4 ms·

“ We know for certain that the 'growth' metaphor/ideology doesn't spring cleanly/directly from human nature, as there's no shortage of human societies that have

by jshen 4y ago

“ We know for certain that the 'growth' metaphor/ideology doesn't spring cleanly/directly from human nature, as there's no shortage of human societies that have lived in a relatively steady relationship with their environment (here in Australia for 60,000 years or more).” In all seriousness, what societies that aren’t “hunter gatherers” or migratory that have lived in a steady state with their environment? Also, how do you define capitalism? I think we probably agree about some of the flaws of capitalism that need to change, for example infinite exponential growth, but I am very much against any kind of centrally planned system and I know of no other system that doesn’t ultimately succumb to the human desire to chase social status and ultimately excess that I would want to live in. Pre-industrial migratory societies don’t really count in my mind as a real alternative this challenge and I don’t think this problem is limited to or is driven by “capitalism”.

aussiesnack 4y ago
> what societies that aren’t “hunter gatherers” or migratory that have lived in a steady state with their environment? The majority of indigenous Australian nations were not hunter-gatherers, though all did include hunting and gathering amongst their food production techniques to varying degrees. Though I don't see the relevance of the question. In any case, a 60,000 year civilisation not involving much in the way of capitalism seems to at least point to the possibility that what many contemporaries imagine from their very limited experience of the varieties of human experience to be 'human nature' is, in fact, merely a description of their own local culture. > Also, how do you define capitalism? While I find definitions to be rarely useful for physical-world concepts, capitalism to me is the system of political economy based on 'growth'. I also believe that the word 'growth' is a sort of misleading metaphor, supervening over the physical process of increasing entropy by converting complex evolved systems into cruder technological ones. There's a small academic literature on the question of whether or not capitalism does, in fact, require growth. I find the pro case convincing. You'll have to make your own judgement (given the existing literature it's not worth litigating here). I think this dependence on fake 'growth' is what most characteristically distinguishes capitalism from other ways of organising society. > I am very much against any kind of centrally planned system So the 3 categories of organising society you consider to contain the universe of possibilities is 'hunter-gatherer', 'capitalist' and 'centrally planned'. That's it, is it? For ever? For all our history to date? In any case it doesn't matter much what you or me are 'for' or 'against'. That's just punditry. My contention is about the physical world. I think capitalism is literally incompatible with the long-term continuing existence of a healthy living planet. But as all H. Sapiens that I am aware of are mammals, therefore are dependent on ecosystems, capitalism literally cannot continue. So it won't. It's not among the set of long-term possibilities, regardless of political wishes or preferences.
- jshen 4y ago
  “ In any case, a 60,000 year civilisation not involving much in the way of capitalism seems to at least point to the possibility that what many contemporaries imagine from their very limited experience of the varieties of human experience to be 'human nature' is, in fact, merely a description of their own local culture.” I’m not sure about that conclusion, which is why I was asking for an example so I can read up on it. My main question is what caused them to not grow exponentially? In most non industrial societies it was higher mortality than modern life, and I really doubt that’s something people want to return to. But I’m not familiar with the cultures you mentioned and will look into it. Curious if you have a point of view on what limited their growth. My main point is that I think capitalism is somewhat irrelevant to this issue. I don’t think this problem originated with capitalism and I don’t think the main driver is capitalism. I also see rays of hope. 1) birth rates have been going down heavily in modern industrial societies. Without immigration America’s population would be growing very much. Economists freak out about this, but it may force the change in our system we both seem to want. 2) we might innovate our way out. I would not want to bet solely on this like many others do, but it’s certainly a possible. Regarding human nature, I believe the evidence is rather strong that we are wired to reproduce as much as possible through natural selection. And that we are wired to seek high social status because it leads to higher reproduction. I.e. we are wired for growth.
  - aussiesnack 4y ago
    I realise now we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm not talking about population growth, which is not really relevant to the problems at hand - ecosystems are being crashed in regions without increasing populations. Population increase is an orthogonal, and largely solved, issue. Population control (from infanticide, to surgical, to herbal and chemical) has been the human norm for many thousands of years in many populations. What's distinctive about capitalism, and what makes it a physically impossible system to maintain long-term, is its central conception of economic (ie. fake) "growth". Capitalism collapses without it, yet 'it' (described as a physical system) just is the dismantling of ecosystems. Any political economy might cause ecosystem damage; capitalism must, always. To put it in the strongest possible way: a population of capitalists fixed as a steady-state population of 1,000, would eventually (perhaps in a few millennia) destroy all ecosystems on the planet. Economic "growth" (ie. the conversion of complex evolved circular living systems into simple input-demanding technological non-living ones) leads there, ineluctably. > I really doubt that’s something people want to return to. Political punditry again. None of what I'm suggesting has anything to do with what anyone 'wants'. It's what's physically possible. Capitalism is incompatible with the long-term health of ecosystems (because its 'growth' is identical with their dismantling). Capitalism is an activity of humans. Humans are mammals, which depend on healthy ecosystems. Therefore capitalism will not continue (regardless of what anyone thinks they 'want'). > the evidence is rather strong that we are wired to reproduce as much as possible through natural selection Yet population control is one of the great human universals, and is chosen by many, perhaps most, populations when the option is there (and remember, what removes the option is generally culture, or lack of communal provision for old age). > we are wired to seek high social status This may be true (though the evidence is nowhere near sufficient to merit a bluff term like 'wired'). But what confers social status is utterly cultural and plastic. Social status can be conferred by age, or cattle, or kindness, or kids, or palaces, or wisdom, or beauty, or emotional continence, or the gift of the gab (and has taken all of these forms, in real societies). It has no inherent nature. Thinking of human nature is fixed to what we know of our local culture is a strong feature of those in empires, because they become so insulated from the huge range of real human variations that have existed.

by jshen 4y ago

aussiesnack 4y ago

> what societies that aren’t “hunter gatherers” or migratory that have lived in a steady state with their environment? The majority of indigenous Australian nations were not hunter-gatherers, though all did include hunting and gathering amongst their food production techniques to varying degrees. Though I don't see the relevance of the question. In any case, a 60,000 year civilisation not involving much in the way of capitalism seems to at least point to the possibility that what many contemporaries imagine from their very limited experience of the varieties of human experience to be 'human nature' is, in fact, merely a description of their own local culture. > Also, how do you define capitalism? While I find definitions to be rarely useful for physical-world concepts, capitalism to me is the system of political economy based on 'growth'. I also believe that the word 'growth' is a sort of misleading metaphor, supervening over the physical process of increasing entropy by converting complex evolved systems into cruder technological ones. There's a small academic literature on the question of whether or not capitalism does, in fact, require growth. I find the pro case convincing. You'll have to make your own judgement (given the existing literature it's not worth litigating here). I think this dependence on fake 'growth' is what most characteristically distinguishes capitalism from other ways of organising society. > I am very much against any kind of centrally planned system So the 3 categories of organising society you consider to contain the universe of possibilities is 'hunter-gatherer', 'capitalist' and 'centrally planned'. That's it, is it? For ever? For all our history to date? In any case it doesn't matter much what you or me are 'for' or 'against'. That's just punditry. My contention is about the physical world. I think capitalism is literally incompatible with the long-term continuing existence of a healthy living planet. But as all H. Sapiens that I am aware of are mammals, therefore are dependent on ecosystems, capitalism literally cannot continue. So it won't. It's not among the set of long-term possibilities, regardless of political wishes or preferences.

jshen 4y ago
“ In any case, a 60,000 year civilisation not involving much in the way of capitalism seems to at least point to the possibility that what many contemporaries imagine from their very limited experience of the varieties of human experience to be 'human nature' is, in fact, merely a description of their own local culture.” I’m not sure about that conclusion, which is why I was asking for an example so I can read up on it. My main question is what caused them to not grow exponentially? In most non industrial societies it was higher mortality than modern life, and I really doubt that’s something people want to return to. But I’m not familiar with the cultures you mentioned and will look into it. Curious if you have a point of view on what limited their growth. My main point is that I think capitalism is somewhat irrelevant to this issue. I don’t think this problem originated with capitalism and I don’t think the main driver is capitalism. I also see rays of hope. 1) birth rates have been going down heavily in modern industrial societies. Without immigration America’s population would be growing very much. Economists freak out about this, but it may force the change in our system we both seem to want. 2) we might innovate our way out. I would not want to bet solely on this like many others do, but it’s certainly a possible. Regarding human nature, I believe the evidence is rather strong that we are wired to reproduce as much as possible through natural selection. And that we are wired to seek high social status because it leads to higher reproduction. I.e. we are wired for growth.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  I realise now we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm not talking about population growth, which is not really relevant to the problems at hand - ecosystems are being crashed in regions without increasing populations. Population increase is an orthogonal, and largely solved, issue. Population control (from infanticide, to surgical, to herbal and chemical) has been the human norm for many thousands of years in many populations. What's distinctive about capitalism, and what makes it a physically impossible system to maintain long-term, is its central conception of economic (ie. fake) "growth". Capitalism collapses without it, yet 'it' (described as a physical system) just is the dismantling of ecosystems. Any political economy might cause ecosystem damage; capitalism must, always. To put it in the strongest possible way: a population of capitalists fixed as a steady-state population of 1,000, would eventually (perhaps in a few millennia) destroy all ecosystems on the planet. Economic "growth" (ie. the conversion of complex evolved circular living systems into simple input-demanding technological non-living ones) leads there, ineluctably. > I really doubt that’s something people want to return to. Political punditry again. None of what I'm suggesting has anything to do with what anyone 'wants'. It's what's physically possible. Capitalism is incompatible with the long-term health of ecosystems (because its 'growth' is identical with their dismantling). Capitalism is an activity of humans. Humans are mammals, which depend on healthy ecosystems. Therefore capitalism will not continue (regardless of what anyone thinks they 'want'). > the evidence is rather strong that we are wired to reproduce as much as possible through natural selection Yet population control is one of the great human universals, and is chosen by many, perhaps most, populations when the option is there (and remember, what removes the option is generally culture, or lack of communal provision for old age). > we are wired to seek high social status This may be true (though the evidence is nowhere near sufficient to merit a bluff term like 'wired'). But what confers social status is utterly cultural and plastic. Social status can be conferred by age, or cattle, or kindness, or kids, or palaces, or wisdom, or beauty, or emotional continence, or the gift of the gab (and has taken all of these forms, in real societies). It has no inherent nature. Thinking of human nature is fixed to what we know of our local culture is a strong feature of those in empires, because they become so insulated from the huge range of real human variations that have existed.