This article really captures the problems we have when we rely on markets even when we know that we are polluting the world in ways that can not be fixed. The author says we are at war with the living world.
A quote:
But why are we at war? In the rich nations, which commission
much of this destruction through imports, most of our consumption has
nothing to do with meeting human needs.
This is what hits me harder than anything: the disproportion
between what we lose and what we gain. Economic growth in a country
whose primary and secondary needs have already been met means developing
ever more useless stuff to meet ever fainter desires.
Does anyone really believe that we are producing at an efficient point? That the sum of the marginal costs of production are equal to the sum of the marginal benefits of consumption?
It's time to shout stop on this war on the living world | Environment | theguardian.com
Efficient in what way? We may be producing efficiently in a human sense, but not overall. This is the main complaint of environmentalists, that economic models usually do not account for the environmental costs of production and consumption. Personally, it bothers me that our society is so driven by growth. Are we not happy with what we have? Why do we always need to tell ourselves "more, more, more?" Take Dan Ariely's book for example; he clearly shows that more material goods and specifically more options DOES NOT necessarily make us happier as humans.
ReplyDeleteJust to paint a contrasting picture, we have definitely benefited (utility-wise) from all the growth in the human economy in the last few thousands of years. Individuals have gotten healthier, wealth is spread more equitably, and we live in a society of ease; many machines can replace what we can do with our hands. I just think, at some point, we have to realize that there is value in using our own hands to do something. I believe that there is value in growing/creating/making something by yourself. This satisfaction is completely ignored in our utility functions, but I believe that it could have a significant impact on individuals' well-being. Therefore I sympathize with this author, although some of the points are rather radical. I would like to see an entirely less mechanized society. I believe, however, that few agree with me.
I think Bret hit the nail on the head. While I am all for economic growth and technology making everyone else's life easier, I worry that this may end up being our downfall. Has anyone seen the movie Wall E? Thats what this whole argument reminds me of. In the movie, earth has become so polluted that humans no longer live on it. Instead, humanity lives on a giant space station and robots wait on our every need. To top it all off, literally everyone is obese. I think at some point we need to heed disney's warning and start taking better care of the planet.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with Bret and Clay. The picture of the mass death of fish is shocking to me and I start to recognize that "a system that makes us less happy, less secure, that narrows and impoverishes our lives, is presented as the only possible answer to our problems." Human, themselves are brainwashing and turning into mechanic tools of capitalism that our meaning of life is about money, fame and power. The cost for that growth is the climate destruction and human health's destruction. The sum of the marginal costs of production is no longer equal to the sum of the marginal benefits of consumption. The growth on a finite planet will reach to an end soon and it is our responsibility to save the planet.
ReplyDelete