Message-ID: <3653AB6E.41CE754C@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:23:58 -0800
From: Ted Toal <ttoal@jps.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ppn <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: Overconsumption vs Overpopulation?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A few comments re Angela's post:

>> i am forced to acknowledge that technology today is not driven by - or
indeed organised with the
express purpose of - lessening work time and drudgery.  in fact, today,
increases
in technology go hand in hand with global increases in work time and increases
in misery <<

Yes, I think you're right.

>> ...precisely because technology - and technological innovations - are driven
by
the imperatives of profit maximization, the minimization of labour costs
through
unemployment, and similar imperatives.  <<

I can't dismiss the "imperative of profit maximization" as being an unhealthy
one that should be discarded.  From my studies of economics, I believe that
profit maximization usually provides the most efficient way to get to a goal.
And the goals, in most cases, are to produce various goods and services that
people want.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who believe so much in
the free-market system that I think it's without problems.  I see that it has
serious shortcomings.  In my mind the biggest is that it doesn't place
appropriate value on certain resources such as, well, let's say rainforest
species for example.  Another shortcoming would be its use of psychology, in
the form of media advertising, to convince people that they need things they
really don't need.

Despite the shortcomings, because the profit motive provides such a strong
motivation to do the job right with the minimum possible resources, I think the
free-market approach is the best, but it needs adjustments to deal with the
shortcomings.  I really like market-based approaches to pollution control, for
example.

I don't think minimization of labor costs is a bad thing.  It is necessary if
we are to move towards more efficient use of resources.  And if we aren't
interested in such efficiency, we're basically saying we don't care if we waste
things.  In the case of labor, it shouldn't wasted either, which means we
shouldn't be using ten people to do a job that one person could do, and of
course it also means we shouldn't have a bunch of unemployed people out there.

I believe that as population has grown, resources per capita have fallen.
Consequently, it becomes harder for each family to make ends meet.  Partly
because of this, women in the USA entered the labor force en masse in the 60's,
and today a family can't survive in the US without two working parents.

Also as the population grows, the quantity of "labor" grows, and therefore its
value falls and a surplus arises.  Isn't this what we've seen?  A declining
population would lead to the reverse process.

I can't blame our economic system for unemployment.  Humans evolved to work
well in small social groups of maybe 30 people.  We are a species that has a
mix of individualism and socialism in our character.  Modern society, with its
huge numbers of people living in megacities, completely ignores this basic
facet of being human.  I think a smaller population would allow us to move back
in that direction, to smaller communities where people have more opportunity to
know one another as humans, and support one another.  In a megalopolis, you
don't care if 2 million of your fellow humans are unemployed, you care about
yourself and your family.  In a small town, you care a lot more about those
around you.

>> the economic crises of the last century have been more or less crises of
overproduction or underconsumption.  there is some debate over whether this is
a
cause or effect of some other process, and i tend to side with the latter view,
but
the point remains that these crises are not crises of shortage, or crises of
abundance - rather, they are a crisis brought on by the generalised failure of
commodities already produced to find 'a buyer' sufficient to return both labour

costs and a rising rate of profit..<<

Sounds like you are studying economics?

>> .. it does seem to me to suggest in no uncertain terms that the word
'consumption'
is not equivalent with needs or enjoyment.  <<

Yes, I would agree.  The current trend towards voluntary simplicity shows that
others think so too.  And in my own life, I can see that my overconsumption is
like a drug habit that is slowly killing me, but I'm addicted and finding it
hard to quit.

>> decisions about what to produce are not driven by needs or enjoyment, but
whether or not they can be sold at a sufficient rate. <<

Right, the assumption being that people won't buy what they don't need or won't
enjoy.  But we know that we DO buy such things.  And advertising reinforces our
belief that we need to buy them.

>> ...decisions about how things are produced are
not determined by the social, environmental or health impacts of such
processes,
but principally about whether or not such processes are cheaper, faster, etc.
in
order to maximize the proportion which goes to profits.  <<

Right.  But how do you do it otherwise?  Attempts at planned economies haven't
worked, because it is far too complex to analyze all factors and arrive at the
best decisions for production.  That's why the free-market system has been so
successful -- it automatically produces good solutions without analysis, but
its shortcomings are precisely the kinds of things we've been pointing out,
such as that people's decisions about what to buy are not always motivated by
what they need, what is best for their happiness or health, or what is best for
other wildlife or the planet as a whole.

>>> ....companies like monsanto and others who seek to dominate particular
product markets <<<

Megacorporations and monopolies go completely against the free-market system.
I'm all for breaking them into smaller components.

>> these things are likely to cause more long term damage to the
health of the environment (including ourselves) than short-term increases in
population numbers, which look set to decline into the next century in any
case. <<

The huge numbers of people are what gives these megacorps their power.  In
fact, a friend of mine argues that the power-elite of the world purposely work
to keep people reproducing, because they need the constant growth as a growing
market and source of wealth for them.

We can't point at any one problem and say "that's it, that's the whole
problem."  Obviously we have here two serious problems, overpopulation and
monopolistic megacorps.  And each interacts with the other.

I don't have as much faith as you about the decline in population next century,
but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.  Biologists say that the short-term
increase in population that is coming in the next 50 years IS something to
worry about.  The precise number we peak at may mean the difference between
life and death for millions of species.

Ted Toal.