Ukraine Watch...

[UndercoverElephant]

"Collapse is the super-exponential irreversible decline of the global capacity to consume primary energy resources."
~Tim Garratt

Is that much different to saying "growth-based economics must end"? Isn't consumption of fossil fuels the ultimate manifestation of growth-based economics?

I can see no direct or immediate reason why the impossibility of consuming fossil fuels forever must lead to the end of capitalism, science or democracy/liberalism. There may be some systemic causal connection, but I don't think it is clear.

Increased energy = increased societal complexity
Decreased energy = decreased societal complexity

Is there a reason capitalism can't survive "decreased societal complexity"?

[Ralphw2]

The primary energy consumed by the average American is at least 100 times the useful work energy a fit human can produce, (or 1000 times, I forget. Either way ) it is far more than is sustainable, even when tapping into renewable energy flows, and it has been used historically to mine resources like minerals and iron ore and to build out massive infrastructure like the road network and cities and sewage systems and hydroelectric dams . The high grade ores have always been mined first, which means ever more energy is needed to mine and process the same quantity of minerals as the decades pass. The world is now dependant on intensive farming using massive quantities of fossil based fertiliser to grow in otherwise sterile soils, to feed our current 8 billion (and the world is not about the turn vegan, sadly, to make our food supply go further).

Although in a perfect benign dictatorship we could use the remaining fossil energy to move to a smaller, high tech sustainable population within the global carrying capacity where every one had sufficient for a decent life, in the real world it is not in the human condition to behave that way, we are social animals who tell each other stories and believe them fervently in the face of contradictory evidence once they are set by about the age of 10. We are genetically programmed to reproduce to maximise population when there are surplus resources and hoard to see out the lean times during famines. Even the most highly educated largely fool themselves that they are in control of their lives, when the major life decisions are largely driven by their social programming and genetic urges.


Anyway, sorry for dragging thread away from Ukraine (although the war is largely explained by the underlying state of the world)

[Default0ptions]

Dr Tim Morgan has some good analysis of the surplus energy economy and its deterioration

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpres ... dnt-order/

[Ralphw2]

I am not sure what you mean by capitalism. The current financial model of creating capital out of thin air, but not the money to pay the interest on the imaginary money loaned into existence, is only sustainable by creating exponentially more money each year, to pay off the outstanding interest debts, and consumption has to grow exponentially to avoid hyperinflation due to too much imaginary money chasing too few resources. Fiat money and a finite economy are incompatible. The underlying model of neoclassical capitalism is fundamentally flawed, as it focuses on the wrong entities, and deeply undervalues finite resources and the commons, and pays no attention at all to human well-being, as it assumes all people are perfect actors with infinite intelligence who always act in their own ideal self interest.

[northernmonkey]

Is that much different to saying "growth-based economics must end"? Isn't consumption of fossil fuels the ultimate manifestation of growth-based economics?

I can see no direct or immediate reason why the impossibility of consuming fossil fuels forever must lead to the end of capitalism, science or democracy/liberalism. There may be some systemic causal connection, but I don't think it is clear.

Increased energy = increased societal complexity
Decreased energy = decreased societal complexity

Is there a reason capitalism can't survive "decreased societal complexity"?

capitalism is increased social complexity

[UndercoverElephant]

Increased energy = increased societal complexity
Decreased energy = decreased societal complexity

Is there a reason capitalism can't survive "decreased societal complexity"?

capitalism is increased social complexity

No it isn't. "Capitalism" is a broad category -- there are competing definitions -- but "increased social complexity" isn't legitimately one of them. In some ways capitalism is relatively simple, since it relies on the free market to organise things (in theory, anyway). Many proposed alternatives to capitalism are significantly more complicated, since they involve organisations and individuals whose job it is to organise things in the absence of a free market. Also, I see no reason why society cannot get simpler while still preserving basic ideas such as free markets and private ownership of companies and property.

[Default0ptions]

Capitalism depends on a return on invested capital.

Negative real interest rates are the end of capitalism.

Perhaps we should first agree on a definition of capitalism to be sure we are discussing the same thing though.

And perhaps we should be discussing the relative notions of capitalism in a separate thread to Ukraine Watch?

[northernmonkey]

Is there a reason capitalism can't survive "decreased societal complexity"?

capitalism is increased social complexity

No it isn't. "Capitalism" is a broad category -- there are competing definitions -- but "increased social complexity" isn't legitimately one of them. In some ways capitalism is relatively simple, since it relies on the free market to organise things (in theory, anyway). Many proposed alternatives to capitalism are significantly more complicated, since they involve organisations and individuals whose job it is to organise things in the absence of a free market. Also, I see no reason why society cannot get simpler while still preserving basic ideas such as free markets and private ownership of companies and property.

Free markets and private ownership are not intrinsically synonymous with capitalism.

[BritDownUnder]

Increased energy = increased societal complexity
Decreased energy = decreased societal complexity

Is there a reason capitalism can't survive "decreased societal complexity"?

capitalism is increased social complexity

I'd have thought Communism and Islamism have increased complexity compared with capitalism as they need the political/religious stuff in addition to the means of production for a given level of wealth. All the ideology and dogma from these forms of societies will be both complex and energy intensive. The monitoring of religious/political activities by the Basij or KGB did not convert any energy into tangible economic growth but did consume energy nonetheless.

I'd have thought most 'poor' societies that trade are quite capitalist rather than communist. Isolated societies are probably communalist.

One note to the useful idiots posting here. Neither Russia nor China are Communist anymore.

Would welcome a separate thread for people who want to divert attention from the military issues in Ukraine.

[UndercoverElephant]

Free markets and private ownership are not intrinsically synonymous with capitalism.

Free markets and the private ownership of property and the means of production are the defining features of capitalism. If you don't believe me, just google for "definition of capitalism".

[Ralphw2]

There are reports that Ukraine has shot down 5 Russian Su30/su34 aircraft far behind the front lines in the last week, as they were on sorties to fire gps guided glide bombs, which have become a significant problem for the Ukrainian defences. The rumour is that Ukraine has received its first batch of Dutch f16 aircraft, equipped with long range air to air missiles able to take down the jets a 100km away. If true, this would be a significant relief on the front lines.

Edit

F16s officially revealed by Ukraine. About 40 in the current phase, up to 62 eventually

[adam2]

A russian warship has been attacked by Ukrainian forces, in occupied Crimea and is reportedly badly damaged though still afloat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67821515

[Ralphw2]

Russian claims that the ship is still afloat are contradicted by clear photos of it burned out and only the tops of the superstructure visible at the dockside. It is firmly on the bottom.

[adam2]

Russian claims that the ship is still afloat are contradicted by clear photos of it burned out and only the tops of the superstructure visible at the dockside. It is firmly on the bottom.

Glad to be corrected.

[adam2]

Later report with images showing substantially submerged remains.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67826487