Thanks Gunnar, point well made. As the 'rich' will stoutly resist large income reductions, equalisation by consensus will try instead to raise the incomes of the 'poor'. Which will, of course, hugely increase overall resource use and pollution.
Raising global income levels without root and branch reform of the economic model just means extending global capitalism, monetisation and commodification. Guaranteed to destroy our shared environment rather than save it. Perhaps that's 'fair' in human social terms, but it's also stupid in every other sense.
There's no way to dodge the bullet. Steep reductions in economic activity are required, which will by definition need to mostly happen in rich countries. That will crash the financial system and wipe out most of today's paper wealth.
As the problem is the system, an agreed top-down solution is impossible (anyone who disagrees should describe the process to make such an agreement). The remaining option is a bottom-up movement to step away from the system, care for pockets of nature and build resilience, as other commenters suggest.
Nice ideas but rather meaningless in today's world. We have to learn to live with the idea that things will get a lot worse for all of us until we destroy the planet. In the meantime the smart people will grow their own food, nurture community, maintain what infrastructure one has and learn to live with a lot less. For some this will be a lifestyle worth living while for some it will be just hell.
This goes to show that money might be a good way to distribute goods, but for goods that harm the environment it is inadequate. Of course, all economists will say "it is perfect". This is becausue they don't want to take the word "rationing" into their mouths. Allocation by rules might be a better word for rationing.
Thanks Gunnar, point well made. As the 'rich' will stoutly resist large income reductions, equalisation by consensus will try instead to raise the incomes of the 'poor'. Which will, of course, hugely increase overall resource use and pollution.
Raising global income levels without root and branch reform of the economic model just means extending global capitalism, monetisation and commodification. Guaranteed to destroy our shared environment rather than save it. Perhaps that's 'fair' in human social terms, but it's also stupid in every other sense.
There's no way to dodge the bullet. Steep reductions in economic activity are required, which will by definition need to mostly happen in rich countries. That will crash the financial system and wipe out most of today's paper wealth.
As the problem is the system, an agreed top-down solution is impossible (anyone who disagrees should describe the process to make such an agreement). The remaining option is a bottom-up movement to step away from the system, care for pockets of nature and build resilience, as other commenters suggest.
Nice ideas but rather meaningless in today's world. We have to learn to live with the idea that things will get a lot worse for all of us until we destroy the planet. In the meantime the smart people will grow their own food, nurture community, maintain what infrastructure one has and learn to live with a lot less. For some this will be a lifestyle worth living while for some it will be just hell.
This goes to show that money might be a good way to distribute goods, but for goods that harm the environment it is inadequate. Of course, all economists will say "it is perfect". This is becausue they don't want to take the word "rationing" into their mouths. Allocation by rules might be a better word for rationing.