3 ms·
The first half of the article is good, the second half totally miss the point. You CANNOT fix what is happening in the western world now (not only US, but even
by speeder 14y ago
The first half of the article is good, the second half totally miss the point.
You CANNOT fix what is happening in the western world now (not only US, but even Brazil that is not a developed company is facing the same issues) by fixing the economy.
The economic problems we have, are a symptom of something else, that is the degradation of our culture.
You cannot have infinite economic growth like the author advocates, when you population is dwindling, also, the growth that matters is not really GDP, more money does not always translate to better living conditions and power.
Many people say that Malthus was wrong, because now we have a world full of fat people and the "green revolution" that saved us from starving, yet, he was not wrong...
Yes, we have a world full of fat people, we can produce total calories, mostly in the form of carbs, in amounts that are much more than we need, but several other nutrients are lacking, and we are running out of the material that allowed the "green revolution" in first place (for example, natural fertilisers are not enough, and we are mostly mining it, and it already peaked, we WILL run out of fertilisers, at least the one that we can mine on land, and the only option that will remain is figure how to retrieve from seabed the stuff we threw and discharged there).
More technology and better ran economy is not the solution. Yes, it can be part of the solution, but it is not what really matters. What really matters, is the rebuilding of a behaviour that is less greedy and selfish, we need to recover the urge that people felt to help others, specially their family, the urge to seek happiness of other people, not your own at the expense of others.
Yes, we are in a zero-sum world, but because we put ourselves there.
The changes that rippled on the world in the last century, happened because we could change, prosperity allowed them, and not the opposite, it was not our culture changes that allowed prosperity. The cultures that reach the growth that the author wants, are the ones that understand that they must work for future generations, not for themselves.
We need more sex (with less partners), seriously.
- speeder 14y agoMy post got a couple of upvotes... Then it went back down to 1 point. Since you cannot undo upvotes, I guess people are also downvoting me. Can someone refute my arguments, instead of just downvoting? When you agree, it is easy to just upvote, you agree, thus there are not much else to discuss. But I urge people to write when they disagree, how can we discuss things, if you just do some drive-by downvoting? I made a very big text, I want to know what you are disagreeing with! I want to see your counter-arguments, so I can argue back! It is this way that I can learn more maybe, or teach.
- john_b 14y agoI didn't downvote, but your premise is incorrect. You can have increasing economic growth with a dwindling population. Russia and Romania have experienced this for over a decade. You may discount Russia as a post-Cold War bounce, but there are other examples of economies with negative or stagnant population growth that also experience economic growth. You claim that our economic malaise is primarily due to cultural problems, but you don't cite any data to support this. I doubt anyone collects statistics on the percent of people who "help others", but there are statistics that contradict your assertion that American culture is declining, e.g. the dramatic decrease in violent crime over the past two decades. You also ignore the possible causal relationship between a degrading culture (if it is indeed occurring) and national economic problems. Perhaps people would be less likely to help others if they feel less financially secure? Too much sex with too many partners and a declining stock of fertilizer, as causal factors of economic malaise, is a tenuous connection at best. If I had to guess, I'd say that most people didn't find enough relevant, substantial claims in your comment to bother replying to.
- swombat 14y agoI downvoted. The explanation above is a pretty good rendering of why (though I didn't think about it that long).
- kbolino 14y agoWell, your post is not very cogent or clearly organized, but I will attempt to address some of my objections since you seem sincere (I did not downvote you, however). 1. Your distinction between "the economy" and "the culture" doesn't make much sense. They're basically different names for the same thing: what we do, how we do it, and what effect it all has. 2. You claim that: "you cannot have infinite economic growth like the author advocates, when you population is dwindling", yet that is precisely what efficiency gains are all about. In fact, ever-greater efficiency combined with limited natural resources contraindicates perpetual population growth. 3. Your diatribe about "fertilizer" and the "green revolution" directly contradicts your thesis. If we're going to run out of fertilizer, and we shouldn't look to technological solutions, then how are we going to feed all these new people? Kindness to your fellow man lasts only as long as both of you have food to eat. 4. You then go on to say: "more technology and better ran economy is not the solution." Yet technology and (some degree of) competence in exploiting it is precisely what enabled our population to grow as large as it has. Without Norman Borlaug, many of the terrible things predicted in the 1950s and 1960s could have happened. 5. Finally, your masterwork: "the cultures that reach the growth that the author wants, are the ones that understand that they must work for future generations, not for themselves." This statement is patently false. Every example of a society which has grown exponentially has done so by rampant exploitation of labor, resources, technology, and capital. 6. Also, what does "we need more sex (with less partners)" have to do with anything else you said?