[americandream]

Ibon

We have never been managers of the planet and your anthropocentricity speaks volumes for your blind spot. Stewardship contemplates a fully conscious species arranged around a circular set of social relations. As we creep through cultural steps to full consciousness, we clumsily exploit the planet as an incomplete species and will continue doing so unless we conform social relations based around rational forms and structures. That is essentially what the tool of cause and effect implies.

If we are talking about moving through this challenge and challenges have always been the trigger mechanism for new cultural forms, this I believe is the natural next step. Of course, if these factors do not come to pass, then yes, there will be regression back through the various steps by which time the planet will be in collapse. But regress to an earleir state and survive as a species, planet wide, no.

[Ibon]

Ibon

We have never been managers of the planet and your anthropocentricity speaks volumes for your blind spot.

AD, I once traveled by canoe 700km down the Churchhill river in Northern Saskatchewan on a 28 day wilderness expedition. One of many trips of my youth when I was deeply embedded in a wilderness ideology. These experiences taught me viscerally that humans are not managers of this biosphere. What more can I say?

Stewardship contemplates a fully conscious species arranged around a circular set of social relations. As we creep through cultural steps to full consciousness, we clumsily exploit the planet as an incomplete species and will continue doing so unless we conform social relations based around rational forms and structures. That is essentially what the tool of cause and effect implies.

Social and ecological relations. I agree with this. It is not just clinical cause and affect. There is praise and gospel singing to the birds and the flowers and kundalini energy jumping up and down basking in the glory of our mother earth as we all go down to the river to pray as the good lord shows us the way!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qw6Hon013E

AD, we can be logical and praise our sacred mother earth. What's up with you with this uber logical cause and affect. Can you dance?

If we are talking about moving through this challenge and challenges have always been the trigger mechanism for new cultural forms, this I believe is the natural next step. Of course, if these factors do not come to pass, then yes, there will be regression back through the various steps by which time the planet will be in collapse. But regress to an earleir state and survive as a species, planet wide, no.

The catalyst of consequences will be the trigger mechanism and with spiritual fortitude we will meet this challenge or perish.

[americandream]

Ibon

Of course I function at the social level. We all do but in capitalism, those functions are mere shadows of their full form in circularity. Packaged, tribalised, each with its own distinct uniform and fully unitised for maximum accumulations and each group with its own label. Fully conscious, we are fully sovereign to live and choose as our essential creativity motivates us, expressing ourselves according to our capacities and not external drivers contoured for the purposes of profiteers and such like.

So when we talk about celebrating our planet, that is something we should do each and every day, not just when the moon is auspicious or the toil of labour momentarily stops allowing us to. Consciousness is a self aware celebration of being...we just havent had a chance to use it.

It truly liberates you from ego. I would recommend trying it.

[Ibon]

I do see the consequences of human overshoot as being the great common denominator at play this century in affecting our macro institutions. It will affect our economic system, religious institutions and governments. All three. All three will capitulate to these consequences and all three may very well adapt accordingly, each in their own fashion. When we debate this we seem to forget that all these macro institutions are going to continue to coexist in the future. I don't see any dominating.

[Ibon]

Interesting to include here in this thread a deeper look at the recent Encyclical from Pope Francis as how it relates to stewardship which was just being discussed. If you read through this can we not recognize one of our major institutions capitulating to the environmental consequences at our doorstep? This is adaptive and quite conscious in the spirit AD is mentioning although he probably is challenged that this is coming from a religious institution.

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/06/19/ ... ommentary/

The overwhelming majority of “Laudato Si'” is, perhaps unsurprisingly, about theology. And while this material has been glossed over by the mainstream press, it is nothing less than a seismic shift in mainstream Christian thought about the human-nature relationship.

First, Francis reads scriptural passages in ways that, while not new, have thus far been confined to liberal theology.

In Chapter 2, he writes: “The creation accounts in the book of Genesis contain, in their own symbolic and narrative language, profound teachings about human existence and its historical reality. They suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbor and with the earth itself.”

Note the radically anti-fundamentalist biblical hermeneutic (“symbolic and narrative language”) and the equation of the relationship between humans and the earth with the relationships between humans and one another and between humans and God.

This is not merely a statement that environmental issues are important. This is a radical theological claim, that human life is centrally defined by the human-earth relationship. How you relate to the earth is as important as how you relate to God.

When liberal religious environmentalists make such claims, they are accused of being “pagan.” But Francis is just getting started. In Chapter 3, he reads Genesis’ controversial injunction that humans should have “dominion” over the earth in precisely the terms of liberal religious environmentalism: “Our ‘dominion’ over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.”

The language of stewardship is familiar to liberal theologians — but coming in a papal encyclical, it is stunning.

Indeed, it may be read as a response to a half-century-old argument, most famously made by the historian Lynn White, that the biblical relationship of “dominion” is partly to blame for the environmental crisis. Francis is giving a direct refutation of the anthropocentric view that the earth exists only as resources for humans to use.

“The Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures,” he says.

Now, it should be noted that the qualifier “tyrannical” still leaves the door open, and similar qualifiers occur elsewhere: “modern anthropocentrism,” “excessive anthropocentrism” and “misguided anthropocentrism” are mentioned. “Laudato Si'” thus does not squarely overturn one thousand years of natural law, which places the human being on a higher moral level than the rest of the natural world.

Nonetheless, whatever anthropocentrism “Laudato Si'” leaves in place is so heavily restricted as to barely qualify. One passage is worth quoting at length:

“Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. The biblical texts are to be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us to ’till and keep’ the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). ‘Tilling’ refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while ‘keeping’ means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature.”

Here, Francis explicitly states that exploitative readings of Genesis have “incorrectly interpreted” it. Nature is not purely an instrumental good; rather, humans are in a “relationship of mutual responsibility” with it.

What this means is spelled out in the following chapters.

Francis devotes almost half the encyclical to a radical critique of the “dominant technocratic paradigm” and to proposing an “integral ecology” that brings together human, social, cultural, environmental, and economic concerns. Once again, such language would not be surprising coming from a student at a progressive Protestant seminary — but from the bishop of Rome it is indeed surprising.

Finally, Pope Francis’ overall spiritual attitude toward nature is perhaps the most radical part of the whole encyclical. He begins with his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who found spiritual communion not only in cathedrals but also in forests.

And in the end, he comes back to mysticism again, writing:

“The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face. The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things.”

Mystical nature panentheism in a papal encyclical! And with a nod to liberation theology! And with a footnote to the Sufi mystic Ali al-Khawas, no less.

Whatever impact “Laudato Si'” has in the political world remains to be seen. But that the pope is here embracing a nature-based mysticism, a highly adumbrated anthropocentrism, and a radical “integral ecology” places the encyclical alongside the best of radical, progressive religious environmentalism — and far outside what even mainline Protestant denominations have affirmed heretofore.

“Laudato Si'” may turn out to be politically influential. It is already theologically revolutionary.

[Cid_Yama]

Ricardian Socialism is an economic theory not a social one, and was espoused by economists in the early 1800's. As you said it is pre-Marxian Marxism.

It has nothing to do with the Social theory of Socialism. And as I said is spouted by Capitalists to obfuscate the issue. No one today believes that except maybe Capitalists who use it as scary bedtime stories.

The issue is as I stated.

...the issue is wanting to be paid the value of their labor, not that all value comes from labor.

The way the system works is that labor is paid as little as possible, and profit becomes mostly derived from the excess unpaid value of that labor. That's called exploitation of labor by not paying them the true value of that labor and harvesting the rest.

There is also the way the entire system is designed to ensure that labor has no choice but to sell their labor for less that it's value or starve and become homeless.

Labor today is not demanding ownership of the means of production or a dictatorship of the Proletariat. They are wanting a fair wage. Heck they aren't even asking for the full value of their labor.

This is an issue of Social Justice. The Evil heart of Capitalism.

Bringing ancient economic theories to the table is just a means not to discuss the real issue. Social Justice.

Adam Smith said Justice was required in the markets or that merchants would spew misery around the world, and he was correct.

Bringing up Ricardo was just another strawman argument.

[Pops]

Bringing up Ricardo was just another strawman argument.

LoL a strawman argument against what, pray tell?

I'm trying to have a conversation about the nuts and bolts of alternatives to capitalism and you are off on an ideological rant about social justice and the evil of capitalism and can't tell the difference.

Yes we have heard it all before capitalism is the root of all evil, so let move beyond that.

The point of mentioning Ricardo is as I mentioned above, I think his version of scarcity is the far more likely to limit growth than Marxs revolution of the proles, essentially because the workers are so fat they are not about to revolt. A scary capitalist bedtime story alright but not the way you prefer.

[radon1]

As the population grows, he thought that more and more marginal land would be forced into production and the rent on better land would increase to the point profit to the renter would fall to zero.

If that doesn't sound familiar it should. Comparative advantage (better land) is the basis for globalization and falling profits on increasingly marginal resources sounds an awful lot like falling eroei, limits to growth, etc.

Incidentally, these are also the reasons why the landlords owning better quality resources are getting richer in relative terms as the malthusian cycle progresses (along with the financial sector fatcats).

[Pops]

Exactly.
And it extends to all resources, Sweet Arabian vs Canada Tar, US plantation pine vs Canada First growth, etc.
And within resources, US light tight @ $60/bbl vs old conventional @ $10/bbl or whatever

[Timo]

Ibon

Of course I function at the social level. We all do but in capitalism, those functions are mere shadows of their full form in circularity. Packaged, tribalised, each with its own distinct uniform and fully unitised for maximum accumulations and each group with its own label. Fully conscious, we are fully sovereign to live and choose as our essential creativity motivates us, expressing ourselves according to our capacities and not external drivers contoured for the purposes of profiteers and such like.

So when we talk about celebrating our planet, that is something we should do each and every day, not just when the moon is auspicious or the toil of labour momentarily stops allowing us to. Consciousness is a self aware celebration of being...we just havent had a chance to use it.

It truly liberates you from ego. I would recommend trying it.

Multiply your recommendation by 7 billion.

As enlightening to each individual as it may be, it is not a practical suggestion as a means forward for the planet. Sorry, but the math just doesn't support the concept.

[Timo]

Bringing up Ricardo was just another strawman argument.

LoL a strawman argument against what, pray tell?

I'm trying to have a conversation about the nuts and bolts of alternatives to capitalism and you are off on an ideological rant about social justice and the evil of capitalism and can't tell the difference.

Yes we have heard it all before capitalism is the root of all evil, so let move beyond that.

The point of mentioning Ricardo is as I mentioned above, I think his version of scarcity is the far more likely to limit growth than Marxs revolution of the proles, essentially because the workers are so fat they are not about to revolt. A scary capitalist bedtime story alright but not the way you prefer.

Let's not bring historical figures into the discussion here to back up our viewpoints, opinions, suggestions, or hypotheses. They introduce too much credibility to the discussion. This entire thread is a free-for-all, every man (or woman) for him (or her)self. You against the world (of PO forum members). Last one standing wins (something).

[radon1]

Let's not bring historical figures into the discussion here to back up our viewpoints, opinions, suggestions, or hypotheses.

Well, this was Ricardo who introduced the rent theory, what's wrong with giving him the credit. Besides, this is actually a reference, a hidden link if you will, for whoever who might want to check up his or his followers writings on the subject.

Or do you want to reproduce the entire body of the theory, which is of books' volumes, in your post here, instead of simply referencing it to Ricardo or whoever else appropriate.

[americandream]

Ibon

Of course I function at the social level. We all do but in capitalism, those functions are mere shadows of their full form in circularity. Packaged, tribalised, each with its own distinct uniform and fully unitised for maximum accumulations and each group with its own label. Fully conscious, we are fully sovereign to live and choose as our essential creativity motivates us, expressing ourselves according to our capacities and not external drivers contoured for the purposes of profiteers and such like.

So when we talk about celebrating our planet, that is something we should do each and every day, not just when the moon is auspicious or the toil of labour momentarily stops allowing us to. Consciousness is a self aware celebration of being...we just havent had a chance to use it.

It truly liberates you from ego. I would recommend trying it.

Multiply your recommendation by 7 billion.

As enlightening to each individual as it may be, it is not a practical suggestion as a means forward for the planet. Sorry, but the math just doesn't support the concept.

Population equilibrium is also a function of scientific socialism.. Whilst apparently Enlightened tendecies are present in objective socialism; full consciousness is simply a state as contemplated by evolution as is pristine subjectivity and all the stages in between. There is no Enlightened state as such as there is no higher realm in the after life to seek. We are simply giving effect to that which we already have.

Even the most brutish human specimen has this capacity.

[americandream]

Bringing up Ricardo was just another strawman argument.

LoL a strawman argument against what, pray tell?

I'm trying to have a conversation about the nuts and bolts of alternatives to capitalism and you are off on an ideological rant about social justice and the evil of capitalism and can't tell the difference.

Yes we have heard it all before capitalism is the root of all evil, so let move beyond that.

The point of mentioning Ricardo is as I mentioned above, I think his version of scarcity is the far more likely to limit growth than Marxs revolution of the proles, essentially because the workers are so fat they are not about to revolt. A scary capitalist bedtime story alright but not the way you prefer.

If you are in effect saying that the mass of global labour are decadent to the degree that there is an overwhelming majority of lumpenproletariate, then of course you are saying that workers primary needs are met and continue to be met by capitalism and will so endure till its collapse. You may well be right but that is something we will never know UNTIL we try and access their consciousness using the tools capitalism and with the power of a capitalist, money. To a large extant, we are beyond the revolution of pitchforks, we are in the age of ideas and of course the media are there. Money is the key.

[americandream]

“Laudato Si'” may turn out to be politically influential. It is already theologically revolutionary.[/i]

The sooner we jettison inconsistent religions, the sooner we take full control of our cognitive capacities. These religious texts can be everything to everyone from the grossly ignorant such as Cog who yearns for the freedom to terrorise blacks in the name of his god to the seemingly conscious such as the Pope who continues to believe in someone who can make a better person of him whilst presiding over an organisation that has staunchly refused to follow even the basic tenets of its faith from the outset.

Words come easy whilst the Pope presides over an organisation that resolutely opposes objective circularity all in the name of freedom.

Not only the bible, but the koran and every religious text in humankind. Religious meandering played their role as we sought to give effect to our consciousness but after the age of Reason are surplus to requirements.

[americandream]

Bringing up Ricardo was just another strawman argument.

LoL a strawman argument against what, pray tell?

I'm trying to have a conversation about the nuts and bolts of alternatives to capitalism and you are off on an ideological rant about social justice and the evil of capitalism and can't tell the difference.

Yes we have heard it all before capitalism is the root of all evil, so let move beyond that.

The point of mentioning Ricardo is as I mentioned above, I think his version of scarcity is the far more likely to limit growth than Marxs revolution of the proles, essentially because the workers are so fat they are not about to revolt. A scary capitalist bedtime story alright but not the way you prefer.

On Ricardo and much of classic economics, the lack of a social relational structure does not equip the ideas for post capitalist constructions. All we know is the formula by which rent is arrived at, we are not clear as to the evolutionary backdrop in which that occurs. It may well be that rent will feature in a society on the edge of extinction as a replacement to a defunct capitalism but in terms of reconstructing capitalism to some post and sustainable form, simply plucking formulas out of the air says nothing for why a regressive evolutionary mechanism would endure other than that we will use big clubs on each other for ever more....a bit simplistic.

[Pops]

Do you think neoclassical economics founded in the midst of the great capitalist era with no room for actual resource limits is going to have much of anything to do with the outcome? I kinda have to laugh at the idea that to make economics more accurate someone came up with the idea to add a dose of psychology, probably the one proffession more full of bull than economics.

Rational actors and all that is fine when there are actual rational choices to be made. Unfortunately many of the choices we make are in the dark since we have no crystal balls, we can't see down the road, we just guess or worse, just go with the emotion.

Still we all choose to believe we have the inside track. In the millions of posts I've surely read on this site, the one most rare quality is doubt. Look at any thread, any post, this post, it is full of certitude. No matter how many conflicting points of view, each author is completely and utterly certain they are right and is willing to stay up until all hours of the night to find the killer argument to prove it!

Rational?
Not likely.

Which is why I like Ricardo, no blather about psychology to camouflage the fact that they are blind fools feeling up the elephant. Resource scarcity is gonna come back around like a bad penny, I'm certain!

[americandream]

Pops

You are welcome to choose the tools for your ideas. But they are incomplete. Your trenchant refusal to make that final step in reasonably understanding the function of cause and effect in a conscious species does not render those ideas complete. This sort of stoic refusal to extend the margins of ones understanding is widespread but not insolubly so.

As long as your recognise that Ricardo ideas are formulaic, not dialectic and are happy with that incomplete view and state so clearly, that is a fair although subjective stance. Your mind I suspect will seek further clarity in due course. You do not strike me as be reactionary in thought and intent.

[ralfy]

A market economy involving profits and returns on investment requires increasing energy and material resources, which is at some point not sustainable given peak oil and physical limits. Environmental damage and global warming make matters worse.

That is not correct. People have traded goods and services with one another for as long as we have been human with the 'profit' and 'return on investment' being a strong sense of community and success at surviving. Very successful traveling merchants were the ones who took enormous personal risk to travel from market to market with goods that were common in one place and rare in another. The survival rate was something like 20 percent for travel from Europe to the Far East and back. The energy required was all wind or muscle power, both of which have natural limits.

These are the reasons for the whole buy local not global movement, you don't need fresh strawberries in December in NYC, you can eat fresh all summer and eat preserves in the off season. Modern people are horribly spoiled, but it does not have to be that way.

I am referring to profits and returns on investment in terms of money.

Also, I think merchants took risks for that reason and not because of community, etc.

Third, they went beyond wind, etc., to decrease risks and increase profits.

Finally, globalization did not simply involve meeting the needs of "spoiled" people but also increased life expectancy rates worldwide.

[americandream]

Nice balance there Ralfy.