subject: Re: Why capitalism is NOT sustainable -Reply -Reply To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Jonathan Sanford wrote:> Dear B. Diamond,
>
> But anyway, you say " What I do argue against is the unlimited exploitation of
> finite resources." I suppose that all reasonable people would agree
with you. But I fail to see how this is a criticism particularly suited to capitalism. What about a limited exploitation of finite resources? What about more discovery of the "finite" resources or the substitution of cheaper components for more expensive components as the latter become less available? Fewer raw materials are now used in production than in the past. Indeed, the failure of their export markets for raw materials to grow proportionally with the growth of the world economy is a major problem for developing countries. >
> The prehistoric hunter gatherers of North America wiped out the North
> American mammoths, horses, and some other species through wasteful
> overhunting. Obviously, that was unsustainable. But I don't think the demise
> of the mammoths and North American horses shows that their entire way of
> life was inherently unsustainable. They simply ate something else. Same
> way with other economic systems. You have yet to show that your
> "overconsumption of scarce resources" argument is a unique critique of
> capitalism. To me, it seems more a criticism of all human consumption of raw
> materials, whatever the economic system might be.
>
> Jon Sanford
>
Jon - While overconsumption of resources is not unique to capitalism, the SCALE at which consumption is now taking place is unique in human history, as is the RATE at which resources are depleted.
Your example of prehistoric hunter-gatherers reflects a single, isolated population of humans, a situation altogether different from the current integrated global economic system. If an isolated population exhausts one food source it may indeed have the option of shifting to another, especially as th overconsumption is likely to occur gradually. If it dies out, other populations presumably exist elsewhere, unaffected by its demise. But if it does survive by shifting food sources, it may experience a lower standard of living (it's likely that the first food source was depleted because it was the most desireable - easiest to obtain, most satisfying, etc.). In our world, a shortage is a global shortage. With only 60 days grain reserves, we could not, as a global population, survive a single, widespread bad harvest.
Second, I would like to know by what empirical calcualtion you can claim that, "Fewer raw materials are now used in production than in the past." I believe the exact opposite is true, both in terms of mass and variety. This overconsumption, leading to depletion of renewable resources, lies at the heart of many economic and social problems everywhere in the world, but perhaps most acutely in developing countries. The problem is NOT, as you state, that, "the failure of their export markets for raw materials to grow proportionally with the growth of the world economy is a major problem for developing countries." Their problem (one of them anyway) is rather insufficient investment in value-added manufacturing, to escape the chains of commodity-based economies, historically the most precarious, oil not withstanding.
Developing countries need investment to diversify their economies, to derive more of the benefits from the natural resources they produce. The push of the capitalist system ever more throughput at the least cost drives unsustainable resource consumption, consumption which can spell disaster in a short amount of time.
Thor Skov