All human societies evolved from traditional economic systems. Animals even have crude economic systems of their own, mostly based on their social hierarchies. There's nothing "primitive" about them, well, I just hate the word primitive to begin with. I suppose they are quite primal, but they are also the most effective economic systems.
There are three major economic systems that most people are aware of; traditional, command, and market. Most indigenous peoples rely on a mix of command and traditional economics to decide who gets what kinds of things, when, and how, etc. Here in America, and throughout most of Western civilization we rely on a market economy.
Market economies are flawed because they rely chiefly on perpetual growth. Of course, perpetual growth is impossible in the long run. Market economies and joint market/command economies have succeeded in the short term, growing fantastically with the rise of modern society. They have also depleted 90% of oceanic environmental capital, 50% of rainforest land (which, unlike deciduous forest land, cannot be restored even somewhat with human interference), and countless species, not to mention human lives.
Hm. From a mathmatician's perspective, it is evident that the market economy of today is doomed to collapse within the century. This is not to say that all market economies will be doomed to failure; but- market economics rides on the stipulation that humans will act in their own personal interest, and that means consuming as much as they can. Evidence that this has gone out of control is all around us.
Most of us accumulate hoards of belongings that far exceed our actual needs. An obsession with stuff. We collect it and run rampant accumulating it, throwing it out, arranging it. At one point in my career I created a series of paintings based on the mammalian tendency to collect useless things. My hands aren't clean or anything, I love to buy books, stuffed animals, and trinkets that make me happy in some way. Mementos. I like to think that materialism like this is a side-effect of modern society. Whether or not we realize it, we're trapped in it. There is no alternative to contributing to the death machine. It will consume all it can until the centrifuge finally collapses.
The saddest part is that there is no such mechanism, really. It is born of our own psyches, our own species birthed it and raised it to vile maturity. Well, I digress.
Some people think that the traditional economies of indigenous peoples are inferior because they are less productive, and do not rely on growth or innovation to function. But again, from a mathematician's perspective, these economies have been successfully and sustainably functioning for tens of thousands of years, whereas our own industrial command/market economy is doomed to last but 200, at most.
Scientifically, there is no avoiding it. It is wonderful to hole up and revel in human ingenuity or the wonder of existence. It is a nice escape. I think we are all escapists, if we aren't already radicals.
looking at world population data from a mathematician's perspective, it looks like we would be stricken with an overpopulation crisis in the near future. but studies have shown that that won't be the case. i haven't studied much about our ecomomy, but maybe it will be the same case with this?
ReplyDeletebut if we are doomed to fail. do you think it'd be better if we'd eked out a longer existence with a traditional economy, or have our world as it is now, but have it cut short due to our failures?
hm, that sounds kinda like the "would the earth be better off without humans" debate. eergh.
Overpopulation is still a huge risk. We can only speculate as to how overpopulation will progress. It is obvious, though, like all other populations of beings, that after experiencing a boom, the amount of humans on earth will fall. We're destined to experience a J-curve in population after we reach the earth's carrying capacity, which modern economics are guiding us to quite efficiently.
ReplyDeleteThe two issues are fundamentally linked, of course. After all, the skills humans possess are a kind of capital, and more humans would mean more capital (also more demand, and with a slimming supply, you can guess what happens next.)
I do. I also believe that it may be possible to have a modern civilization, but a regulated one, one that would not grow in population or capital, but run sustainably for quite some time. It's not a matter of the things we're able to make and the level of "intelligence" our society has reached. It's a matter of how we fail to plan even mere decades ahead, preferring short term gains. This preference has cost us and the planet millions of lives.
Of course the earth would be better off without humans! Of course, this refers to humans of modern society. We literally do nothing to benefit the earth- and by earth, I mean all the planet's ecosystems. Even eco-friendly products do harm, just LESS harm. The planet can sustain an amount of harm, of course. Humans do not fit into any existing food chain without screwing it over, so our only value to the planet would be our supreme sentience.
How you want to value sentience, is of course a completely different question.