Faith-based economics.

Birth control? OK, good idea. Now go sell it to the Pope.

Muted "Halahluya"

At least some people are actually thinking of alternatives - I've been scratching my old carpenter's brain for a while and certainly do not find any solution under my fingernails - just dandruff and old memories.
T'anks God some of the people who have spent their time learning and teaching this hocus pocus "economics" ARE looking at reality!

Timely Article

This is a very timely article given the current economic meltdown. It provides such a sensible contrast to the blather we hear from most politicans, economists and the financial media. It is becoming so obvious that neo-liberal economics and the worship of capitalism are directly responsible for our failing life support systems.
Ever increasing doses of PR and propaganda are failing to cover up the holes in current economic and political ideologies. The so called leaders in these fields are starting to sound like complete fools as they have no idea how to rectify the economy, while completely ignoring all externalities.

it will take more than a new accounting system

For the already-converted the need for new economic model is nothing new. Indeed, as Malthus pointed out in the 19th century, and some are finally accepting: The limits to growth are real.

But what is “biophysical economics”? Who will carry this new ecological accounting system from the confines of the newly enlightened scientists and economists and into mainstream society?

Ida Kubiszewski is partly correct in saying, "To repair our economic system we must realize that the mounting environmental and social problems we face are systemic”. And we must employ “whole-systems thinking."

However, the part that is being avoided or overlooked (and always has been) is the fact that we really need to understand why we think the way we do before “whole-systems thinking" will become a truly useful tool.

Changing the way we interact with our environment, and that includes the other 6.7 billion folks on this planet, goes way beyond devising a new accounting system.

Lobotomy Time

"In the 19th century, Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill introduced ecological economics, warning that human expansion would eventually meet natural limits. Industrialists have mocked Malthus and ignored Mill for two centuries, but the evidence now suggests that the discovery of petroleum only postponed the effects."

That's the only way it'll get fixed.

Ecological economics is part of the solution

Excellent article, thank you Tyee and Rex! I completely agree, "In the future, economists will return to the earth"....hopefully not so far into the future as to be too late.

IMHO complementing those ecological-economics initiatives we need institutional and legal change at a very deep structural level - the way that governments have enabled the expansion of credit and promoted/subsidized economic growth in the public and private sectors, for politically expedient reasons, cannot continue sustainably. Corporations legitimized by legislation MUST ONLY look after the financial best interets of shareholders - not the best interests of the community, not the environment, not the workers, not women, not indigenous peoples,not future generations, and until that, and other fatal design flaws are radically changed by legislation that is informed by science and under the control of a much more re-invigorated democracy - the academic initiatives of ecological-economists', while necessary, will by themselves be insufficient to reverse the tide. IMHO We as citizens need to reinvent the way that we govern ourselves. We need to invent new legal tools and institutions to empower/ entitle communities and enlarge the public "social democratic" space while diminishing the implementations of Liberal theories of democracy that have overly expanded the privileges, rights, power and legal space accorded to individuals and private corporations- that have brought us to the brink of economic, social and ecological collapse. Whether we will do that - or remain frozen in legal/institutional limbo remains to be seen. Europe has embraced carbon taxation & trading, as well as other progressive environmental legislation big-time, while here in BC what is being offered by all political parties is paltry window dressing, what gives? - I guess that illustrates my point about the need to reinvent the way we govern ourselves.

Who didn`t see ....

This coming,everyone relizes the problem,who is gonna share their food and water equitably? No one, soon as food gets tight,price goes up,sell to the highest bidders, when they stop selling the food the armed nations will take it.

China/India/Africa,everywhere,populations that dwarf us,eventualy the haves fortress up,pick your sides,it isn`t going to be pretty.

Just a question--What do you say as a country(Canada) if a nation like India or China said...."hey Canada, we need to ship out 40 50 million chinese and asians or it could be catastrophic,mass starvation"
What do we answere, "well take a few thousand? well take 5 million? Well take them all? well take none? " by the way China/India have more babies each year than all of Canada`s population.

Anyways, we all know what is going to happen,soon as things get really tough there will be a giant MUCKING war,winner take all.

P.S. Tom Freidman,you can write another book "the world has been flatened"

Bravo!

Rex,

Well written and put together. We are on the same page across the board.

My hope for the world is that more than a few of us "crazies" come to understand these finite facts. For without majority understanding we are indeed doomed to crash hard and not gently move into a sustainable life.

Ignoramuses

A popular Wall Street publication, The Corporate Examiner, is planning a special edition this year on "the end of faith-based economics," with an article by Hall and his colleagues. In October, Hall convened the first International Conference on Biophysical Economics in Syracuse, New York, and will publish a book this year. "Since economics is about the production and transfer of physical things or services that require energy," says Hall, "it is a biophysical science, not a social science."

This is the most stupid things I have read this year.
Someone that believe that economics is simply about production and transfer of physical goods and services don't know what he is writing (non a problem for a journalists).
The job of economy is to link want to offer. It is mainly a distribution/elaboration of information, not of energy. And the distribution/elaboration is done using the price systems. That work very well until the government start to interfere with it (fiat money, fractional reserve banking, taxes, etc.).
Energy is only a commodity, like water, corn or gold that is exchanged for something other.

Biophysical Economics smell like Ecological Economics AKA Elitists Economics

Governance is a problem

A few comments to Peter Dimitrov's piece.

Empowerment of local organization, I'm all for it, but it's a fact we are fighting a war on the other side of the globe, which goes diametrically against it. Try to look up Herat and Ismail Khan, and you will know what I mean.

The problem with local government is no different, really, from the problem with corporations, just that while one is geographically based, the other is based on a chunk of money and machinery. It remains, in effect, a warlord system.

Maybe that is, after all, what our brains can deal with. It doesn't really get better, when the overarching, 'big brother' government in Ottawa, Kabul, or Washington DC goes on the skids and puts itself up for sale to the highest bidder. It just gets ugly on a bigger scale. The little guy has maybe more protection from a local chieftain, on whose doorstep he can show up with a pitchfork (or a ton of horse manure), if he doesn't like the decisions made...

I like Confucius' wise words, that power should never be given to those who want it, but unforunately, that is not how the world turns. We must think carefully on how we can put in better checks and balances, so the power-hungry, who get to the top can be reined in somewhat easier than they can now.

Why we think the way we do? that one is easy. We are prone to BIRG - bask in reflected glory. My brand name is bigger than your brand name, so there! By all the Gods there are, some young man, some years ago, in this fair city, got knifed to death by someone pining after his hockey jacket. We are suckers, that's why we think the way we do!

How to change that? Don't know, or maybe. Self-reliance and self-worth doesn't sell. Everyone thinks it's a safer bet to 'get the right stuff' than 'becoming the right kind of person', such a squishy and complex concept. News: We are all 'the right person'. All we have to do is show each and every one we meet out there, be they burly men, valkyries, angels or babies, some damn respect. They made it till this morning, across a few million years of evolution, some really ugly wars, and one bitch of a winter. They should be celebrated as winners. Think about it.

As I've discovered in 1985,

As I've discovered in 1985, the main culprit is the presently used fraudulent definition of economic efficiency, as the "biggest monetary profits for the least monetary inputs", contradicting of the definition of physical efficiency.

There can not be two contradicting definitions of the same concept and law!

I copyrighted the correct definition in 1991 to establish the date, not for monetary purposes, expecting that sooner or later some clever professors may just stumble on the obvious.

It is nothing more than the application of physical efficiency to economics, for exactly the same reasons pointed out in this article now, 18 years later .

It has been featured on this blog and on Vive several times, on many worldwide economic forums, including some of the World Bank's, used in PhD dissertations and remains unbreakable, for the simple reason that long standing physical laws can not be broken.

The only objections economists can come up with is that the correct definition would
hamper wealth creation and break our present system.

Which is breaking anyway, and killing tens of millions every year, while "creating wealth".

In short economic calculations can not be made with monetary figures, because they're not representing realities, but violence induced perceptions controlled by a special interest sector, leading from one disaster to another.

The presently reigning neoclassical market economic theory, spewing forth from our universities, is the scriptural justification of fascism and the biggest crime wave in human history.

It is about time for the human race to wake up and get rid of all ideology based economic theories and replace them with cold, hard realities that can not support the establishment of ruling classes and are equally applicable to everything and everybody.

Ed Deak.

think about it

“Why we think the way we do? that one is easy. We are prone to BIRG - bask in reflected glory.”

Interesting, Dorothy. Who told you what is, or what isn’t, glorious behaviour? Did you have this sudden revelation of what is “right” or what isn’t? When did it happen?

Chances are you were trained to think that way. The way you see the world is a result of a lifetime of accumulated common sense stories (judgments) that the society around you “says” are true.

The point is; we aren’t born with an inate idea of “glory”, we are taught to believe the judgments are real.

Unraveling judgment from reality is the task at hand.

The Truth About Economics

Kenneth Boulding once said, "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

Thanks for an insightful and truthful analysis of our destructive and ignorant economic beliefs. I suspect The Corporate Examiner's idea of "Faith-Based Economics" is a little different from mine. I think that's a great term for growth-boosters' blind faith that technology and innovation will allow us to achieve growth everlasting.

I hope that 2009 is, indeed, the year of economic truth!

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
Join the cause at www.growthbusters.com

Reply to Dorthy

the word "local" is not mentioned once in what I wrote Dorthy. ...local vs. central is not the way to frame this. IMO, as I have said many times in my writing we need to move to a more collaborative form of goverance, where there is a fairer distribution of legislative and financial power, and a fairer distribution of the 'benefits' of sustainable development based on the principle of subsidiarity (google it). As it is now, BC, municipalities, cities and First Nations they are mostly cut out of the loop of legislative decision -making, bureaucratic management, and financal sharing. The Province, and by that I mean mostly the governance instititions of the Premier's Office & a few select super Ministers (regardless of whether it is NDP or Liberals in power) make the most important public policy decisions, including decisions respecting appointments to courts, tribunals,crown corporations, orders-in council, financial allocations, etc. Just look at the BC energy policy, called in the Globe & Mail' the worst public policy fiascio in Canadian history, and now Mr. Campbell has appointed the czar of privatization & deregulation, Mr. David Emerson as CEO of the BC Transmission Corporation - that I predict will further disempower BC Hydro's access rights to the transmission line system and take us in the same direction as the loss of public control over BC Gas- now also privatized. Energy policy affects everyone in this province, and we are following the global trend to privatize it all, and in doing so the $ will not be there for the SUCH sectors (schools, universities, colleges, health-care) as the private companies want their profits over our public needs - and as importantly decision-making ability to advance energy & economic development sustainability in the public interst will have been taken away/privatized. I.e. Each year Alcan, obtains approximately $300 million in profit from the sale of electricity from the water of the Nechako River - the rights to which they 'own' forever...and that is but one example. I, and I am sure CCPA economists can think of a lot of public good that could come from $300 million each year, but no, Alcan will make those decisions on behalf of its private majority shareholders, and the NDP, being partly the authors of that deal will not challenge it. Give me a Danny Williams for this province and I will vote for him or her tomorrow, but not happening.

Great article, albeit your'e

Great article, albeit your'e preaching to the converted. It's a shame for society that this kind of rational analysis is never published in the mainstream press, and that's where our collective efforts should be aimed.

Local and smallish sustainable states are the common sense solution, of course. But the half-wit majority of aldermen running our local governments here -- with their obsequient, non-thinking acceptance of TILMA, etc. -- don't read much of anything but the real estate and sports pages, so until we have a logical and educated populace, having them at the helm wouldn't be any improvement at all.

Here is a link

Here is a link to a very similar article in Adbusters.

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/81/steady_state_economy.html

I hope this starts to permeate into our political life. The NDP would be wise to pick up on it. The BC LIberals will say they already have.

Ed, maybe they read your work.

Alternative energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3y7UlHdhAU is dr bartlett in video. This is part 6 and you can get the entire lecture in 8 parts.
It is GREAT and shocking.
It shows that people have treated economics as a religion for over a hundred years.
Do not believe high priest harper and his bullshit. Start doing your own thinking and doing your own thing.
I made solar cookers and pulser pumps
http://www.youtube.com/user/gaiatechnician
Nobody has ever researched them because scientists have forgotton how to think too.
Solar thermal beats solar photovoltiac (about 4 times more efficient energy wise)
and pays back quicker on investment (5 years versus 50 years)! Lets become sapient humans and think through our choices.

North....I have the highest

North....I have the highest respect for Daly and it was an interview in the Jan/Feb 1980 issue of the Mother Earth News that got me interested and started in economics.

I picked up my first brand new, $40. textbook at a garage sale for $1. in 1982 and literally, from the first page on, I couldn't help saying : "Does anybody really believe this crap ?"

I went through hundreds of books and articles since then, corresponded with hundreds all over the world and the one thing I will never be able to understand is that this crap is still being taught in our universities as a "science" and permitted to be pushed by all politicians of all parties.

Or rather by the backroom boys of all parties, because they can't break the chains of their miseducation. Now Emerson with his PhD in BS is one of their stars, not to mention Harper with his MA.

I didn't invent anything new, only collected a lot of information and distilled it into simple, easily understood definitions, which happens to be one of my lifelong specialties .

I gave the original copy of my Principle, personally, to an NDP minister in 1991. Never heard back, so years later I asked him what happened? He told me their economists found it very interesting, but they "disagreed" with it. Which means exactly F... all, because if you can not break a definition, all you're doing is whistling against the wind.

I've been trying to warn Layton years ago that a crash was coming. No reply. Had a very nice chat with Ms. James 3 years ago, again warning about an impending crash and the exact reasons. She asked me to write her a letter, which I have done. Received a reply that it was handed over to their "reseachers", which meant the nut files.

Don't expect any bright awakening from any politicians, they're so hooked up with the present idiocy through their own miseducated economists, that there's no hope, until the whole caboodle collapses and then they'll be sitting among the ruins, dazed and asking "What happened?"

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

I believe that it's Dawkins

I believe that it's Dawkins who thinks there's a "god" gene that allows certain people to believe in a supreme being while other can't.

I often wonder what differentiates thoughtful and incisive people such most Tyee commentators and its writers from the rest of our woolly-brained society who can name the teams from the last 3 decades of Stanley Cup games or the guitarists on 650 hundred of their favorite rock'n roll songs but who can't seem to clearly see their way through the wet paper bag of a single social or economic issue.

Is it intelligence, experience, parents' nurturing, simple A - Z synapsis connection - or what? I'd be truly interested in what all of you think because it's a bloody mystery to me.

Basic brainwash and

Basic brainwash and miseducation from day one.

I'm talking to young people and teenagers all the time, who've never read a book, refuse to read one "when they can see it on TV", totally ignore everything around them and purposely remain ignorant, to "stay happy".

Yes, but they also know all the hockey scores and latest rock screechers.

This is not a new phenomenon, but has always been so. In my years I've spent many hours and days in the homes and offices, and had the chance to talk to many captains of industries, also to many scientists and professors of all disciplines, and often have been shocked by the total ignorance of some, outside their own narrow fields.

My Hungarian aunt got a housekeeper's job in the house of an Oxford professor in 1938. When she arrived, they showed her how to turn on the lights and were most surprised that she didn't faint from shock.

Our 7 years postwar experience in Cambridge was about the same. Then again in Vancouver, where I had the chance to cut up a few professors who didn't have the clue of a horse's ass of what was going on in the world.

"Ignorance is bliss!" and the mind benders of various ruling classes have always been and are making it certain it remains so.

This brings us back to the ruling neoclassical market economic theory, the biggest crime wave in history and on Earth.

There are literally hundreds of scientists and professors in all universities all over the world, who could easily break it up and cut it to pieces, based on simple highschool level principles, in one single day.

Even those who have been my advisers when I was working on my Principle, some who have used it in their PhD studies, and those I'm in daily contact with, some world class lecturers in applicable sciences, are refusing to do anything and when I ask them, why, they remain silent.

Like our own opposition leaders and parties, they will criticize politicians and governments all the time, but are refusing to say a single word against the originators and teachers of criminal, easily knocked over, economic theories, while the world is collapsing around their necks.

Now, this is the most important question:
Why don't they and our politicians speak up ?

What are they afraid of ?

Ed Deak.

And I'm not doen yet.

Peter D.:

“..the word "local" is not mentioned once in what I wrote Dorothy. ...local vs. central is not the way to frame this. IMO, as I have said many times in my writing we need to move to a more collaborative form of governance, where there is a fairer distribution of legislative and financial power,..”

It seems to me that you are a bit into hair-splitting here. Regardless of how we frame it, subsidiarity followed as a principle cannot help resulting in more local people getting more decision power. I am being pragmatic here, not academic. Subsidiarity is really no more or less than good old liberalism by another name, and ultimately, it is libertarianism in disguise, as the smallest unit competent to make a decision and carry it out could in many cases be defined as the individual citizen.

“As it is now, BC, municipalities, cities and First Nations they are mostly cut out of the loop of legislative decision -making, bureaucratic management, and financial sharing. The Province, and by that I mean mostly the governance institutions of the Premier's Office & a few select super Ministers (regardless of whether it is NDP or Liberals in power) make the most important public policy decisions, including decisions respecting appointments to courts, tribunals, crown corporations, orders-in council, financial allocations, etc. “

I read what you are saying here as that the decisions falling naturally to those institutions, BC, municipalities, cities and first nations, that those decisions that fall under their mandate through jurisdictional division, aren’t all that important. Only those made by whatever is a more senior level of goivernment are, and those more junior outfits should have a say in those. I am very much in disagreement with that. I have elected city-councillors and mayor to do the city stuff for me. I have not elected them to do provincial or federal stuff. For that, I put my vote on provincial and federal politicians. You are saying, that if I am in political disagreement with my city or province, but in accord with the federal government’s party colour, or possibly vice versa, you would take away from me the more balanced scenario thus afforded me through election, by making these governments ‘all of a piece’, so I might in effect lose representation for my philosophies on all levels. I believe that if we did or could do that, we would indeed be throwing a big fat democratic baby out with almost clean bath water.

The rest...

What you are asking for is not democracy, but mob rule. Who indeed is going to decide what is a ‘fair’ distribution of legislative and financial power? Are you asking for a complete re-vamping of balances of power? Bright idea right now, as we are facing major challenges to our economic well being. Let us throw everything on the table and spend a couple of decades hashing it out, so we can fall out of the bottom, as the world is pulling its associative connections to us away and up on dry land, not knowing what this schizophrenic country might do next.

Personally, I would always rather see justice than fairness, a concept so painfully open to irresponsible interpretations. If I have elected a city councillor to work for me locally, and the first thing he does is whine about not having power in provincial or federal financial matters and foreign policy, so help me, I will say he is falling down on the job, not working with the mandate he was given, and he should quit and give room for someone who will see my streets safe and my garbage collected.

I do not believe you can deal with the culture of short-sighted greed through political machinations and power-mongering. I believe we must do it by bringing up the next generation right. In fact, in asking for the overthrow of the political structure in order to accomplish something right quick, you are falling prey to the same quick-fix-by-overpowering mentality that the fascists are and were guilty of. The hallmark of these misguided thinkers has always been that they have no respect for the organic principle, hence the antibiotics that border on killing the patient in order to wipe the bug out lickety-split; hence the rape of the Earth, to get all her wealth hoarded super-fast, not leaving anything other than the toxic dirt-piles for our children and grandchildren. Good solutions grow slowly, just like yellow cedar.

Some people have mentioned experimentation on greater power and financial sharing going on in Europe, specifically Denmark. I could write a book, maybe two, on the radically different cultural substrate on which these experiments have met with some success. Fortunately, I don’t have to, for Steven M. Borish has already written one:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb275/is_/ai_n28627028

http://afs.ahrchk.net/mainfile.php/background/18/

http://www.bluedolphinpublishing.com/landlivg.htm

The notion that ‘so ein ding will ich auch haben’ is certainly praiseworthy, but it ain’t a question of just picking it up at the political marketplace and placing it in the right slot, as if it was a missing part on your PC. Organic, I say; extrapolate back what it will take of faculties to operate it, and then start on your children now.

Denmark had banned asbestos thirty years before Canada chose to become aware it was a threat to people’s health.

That's the trouble

"it" isn't hardware, it's software.

No matter how convoluted and “intellectual” the PC arguments get, they always boil down to the belief that some programmer, somewhere actually knows what ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘fair’, ‘just’, ‘honorable’, ‘evil’, ‘good’, ‘greed’ …. ad nauseum actually mean.

The problem is, none of these judgments are real and trying to get the next generation to stop the carnage by pretending they are simply guarantees that the next generation of computations will maintain the status quo … and what they pass on will be measurably more corrupt than what they inherited.

A Little Respect Grows Along Way

And I don't think Ignorance and Greed are going to let us off the hook no matter how much we plea to the heavens above for our disregard for an earth thats fills us with bounty. Now I'm not suggesting we go out and find Virgins to appease the Gods but a little respect goes along way as there is no denying no one has the answers for sure. And when they belt out its all a Swindle, a Global Warming Swindle I'm thinking is that based on Ignorance and Greed or wishful thinking as there is no denying the air we breath is harmful to many so how can we chance it? And maybe a little respect for human life as clearly if there was respect then much of whats going on would have packed up and left.

why ignorance?

As Ed says,
"Basic brainwash and miseducation from day one."

Yes, and, going further, the interesting conundrum is why some are able to rise above and think for themselves while others can't. It can't be intellect only; I know many many well-educated people who seem perfectly capable and smart in a myriad of professional and academic ways, but who can't find their way through the political fog. Status quo is all they know.

As for the question of when politicians do know the truth, why they don't they speak up... I'd say its fear for their jobs, public censuring, and wanting to keep their reputation as "good citzens" who won't make "trouble." Boat rockers have been burned at the stake, fired, ridiculed, framed, ostracized, and thrown into jail for millennia. This century will prove to be no different.

The Answer is to Work on People's Oran Needs

You know, I kind of distrust those who argue that there is a limit to growth--one sense too much on their part a desire for this to be true.

I'd much rather we did what we could to help change (or just plain help) people so that they didn't feel the need for constant sensation to help ward off feelings of loneliness and depression. (Depressed?--have five kids instead of two. Once one turns their attention to their friends and away from you, out pops another titty sucker to enrapture yourself with!)

Peter

Did I read you correctly, that you wish to accord greater power to the social-public sphere to counterbalance the power of individualism and corporatism?

Because that'll never happen. Corporate existence is a phantom of the same sort as faith-based economics - it should be abolished if what you said above is to come about. Just as there can be no question of having a political leader who governs by communing with a God none of the rest of us can see or hear speaking, so too can there be no question of gaining power against a phantom construct whose bases are grounded in human law, but whose power is limited only by the imagination.

When the corporation cannot die as a person can, there is a problem.

The corporation must be abolished - no ifs ands or buts. There are many mechanisms already available to achieve the corporation's original aims, which was to limit liability, without making us completely irresponsible creatures devoid of moral being.

limits to growth

Patrick wrote,
"You know, I kind of distrust those who argue that there is a limit to growth--one sense too much on their part a desire for this to be true."

You couldn't be more wrong. Who wouldn't love like to return to our childhood era of the 50's and 60's and 70's when most of us, blissfully unaware of environmental damage, enjoyed living in one big, happy, mindless, Disneyesque golden years patry expansion - new vehicles, appliances, industries, styles, architecture, etc? But we can't do that now, and sane, realistic people know that in their hearts.

You make a monumental error in judgment if you think the sustainable community who determines limits to growth and that they enjoy talking like Scrooges at a Christmas party, raining on everyone's parade. We don't. At any rate, we don't make those decisions, nor would most of us wish to.

It's the PLANET itself -- the natural resources and fresh water supply that will ultimately determine its limits. The phenomenon of Peak oil should tell you that. Spend a year in India or Japan and come back to say that hindrances to development are caused by attitude. They're NOT. They're determined by a much bigger, mysterious entity than ourselves - MOTHER NATURE.

Alda, regardless of how many

Alda, regardless of how many friggin' resources there are out there, we should never want to be responsible for hurrting, abusing anything/anyone. That is, we don't need for resources to be limited to start encouraging people to really think about the consequences of there actions. (The current argument--that resources are finite, and *that's* why we need to curtail growth--not only fulges forth from the wrong well, it is one that could be abused--should further resources somehow be found--to make inconsiderate consumption seem okay again.)

But today's greatest danger is not man shitting all over the planet. Rather--and I truly believe this--it is the widespread felt desire that the world needs to be "cleansed" of all its badness. I'm sure you abhor the Christian argument that mankind sins--that that's what they do. And I hate the current crappy environmentalist argument that equates pleasure with sin--sin that will have a blood price. It's very offensive; fundamentally conservative and (to some extent, therefore) cruel; and I hope we start hearing from different minded progressive environmentalists soon. And don't knock the 70s too much, for it is that decades' true play that can lead environmentalists to do work primarily informed not just by love of life, but by love of *living*--for we born not just just to be shepherds, but frollicking nymphs and pixies as well.

Hedonism and consumption

Hedonism and consumption - and the glorification of the 'self' at the expense of others - seem to be what got us into this mess.

I doubt very much that they'll play much of a role in getting us out of it.

Quote:In the future,

Is this the same as calling out, "Earth to economists! Earth to economists! Are you there"?

Or is it a "return to earth" as in 'earth to earth and dust to dust' (something I expect Ed Deak like to see sooner than later)?

A new paradigm alright

I don't doubt that re-jigging our economic system could band-aid things well enough so we could prosper for a few more decades. But the certain outcome, which is environmental, not economic, would happen just the same. As KWD notes, more than simple methodology is needed :

"Changing the way we interact with our environment, and that includes the other 6.7 billion folks on this planet, goes way beyond devising a new accounting system."

Just about every method of governance has been tried throughout the ages, but the only ones which achieved true sustainability were aboriginal cultures in which technological limits demanded attention to environmental sustainability. But even these time-tested strategies failed when new exploitative technologies became available.

This is because humans have yet to develop precepts which can adapt fast enough to control the greed which new technologies unleash and which appear to make old customs irrelevant for new times. Note how easily – and quickly - the credit card has destroyed our customary frugality.

Unsustainability arises because NO culture has ever viewed the environment and its creatures from any viewpoint other than usefulness to humans, despite all the flowery phraseology we’ve used. A good example of this is seen in the successful “Chief Seattle-izing” of North American FN environmental ethics. But despite that nonsense, the truth is that FNs divided all creatures into those that were “useful” – to be revered; those that were competitors – to be killed on sight; and those which were “useless” – to be simply ignored.

That shouldn’t be taken as criticism, since they were no different than anyone else, and certainly no different from us moderns – despite OUR flowery and equally hypocritical phraseology, for “Wise Users” still rule our world.

The reference to FNs here is necessary to point out that there is no escape to past “Old Ways” – not only because they were adaptations to a past that cannot be recreated, but also because these were merely earlier implementations of Humanity’s ONGOING “Wise Use” strategies that we are still saddled with, and which cannot be woven into modern sustainable solutions.

The problem is that all religions / cultural precepts so far have discounted “nature” and focused only on the welfare of the group. The result of that perspective is that all environmental concerns – no matter how serious – fall before the ephemeral self-interests of humans, justified by the fact that to date Technlogy (as in “God will provide”) has always bailed us out.

see next

Next

Right into very modern times, we have dealt with Nature and the environment as an opponent which we must “tame” or even crush in order to convert its riches toward our own ends. Because of our always-improving technologies, we “civilised” peoples have never (for very long) run into, and so had to deal with, the unforgiving brick wall of unsustainable resource use. There has always been another tree behind next hill and a new machine to access it.

Thus the Scriptural promise that “God will provide” has borne fruit for the technologically adept Christians, and their inherited tribal philosophy of prosperity in numbers has prompted their belief that God needs more souls to increase his happiness, while not accidentally increasing their ability to “harvest” resources.

And now we can see an end to the resources the environment has stored up throughout the millennia, resources we’ve neither enhanced nor sustained, but instead destroyed - even while we’ve come to depend upon them.

Just as in days of old, it is clear our God (s) has deserted us – with what will we replace it? Since it is self-interest which has led us to this sorry pass, The Market, which is self-interest writ large, cannot do the job. What will?

resources depletion

I'm in complete agreement with you that a shortage of resources shouldn't be our primary motivation for treating the earth and all living beings with respect, however, it seems that it's the only one that people seem willing to pay attention to these days -- no doubt out of self-interest.

You wrote:
"But today's greatest danger is not man shitting all over the planet. Rather--and I truly believe this--it is the widespread felt desire that the world needs to be "cleansed" of all its badness." You go on to say, "And I hate the current crappy environmentalist argument that equates pleasure with sin...It's very offensive; fundamentally conservative and (to some extent, therefore) cruel; and I hope we start hearing from different minded progressive environmentalists soon."

To the above, I don't have a clue what you're getting at. Any "badness" that environmentalists might think needs "cleansing" is factual and tangibly connected to the ecosystem and the survival of future generations: pollution, toxins, resource depletion, etc. And yes, those ills need to be eradicated, or in your words, "cleansed."

I'm not sure at all where your comments about environmentalists equating "pleasure with sin" is coming from. I don't see how you can conflate a serious, intellectual committment to bettering the planet's health with being prudish or calvinistic in temperament. If anything, the environmentally minded folks I hang out with have a great appreciation for the sensual arts - music, theatre, etc., and in no way are they either cruel or prudishly conservative and judgemental, but in fact, quite the opposite. A fairly bohemian crowd, in fact.

A lot of environmental

A lot of environmental damage could be avoided by making things last.

When we were going up during the depression and then in the war and post war years, we had no garbage to speak of. Not even during our 7 years in England between 1948 and 55.

Economists and politicians encourage the production of garbage and short lifespan goods, as the drive up their precious GDP and growth figures.

Also, the replacement of a half horsepower of human labour with 25 or 100 hp of oil, or electric energy is "efficient" in their ideology stuffed, warped, and miseducated minds.

Until we get rid of the teaching of the present crime wave of monetary economics in our universities, we'll be going into self destruction .

I'm driving a 28 year old truck and if I'd win the 6/49, I would pay for its rebuilding into new, regardless of the cost, instead of buying any of this presently produced impractical and wasteful garbage coming out of the world's factories.

The same for many other products, especially clothing.

Ed Deak.

Correction; Should be

Correction;

Should be "growing up", not "going up"

Ed Deak.

sin

Alda, here you (in effect) equate pleasure with sin [and also sort of suggest to me that you might find a return to living in these old times, a bit overwhelming]:

"You couldn't be more wrong. Who wouldn't love like to return to our childhood era of the 50's and 60's and 70's when most of us, blissfully unaware of environmental damage, enjoyed living in one big, happy, mindless, Disneyesque golden years patry expansion - new vehicles, appliances, industries, styles, architecture, etc? But we can't do that now, and sane, realistic people know that in their hearts."

Here you (in effect) equate presumption with sin:

"It's the PLANET itself -- the natural resources and fresh water supply that will ultimately determine its limits. The phenomenon of Peak oil should tell you that. Spend a year in India or Japan and come back to say that hindrances to development are caused by attitude. They're NOT. They're determined by a much bigger, mysterious entity than ourselves - MOTHER NATURE."

And here you sound more like well mannered, sober minded on the upper decks of the Titanic, than the Bohemians in storage:

"If anything, the environmentally minded folks I hang out with have a great appreciation for the sensual arts - music, theatre, etc., and in no way are they either cruel or prudishly conservative and judgemental, but in fact, quite the opposite."

patrick mcevoy-halston

The nymphs and pixies would like to say

that it’s too bad that the meaning of Hedonism has been so convoluted and bastardized. In it’s simplest form it is responsible for our survival: we seek pleasure and avoid pain. It would be unrealistic to believe we can avoid pain, but our success (from a purely biological view) on this planet is due to the fact we prefer love over punishment, consideration over isolation or abandonment.

I’m sure all of you sadists might disagree, but we’re not talking about pain or pleasure in isolation; we’re talking about behaviour that takes the benefit to society (and it’s survival) as a whole into consideration. Chances are you’ve already passed your genes on so it’s probably too late anyway, but if you want to stick your dick into the BBQ or hang by fine wires attached to nipple rings while someone flogs your butt, go for it. Better still, join the military and volunteer for the front lines. I’m sure you won’t be disappointed.

Which brings me to Patrick McEvoy’s excellent zeitgeist summary: “widespread felt desire that the world needs to be "cleansed" of all its badness”. He's right; that so much time is devoted to flogging ourselves over pain-driven fiction(s) … good, bad, right, wrong, evil, greed … is truly “today’s greatest danger”. That so few can see through the distortions is scary.

As oil declines, gas will incline

...and BC stands to gain.

"The era of cheap oil is over. Current trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable - environmentally, economically and socially - they can and must be altered."
- International Energy Association executive director Nobuo Tanaka, November 12, 2008.

Gas

"EnCana submits plan for billion-dollar plant. Company pitches design to province for first phase of natural-gas facility in northeastern B.C.

WENDY STUECK Globe and Mail
January 3, 2009

EnCana Corp. has taken an early step toward building what could be a multibillion-dollar plant in northeastern British Columbia.

The plant would process natural gas from the Horn River Basin, a promising natural gas play that last year helped the province reap a record $2.7-billion from the sale of oil and natural gas exploration rights."

Riding the curve

It's an interesting juxtaposition, Biology and economics.

One of the great causes of our current difficulty is the way our society's organs, those corporations we depend on to carry out the necessary functions of life have come to resemble cancer. Ceased to be responsible for their duties, and become completely concerned with growth at the expense of the whole. Become looters at a cellular level, while leaving the body unable to reliably depend on the necessary functions to actually be performed at all.

I was looking at a curve the other day, a graph of population over time, fairly steady for millennia, then a sudden rapid growth with the beginnings of technology to levels many times the steady state levels of the past.

It reminded me of two things, and I can't decide which is the appropriate comparison. First, a similar chart would describe the growth of cancerous cells in previously healthy tissue. A sudden calamitous rise in numbers to the point where it impedes proper function.

The other, I think, would be the sudden increase in complexity in an egg following fertilisation. That would be one cell rapidly becoming many, differentiating to create structures to support healthy life after hatching. Another calamitous rise in numbers, but this time regulated, leading to transformation into a new life.

One consideration: in fertilisation, meiosis provides a means of repairing replicative error which has arisen in the parents before the growth begins. I don't really see any cultural process that would do that. If we start thinking of ourselves in that light, something would have to, I believe.

Economic BS

The environmental limits on economic activity are not as black and white as the enviro-freaks would like to believe. If the overall efficiency of the economic system is improved the limits move back and allow further expansion. I like Ed's theories and questions because he asks why? Why do political leaders ignore the truth? Those who have studied these questions quickly realize that political parties are bought and paid for by those with the real power behind the scenes. Their power is derived from the ability to rob citizens of their wealth through two primary means. The first of these underlies the entire monetary system itself. Central bankers through the private banking system have been given a monopoly on the creation of money through fractional reserve lending, and fiat currencies. The interest payable means that the majority in debt become poorer with each passing year. Meanwhile governments who should have retained the power to create money are forced to tax their citizens for revenue. Everyone except those at the top become poorer as their pockets are drained by interest and taxation. The only way out is to attempt to earn more and more and more. Only by reforming the economic system by restoring governments financial sovereignty and instituting full reserve banking and gold backed currency will things change for the better. The NDP won't do this and of course the other parties will not either. If enough people are financially ruined by this crisis and somehow figure out how they have been deceived and where the true solutions lie, maybe they will shed their apathy and demand a revolution. Until then nothing will get better.

Have they really, or have we done it to them?

"Just as in days of old, it is clear our God (s) has deserted us – with what will we replace it?"

How about this sample of wisdom:

6.
Let no man glory in the greatness of his mind,
but rather keep watch o'er his wits.
Cautious and silent let him enter a dwelling;
to the heedful comes seldom harm,
for none can find a more faithful friend
than the wealth of mother wit.
18.
He knows alone who has wandered wide,
and far has fared on the way,
what manner of mind a man doth own
who is wise of head and heart.
23.
The unwise man is awake all night,
and ponders everything over;
when morning comes he is weary in mind,
and all is a burden as ever.
37.
One's own house is best, though small it may be,
each man is master at home;
with a bleeding heart will he beg, who must, his meat at every meal.
40.
Let no man stint him and suffer need
of the wealth he has won in life;
oft is saved for a foe what was meant for a friend,
and much goes worse than one weens.
53.
Little the sand if little the seas,
little are minds of men,
for ne'er in the world were all equally wise,
'tis shared by the fools and the sage.
54.
Wise in measure let each man be;
but let him not wax too wise;
for never the happiest of men is he
who knows much of many things.
56.
Wise in measure should each man be,
but ne'er let him wax too wise:
who looks not forward to learn his fate
unburdened heart will bear.
57.
Brand kindles from brand until it be burned,
spark is kindled from spark,
man unfolds him by speech with man,
but grows over secret through silence.
58.
He must rise betimes who fain of another
or life or wealth would win;
scarce falls the prey to sleeping wolves,
or to slumberers victory in strife.
60.
Of dry logs saved and roof-bark stored
a man can know the measure,
of fire-wood too which should last him out
quarter and half years to come.
69.
Not reft of all is he who is ill,
for some are blest in their bairns,
some in their kin and some in their wealth,
and some in working well.
71.
The lame can ride horse, the handless drive cattle,
the deaf one can fight and prevail,
'tis happier for the blind than for him on the bale-fire,
but no man hath care for a corpse.
75.
Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself too soon must die,
but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
fair fame of one who has earned.
77.
Full-stocked folds had the Fatling's sons,
who bear now a beggar's staff:
brief is wealth, as the winking of an eye,
most faithless ever of friends.
80.
Praise day at even, a wife when dead,
a weapon when tried, a maid when married,
ice when 'tis crossed, and ale when 'tis drunk.
82.
Drink ale by the fire, but slide on the ice;
buy a steed when 'tis lanky, a sword when 'tis rusty;
feed thy horse neath a roof, and thy hound in the yard.

2000 years under its belt, and still makes sense, eh?

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/havamal.html

beyond good and evil

Patrick M. wrote:

Quote:

"But today's greatest danger is not man shitting all over the planet. Rather - and I truly believe this- it is the widespread felt desire that the world needs to be "cleansed" of all badness.

Couldn't agree more.

That is the inherent "religious" danger in all "systems" whether environmental or economic. That is the inherent danger in the puritanism of "steady state" economics. Because the balance of nature is imbalance.
Stormy and calm seas.
Low tide. High tide.
Feast. Famine.
Flood. Drought.

For good or for bad...whether we like it or not....that's life.

As Tom Robbins once wrote:

"Life isn't stable. Stability is unnatural. The only stability is the police state. You can have a free society or you can have a stable society. Take your choice. You can't have both."

Think about it.

The "one" thing the so-called "free market" of corporatism depends on and is "fervently and religiously" trying to establish globally, more than anything other factor, is predictability....and sameness.

In things... and in human behavior.

Be careful what you wish for.

Aho Rex & the Tyee

Excellent article. It seems some commentators would complain because Rex does not blueprint the micro-details of righting this upside-down world. Hey - he is only human and at least his forward thinking journalism does a commendable job of identifying the problem and pointing in the only viable direction of pulling planet Earth out of the fire.

As a human race we are incapable of fixing this mess by using the very thinking that got us into this mess. I suggest listening to the original stewards of this land we live upon. The Native Indian elders who have not assimilated are the ones who know the frequency of this land and the medicine of this land.

Yeps it looks like there is an epochal shake-up coming soon but don't worry by Hopi:

Message from the Hopi Elders

We have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour.
Now we must go back and tell people that THIS is the hour.
And there are things to be considered:
Where are you living?
What are you doing?
What are your relationships?
Are you in right relation?
Where is your water?
Know your garden.
It is time to speak your truth.
Create your community.
Be good to each other.
And do not look outside yourself for the leader.
This could be a good time!
There is a river flowing now very fast.
It is so great and swift that there are those who will be
afraid.
They will try to hold onto the shore.
They will feel they are being torn apart, and they will suffer
greatly.
Know the river has its destination.
The elders say we must let go of the shore,
Push off into the river.
Keep your eyes open,
And your heads above the water.
See who is in there with you and celebrate.
At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally,
Least of all ourselves.
For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey
Comes to a halt.
The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!
Banish the word struggle from your attitude and vocabulary.
All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in
celebration.

We are the One's we've been waiting for.

The Elders
Oraibi, Arizona
Hopi Nation

Rex, thanks for this

Rex, thanks for this article. I've been on the lookout for pieces on the topic of growth, and the topic isn't getting nearly enough coverage in the mainstream media. I agree that we need an economic theory and system that doesn't require constant growth in order to avoid collapse. I think a big part of the problem is our tendency to imagine ourselves as inherently separate from the rest of nature. This is the only way economics could ever be imagined to exist in a vacum separate from the limitations of the rest of the world. We need to recognize that ecology and economics are essentially the same science (both words mean 'home-study'), and that there is no longer any reason or justification for separating one from the other. Some of the best expressions of our fantasy desire to escape the ecosystems that spawned us show up in science fiction, where the laws of the universe are bent so we can run off and find other planets to live on. Some people still think this is possible. They're dreaming. What is one of the best examples of economy imagined as separate from ecology? It's that device Patrick Stewart et al used in Star Trek: The Next Generation to materialize food out of nothing. Talk about the need to return to earth.

Are you throwing up yet?

“..some programmer, somewhere actually knows what ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘fair’, ‘just’, ‘honourable’, ‘evil’, ‘good’, ‘greed’ …. ad nauseum actually mean.
The problem is, none of these judgements are real..”

You are quite right that culturally based and situational ethics arguments can be had on all the concepts you mention. Mind you, put in such perspective, they can certainly be pinned down. One of the strengths of diversity, such as we are so wealthy in, is that we can thus, together, arrive at deeply comprehensive answers, one of the things that give me hope for the future. There is, however, one such concept that is not open to interpretation: That of integrity. The idea of being all of a piece cannot be fiddled with, for it rests on logic. “If, then”, is unforgiving. Therefore, the organic viewpoint that we, the Earth, and all the other creatures on it, are and should be treated as being all of a piece is the best guide we have. Ed Deak has expressed this in a different way by saying the laws of thermodynamics must be applied to economics in order for the economic decisions we make, to make sense. If we punch the pillow on one side, it will bulge out on the other side, etc., etc.

Incidentally, the philosophy referred to in my previous post contains, as the only ancient one I know of, an understanding of entropy. Its associated mythology includes a vision of Ragnarok, the end of the world, and in there it is said that the forces of chaos (the Jotnar) will be sailing to their attack on our world in a giant ship built from the clipped-off nails of dead men. Obviously, in order to stave off Ragnarok, we must generate fewer dead men. Ergo, we are being warned against over-population and the resulting excess of deaths. I have not found such a structure of meaning in any other mythology.

So there were, somewhere, some time, people who had the insight. I am more than prepared to believe that the same grasp is expressed somewhere in the mythologies of the First Nations people of BC, only I have not known where to look.

Claiming that nobody knows the answers is a cop-out, not worthy of the seriousness of what we are discussing.

By the way, I think Mr. McEvoy has a point regarding the desire to mark saints and sinners in environmentalism. I have picked up that same smell oncc in a while. I might even go a step further and suggest some environmental zealots are expressing a degree of misanthropy, whether they know it or not.

Spiritual Enlightenment...and, Flat Tummies for all

"History has shown that removing the energy supply from the economy will cause it to contract immensely or even stop. Cuba found this out in 1991 when the Soviet Union, facing its own oil production and political problems at that time, cut off Cuba’s subsidized oil supply. Both Cuba’s energy use and its GDP declined immediately by about one third, all groceries disappeared from market shelves within a week and the average Cuban lost 20 pounds (Quinn 2006)."

http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/4678#more

Can I call you Real for short?

"..the average Cuban lost 20 pounds.."

Yes! I knew it! doing the right thang can work miracles! no more gut staples!

I have seen the true meaning of 'Seek Ye first the Kingdom of God'.

Thanks, man.

Regarding misanthropy in

Regarding misanthropy in environmentalists .... You've got it only partly right in that those who care about the planet are deeply dismayed by all who routinely and systematically abuse the planet's bounty. I wouldn't call it hate towards others, however, but extreme sorrow and grief at their unconscienable behavior.

In fact, I pick up a much stronger stink of disrespect for other human beings from those, who in their pursuit of profit, refuse to see the limits to the earth's resources, and thus, with total disregard, "sh%^&t," as Patrick says, all over poor people in the third world. It's called genocide, and it comes in the form of war (resource theft) and environmental catastrophe that ruins lives in other countries, if not, with time, in our own.
And yes, as Ed says, it starts with a blind belief in false and foolish economic philosophies.

I'll try again

Following the 30,000 or so years since Homo Sapiens has diverged from the evolutionary path we once shared with our fellow creatures, we've been on the march toward "Civilisation". It is our large brain which has pushed us along, allowing our considerable procreative powers to play hopscotch with our technological prowess.

Along the way we've played with innumerable systems of governance, and devised a wide variety of Gods. These have fostered the Hubris which permeates all our cultural narratives, namely that all our good fortune is due to hard work and the propitiating of our Gods.

This very conveniently eliminates the need for any acknowledgement that resources come to us essentially free, providing more energy or energy value than what we've put into them. But as Ronald Wright and others have pointed out, the end result of ignoring sustainability principles is collapse of the civilisation.

I've pointed out above and on several other Tyee threads that our failure to cope with our self-interested, anthropocentric attitude toward "Nature" is as old as humanity, and unless we finally address that basic flaw, we'll keep repeating the same old self-interested mistakes.

It's not a scientific, economic or political paradigm-shift we require, but rather a philosophical one - otherwise forget all your fancy theories.

Deep Ecology is the only answer and, of course, if it was easy it would have been tried long ago. Don't believe that? Then ask yourself for how long was slavery "The will of God"??

rangergord

" If the overall efficiency of the economic system is improved the limits move back and allow further expansion. "

Economic efficiency improves arithmetically, while population and demand/desire/greed expand geometrically. Like the hare after the tortoise, the system will never catch up.

And this hare has given the tortoise a big head start. We're already behind the eight-ball - there is no further expansion to be had. We're using our grandchildren's grandchildren's inheritance. All your comments following are simply justifying one's greed over another's.

thanks ME2

ME2, I’m with you on most of your civilized march into Deep Ecology but maybe you can speed my expiation. Can you clarify “basic flaw”?

ecology & economy

Great comments. As the author, I don't usually enter these discussions since I've had my say, but "Rick W." asked a specific question:

What did I mean by: "In the future, economists will return to earth." Is this "Earth to economists! Are you there"?

Yes: "Earth to Humanity. Hello? I'll be your host this century. Due to the crowds, some items on the menu may be limited." Neoclassical economists are bogged down attempting to sustain an untenable system. Earth itself is now making this clear.

Biophysical economics, cannot solve humanity's problems as outlined above. Yes, we need a deeper philosophical paradigm shift. My hope -- and why I write about these topics -- is that the paradigm shift might come about through insight, compassion, and common sense, rather than crisis.

But to achieve this, common sense must overcome the momentum of greed and reckless consumption. Those of us in wealthy nations, with computers and time on our hands, must shoulder some responsibility for changing the systems that keep humanity locked into warfare over materials and energy.

The Cuba example, from "Realisticman" above, shows how economic growth and consumption remain tied to energy throughput. This is the point revealed by Charles Hall's research. Also R. Costanza and H. Daly. Google them for more on this.

I do not presume, nor does H. Daly and other Steady State economists, that nature is "steady" as "Lynn" suggests above. We know that nature and human society are dynamic processes. The "steady" in "steady state economics" refers to a relatively steady throughput of materials and energy from the environment. Since "steady" is not entirely accurate, some biophysical economists use "dynamic equilibrium" or "biophysical" economics.

The point is, our current neoclassical economics clings to erroneous assumptions and fails to account for our ecological impact. The economics promoted by neocon "think" tanks reveals a patchwork of rationalizations for greed and growth. So a new economics is inevitable.

Ecologists and biophysical scientists who notice humanity's negative impact on Earth's natural systems are not "misanthropic." Love is not a zero-sum game. Ecologists may love humanity, and simultaneously love nature and notice the devastation humans leave behind in our trail of consumption.

Noticing that growth cannot continue in a biological system is just common observation of the evidence, not a hatred of humankind. Just like in a dysfunctional family or office, the whistle-blower is not the crazy one.

Great discussion. Thanks to the Tyee readers for the seriousness and intelligence to keep these ideas on the boil.

rw.

The main problem is that

The main problem is that economic efficiency can not be defined in monetary terms, because they're not realities, but often violence induced temporary perceptions.

We need money. We've lived in a moneyless society for 3 years after WW2 and it was sheer hell, with everything defined in numbers of cigarettes.

But any future monetary system has to have firm numbers, like those on measuring tapes and weights, and not on values defined by supply and demand and by major speculators who are using it to distort the dimensions of trade goods.

This is why all economic activities must be defined in physical terms to prevent today's major contradictions in logic and values, leading to destruction, poverty and disasters, while calling it "efficiency".

There can not be contradicting definitions of efficiency, unless we're ready to commit societal suicide through the acceptance of falsehoods and ignorance.

Ed Deak.

Irreducible minimums

There has been some talk in the past about a guaranteed minimum income based on the same sorts of things as are now used to calculate inflation rates, except not manipulated. Something like it is attached to some pensions. The GAIN amount.

I'm unfamiliar with the details, but it seems to allow basic decency, without stretching to many luxuries. A similar idea is behind the basic tax exemption everybody is about to claim on their T4 form.

Once such an amount is fixed, like "scale" for actors and musicians, incomes and prices might be calculated in multiples of that. It wouldn't be so very different from the gold standard, and might work well with that.

The rent would be worth .5 scale, or 1.8 scale, or whatever, and the car might cost .7 scale or 4.5 scale, carrots .0003 scale and good scotch would cost .006.

It's a standard that could be calculated and applied through various currencies, regardless of time or place.

It would not only provide a set measure of poverty, but would also put luxury or elite remuneration in perspective. Difficult for the CEO of a corporation with 10,000 employees to claim 1000 times the salary of an employee for attending 50 meetings a year.

How about something like that?

Bang on: "Biophysics, alone, cannot solve humanity's problems"

Sounds like the solution to “humanities problems” … “greed and reckless consumption” … is to employ a little “common sense”.

But, despite the fact that the remedy is presrcibed by a great many Tyee contributors, it seems common sense is actually not all that common.

Perhaps part of the reason, and it’s just a guess, is that the distortions of reality we call greed and reckless consumption actually have their genesis in common sense.

Hopefully you cans see the irony.
If you can’t, I would recommend reading, “The Wayward Mind”, by Guy Claxton. It’s been around since 2005, and you may have borrow from the library if not available at your favorite bookstore.

KWD, re what is "basic flaw"

Well, I don't follow what you mean by "expiation", since I'm not trying to evoke guilt. I wrote:

"....our failure to cope with our self-interested, anthropocentric attitude toward "Nature" is as old as humanity, and unless we finally address that basic flaw, we'll keep repeating the same old self-interested mistakes."

Simply said, we have to develop a new overall attitude toward the environment, one that switches from a master-slave relationship to a sort of "partnership" where the rights of the environment are not secondary to ours.

Self-interest lies full in the way of accomplishing that, given our ability to rationalize anything to our favour, coupled to the obvious and seemingly contradictory fact that we must use and manage nature.

To give you an idea how radical the idea is, compare it to the Humanist's belief that we can determine right from wrong without referring to religion as the final arbiter. Orthodox religion opposes this "worship of humans" just as much it opposes genuine Deep Ecology, which it calls "Nature worship".

Here again is the Deep Ecology Platfrm

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/DE-Platform.html

Clarification

Sorry, I didn't clarify that the "basic flaw" which distorts our judgement is our present inability to control our self-interest.

DE radical

ME2, I’ve been a follower of Arne Naess and a subscriber to the Environmental Studies Association of Canada List [ESAC-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] for a long time. I believe the DE approach to our so-called problems of “greed and reckelss consumption”, is worth considering.

I think the following, by Fredrick Bender, sumarizes my view:
"I do not think ecology sufficient to explain every aspect of human culture...We must also discover how human culture evolved, how social, political, and religious factors, etc., became predominant at various times. Ecological models frame such factors' significance, but do not replace them." (Bender, _The Culture Of Extinction: Toward A Philosophy Of Deep Ecology_, p. 102).

If not mistaken, I’ve been a cheerleader for DE, in a number of my posts, but the subject seems to draw little interest. And it’s understandable; following a DE life style requires personal sacrifice.

As much as I like the DE approach, it has, in the past (as far as I can tell, and I don’t read everything they send) ignored digging deeply into Bender’s suggestion of discovering “how”. I suspect the reason is because looking into the “how” part requires looking into why we think the way we do. And that’s a topic that causes the eyes to glaze over very quickly.

Ed Deak makes good points! Efficiency.

We are obsessed with "efficiency" but we really do not have a clue what it means.
You measure one parameter and think you have "efficiency"
Indeed inefficiency is the DRIVING force for fashion and any sex and coupling related product. Muscle cars, etc.
I had to go to charity shops to buy a good potato peeler today because they only sell crap that lasts a season at best in the stores! For 50 cents I got one that should work for years.
People are VERY set in their ways. My Da was a farmer and he believed in the "WHOLEY FREE MARKET" propigated by readers digest even though he used to moan, "I have to sell wholesale and buy retail"
"the free market is not so great after all, is it dad?" and prices ALWAYS dropped madly when he had a good harvest!
Farmers are the worst believers in that stupid self defeating religion perhaps because they are so competitive!
"my Wheat is better than his!" "but the price is pretty shitty this harvest, dad".
Over 20 years ago, i invented pulser pumps but nobody was interested so I give the idea away. (It is a water pump that is powered on 0.5 meter of head in a stream).
I posted in a forum and a powerful answer came back "It's not efficient" meaning conversion of energy.
My answer was, But its free, no moving parts, (so no technicians to hire if it breaks down),very low tech
you install it and it pumps for years. (20 years so far on my little prototype).
Others argued with the efficiency expert on the virtues of simplicity and long life He just got mad and said that if it had any usefulness someone would have already thought of it, researched it and people would be using it.
We now have a society where people actively refuse to think, and leave the thinking to others who get paid to think on certain subjects. It is pretty sad.

to just add....

While I recognize the utter compelling need that we recognize the physical/sustainability limits of this world....and that hopefully our economic systems will reflect that - still the world is so much more than the world "according to its economy".....it is so much more than than its man-made "systems".

There is a whole faltering human psychology/behavior that needs to be addressed in consort with this. Our relationship with nature, as ME2 suggests, is at the core.

Whether or not we address this issue will determine whether steady state/"dynamic equilibrium" economics is indeed dynamic or becomes just another means of control.

Call the "new" economics what you wish - in the end it will be man's behavior in regard to nature itself that will determine its real definition.

Just as man's behavior and actions have ultimately rendered the word "democracy" meaningless. Our continual acts of betrayal in regard to it now an affront to its original intention.

And then again...

"our failure to cope with our self-interested, anthropocentric attitude toward "Nature" is as old as humanity, and unless we finally address that basic flaw, we'll keep repeating the same old self-interested mistakes." "

Why must we absolutely lean our head to one set of dogma or another? Can we not aim at growing up and standing on our own two feet?

The basic flaw lies in the exact opposite direction of what most people think. The 'obscenely rich' people aim at becoming that way, due to a gnawing inner insecurity of monstrous dimensions. They literally need billions between themselves and the wolf at the door, or the risk of being 'insignificant' like the little boy in the bank advertisement. Think Corad Black, Bill Gates?

So, castigating people for being superficial louts in not 'worshipping' nature (you may well ask why you should worship an entity of which you are an integral part - wouldn't that rather give you a sense of entitlement to a reasonable share of the goods?), what we should strive to confer is a healthy sense of self-worth, based on other than mammon.

The idea of the Gods preventing us from being respectful of nature, well, speak for your own Gods. Mine have no such problem. On the contrary, they can appreciate the paradox:

137.
I trow I hung on that windy Tree
nine whole days and nights,
stabbed with a spear, offered to Odin,
myself to mine own self given,
high on that Tree of which none hath heard
from what roots it rises to heaven.

There. The idea of being integral to the whole and yet separate, all neatly wrapped up in poetry, too.

As for 'DE' - everyone in Scandinavia knows that Norwegians have this propensity for fanaticism. They do nothing by half measures. (Yes, there are some among my own ancestors!)