So, how can we transition? And what needs to change?

[the_lyniezian]

Following on from some of what I said in SY's thread. I am sure it is very much on all of our minds that we cannot simply carry on as we have done as a world community, given the way in which we are depleting resources and destroying the enviromnent. Part of this will be down to mass industry and overproduction of that wwhich is not needful to survival, and that, I think, is down to greed and misplaced priorities. We can't carry on simply growing forever, and that probably demands a complete rethink of our economy and business practices, and on our lifestyles. Perhaps, as SY points out, the aim ought to be to aim to produce not much more than what is needful for survival, and then to do so in as undestructive and wasteless a manner as possible.

The question is what fundamentally needs to change in order to achieve this. How do we transition to a post-growth, perhaps post-industrial, and certainly post-consumerist society? How do we minimise the possible threats to life and potential for suffering (which I guess will end up being inevitable to some degree)? And yes, UE in particular, how do we do it without coercive population control measures like mandatory abortions and sterilisations? If we can?

[the_lyniezian]

I'm sort of thinking of perhaps creating something like that "policy document" UE tried to devise a while back. Some concrete statement of aims. Only without the bits that, to my mind, left it falling at the first hurdle.

Or, for the doomers, at least how to weather the storm and avoid a worst case scenario.

[woodburner]

We can't carry on simply growing forever, .............

Yep, and that includes the population.

[Little John]

We can't carry on simply growing forever, .............

Yep, and that includes the population.

Yes. In the absence of dealing with the population size, everything else is pointless, in the end.

[the_lyniezian]

We can't carry on simply growing forever, .............

Yep, and that includes the population.

Yes. In the absence of dealing with the population size, everything else is pointless, in the end.

I realise population control must be a part of it.

Though of course I realise it isn't enough. Given the ecological footprint of an average American is several times that of a Chinese person (also the global average IIRC), for example, there are the equivalent of more than 7 billion average people.

The thing is how do we achieve a realistic reduction in population growth, and eventual decline?

[kenneal - lagger]

The very first thing that must change is the banking system. It would have to change to an Islamic or similar system where no interest is paid as, with our current system, economic growth is essential for the payment of the interest on loans and deposits.

The second thing to change would have to be the industrial system, from the mass production of the cheap and nasty, short lived goods to the batch production of high quality, long lasting goods.

The food system would probably have to change to an organic system as fossil fuels became more expensive and unaffordable for the powering of agriculture as it does today.

As poor countries would no longer be paying interest on massive loans they might be able to afford to educate their populations, assuming that their corrupt rulers didn't simply pocket any cash as they do now. With education, of women especially, comes a lowering of birthrate which would address the population rise issue. Addressing a reduction in population might require a bit more effort than just education and the other measures quoted above might have to be instigated.

With a reduction in industrial production would come a reduction in fossil fuel use, although it would probably not be enough to address climate change issues. That would probably require an even greater effort in fuel substitution.

The above five actions would probably start to address the situation but the first, the banking changes, are fundamental and the most difficult to achieve as the Banksters control everything else through their hold on governments. The Banksters would rather see the human population decimated by war, plague and pestilence, which is the likely outcome of a continuation of BAU, than lose their lucrative income. For that reason I don't think we will see any changes without war, plague and pestilence.

[biffvernon]

All you have to do is introduce TEQs. Everything else then falls into place.

http://www.teqs.net/
https://www.facebook.com/CarbonRationing

[woodburner]

Doomed to fail, the greedy will get more than their share, they will be energy bankers instead of the money bankers.

[Little John]

The very first thing that must change is the banking system. It would have to change to an Islamic or similar system where no interest is paid as, with our current system, economic growth is essential for the payment of the interest on loans and deposits.

The second thing to change would have to be the industrial system, from the mass production of the cheap and nasty, short lived goods to the batch production of high quality, long lasting goods.

The food system would probably have to change to an organic system as fossil fuels became more expensive and unaffordable for the powering of agriculture as it does today.

As poor countries would no longer be paying interest on massive loans they might be able to afford to educate their populations, assuming that their corrupt rulers didn't simply pocket any cash as they do now. With education, of women especially, comes a lowering of birthrate which would address the population rise issue. Addressing a reduction in population might require a bit more effort than just education and the other measures quoted above might have to be instigated.

With a reduction in industrial production would come a reduction in fossil fuel use, although it would probably not be enough to address climate change issues. That would probably require an even greater effort in fuel substitution.

The above five actions would probably start to address the situation but the first, the banking changes, are fundamental and the most difficult to achieve as the Banksters control everything else through their hold on governments. The Banksters would rather see the human population decimated by war, plague and pestilence, which is the likely outcome of a continuation of BAU, than lose their lucrative income. For that reason I don't think we will see any changes without war, plague and pestilence.

I can agree with much of this K.

[Little John]

Doomed to fail, the greedy will get more than their share, they will be energy bankers instead of the money bankers.

Yes.

[raspberry-blower]

The very first thing that must change is the banking system. It would have to change to an Islamic or similar system where no interest is paid as, with our current system, economic growth is essential for the payment of the interest on loans and deposits.

Actually, Ken, the very first thing that has to change is the World Trade Organisation and this idiotic fixation on economic growth all the time. Therefore, it is the "rules of the game" (i.e.trade) that has to be tackled first, as they are, inevitably, heavily intertwined with the banking sector.

All trade should be fair trade - NOT free market which does not actually exist in reality. By fair trade, I mean supporting the interests of the small, quality producer over the mass produced crud.

Yes, the banking sector has to be overhauled - a genuninely Christian financial system would also be interest free. What should happen is that all banks have to open up their vaults, mark to market the exact amount each bank holds with regards to derivatives,and if the banks are found to be bankrupt or insolvent, then they should be wound up and the CEOs charged with financial malfease.

Not going to happen though, for the reason that Ken rightly points out:

as the Banksters control everything else through their hold on governments.

[Little John]

The very first thing that must change is the banking system. It would have to change to an Islamic or similar system where no interest is paid as, with our current system, economic growth is essential for the payment of the interest on loans and deposits.

Actually, Ken, the very first thing that has to change is the World Trade Organisation and this idiotic fixation on economic growth all the time. Therefore, it is the "rules of the game" (i.e.trade) that has to be tackled first, as they are, inevitably, heavily intertwined with the banking sector.

All trade should be fair trade - NOT free market which does not actually exist in reality. By fair trade, I mean supporting the interests of the small, quality producer over the mass produced crud.

Yes, the banking sector has to be overhauled - a genuninely Christian financial system would also be interest free. What should happen is that all banks have to open up their vaults, mark to market the exact amount each bank holds with regards to derivatives,and if the banks are found to be bankrupt or insolvent, then they should be wound up and the CEOs charged with financial malfease.

Not going to happen though, for the reason that Ken rightly points out:

as the Banksters control everything else through their hold on governments.

The obsession with growth is a direct consequence of our banking systems. If you want the obsession with growth to stop, the banking system has to change first.

[RenewableCandy]

Yup. And it just needs one change in the law. Any attempt tp collect interest on a loan (made in the past or from now on in) to be treated in the same way as the given country would treat extortion.

The odd thing is I think I remember seeing somewhere (M.a.D III iirc) that the collection of interest could work in a steady-state economy if-and-only-if the resulting loot were all spent on people's wages. But that might not be true, for reasons I can't quite work out without my head imploding.

[Little John]

Yup. And it just needs one change in the law. Any attempt tp collect interest on a loan (made in the past or from now on in) to be treated in the same way as the given country would treat extortion.

The odd thing is I think I remember seeing somewhere (M.a.D III iirc) that the collection of interest could work in a steady-state economy if-and-only-if the resulting loot were all spent on people's wages. But that might not be true, for reasons I can't quite work out without my head imploding.

In a steady-state economy whose money supply also remains steady-state, it is an arithmetical certainty that all profits (where "profit" is defined as the leaving of an economic transaction with resources of greater exchange value than upon entering it) must be offset by losses elsewhere. However, even in a steady-state economy where the money supply increases, it is still a material certainty that all profits must be offset be losses elsewhere due to the decreasing value of money in such a scenario. The only reason why such losses have not been felt as much as we might have expected hitherto (though they have still been felt to a significant extent) is because the losses have been largely incurred by the Earth itself in the form of the giving-up of ever-increasing inputs of resources into our growing economic systems. A process which is now coming to a grinding halt due to resource constraints.

None of which means that economic activity cannot occur in a steady-state economy. It just means that in order to avoid economic imbalances developing over time in such a steady-state system, all economic transactions must be both profitless and lossless. In other words, all exchanges must be of products or services of equal exchange value.

So, it's pretty easy to see why those who are currently at the top of the economic pile might be non-too enamoured with the idea of a steady-state economy.

[Tarrel]

In "The End of Growth" Richard Heinberg reminds us that previous societies evolved ways of dealing with their accumulated debts with "Debt Jubilees". He quotes the book of Leviticus which states; "every fiftieth year is a jubilee year, in which slaves and prisoners are to be freed and debts are to be forgiven".

Heinberg's view is that we're unlikely to have a formal "jubilee", but a rising tide of defaults and bankruptcies will accomplish the same thing; the destruction of debt and the destruction of "wealth". (I put this in inverted commas because real wealth, e.g. land, capital equipment, natural resources and access to energy, won't be destroyed. Only the "pretend wealth" of mortgage backed securities, options and suchlike.)

In this case, is the destruction of such pretend wealth such a bad thing? At least if all this is destroyed, we'll be able to see exactly what we HAVE got, in terms of real resources, and start cutting our cloth accordingly.

Regarding population, I think the mistake we often make is to think of population as an INPUT to the system, which can be controlled or tuned on and off like a tap. In fact, population is an OUTPUT of the system. Change the input variables (such as energy supply or amount of habitable land area) and the population will take care of itself. Might not be pretty though.

(If anyone hasn't read "The End of Growth" I can recommend it. You will s**t yourself over some of the numbers he quotes when talking about the bailouts around 2008.)