Erald Kolasi, a physicist, writer, and researcher talks about his book ‘The Physics of Capitalism.’ His interdisciplinary approach merges economics, technology, energy, and ecological dynamics.
My understanding of valerism is that it is a modernized extension of capitalism. If this is accurate, I fail to see how it would help anything on a sustained basis. Capitalism itself is fundamentally flawed due to its assumption that accumulation (hoarding) of wealth is something that should be protected and even encouraged. Do you use that term to describe something that is not an extensionof capitalism?
At a very high conceptual and thematic level, the fundamental difference between capitalism and valerism is that capitalism is premised on unbounded energy and resource growth whereas valersim calls for a regime of energetic stability. So in the crudest formulation possible, capitalism = growth while valerism = stability. Stability here means many things as I clarify in the book and in the interview with Steve, but primarily it means imposing dynamical constraints on energy use and resource consumption. I clarify that a valerist society should stick to an average daily per capita energy use between 30,000 to 60,000 kilocalories. That would require major changes from many Western nations that are outside of this range. Valerism also encompasses a new kind of political economy and political regime based on universal social programs and democratic control over many economic resources, new methods of industrial organization and production, and a proposal for an entirely different global order that would replace the United Nations and most of the international institutions established after World War II, which are serving the interests of corrupt elites while ignoring the democratic will of the people all over the world.
So no, valerism is not an extension of capitalism. It's meant to replace capitalism.
Thanks for the clarification. The first time I looked it up online, the definition that came up said it was an extension of capitalism. That's why I asked you about the definition you use. I am strongly against any form of capitalism, due to our innate human propensity for individual accumulation of wealth, which embracing capitalism actually encourages. Thanks again.
Is not reducing world wide population growth a big answer to/ the first imperative when working towards many questions of sustainability/ climate stablisation? and bear in mind that improvements in female education have been shown as likely to reduce population growth. Inequality is obviously an issue too, but surely reduction or diminution in population increase can only help? (this is where GDP measurements are less than helpful)
It is not a matter of either/or. It is a matter of needing to end the military industrial complex AND stop growing in population (and that is NOT "stopping procreation"). We could at least start urging people who live in countries where they have the luxury of not needing a large number of children to take care of them as they age, to have no more than 2 children. From any perspective... clearly there is a limit to how many humans the planet can support.
I dont see that as something I would be fighting for. I would be more inclined to focus on eliminating known modes of production that have all kinds of downstream impacts. The tech solutions seem to have far more deleterious effects that are downstream. But I am not going to focus on population control
Nope. Population growth is not the problem, not ever. The rights of women to choose when or if they wish to have a family is the issue, and all the basic living factors that entails, like clean water and unviersal basic healthcare.
If women are given equal rights and are not facing constant precarity and imposed austerity then child infant mortality decreases dramatically, and women have fewer children. Demographers have understood this for a long time.
Grumbine is correct. The problem is the power elite exercising control and suppressing universal healthcare globally.
I believe the extreme wealth inequality, overconsumption of resources, overpopulation, and major conflicts and wars are all due to our embrace of capitalism, which in turn, is based on the false premise that we are somehow outside of "nature". In my opinion, the only ultimate cure for all these problems is the recognition of, and respect for the total interdependence of all life... actually... all things ("living" and "non-living").
India has over four times the population of the United States and yet the United States uses over two times more energy than India every year. So the standard response is that it's not really population that matters, but per capita consumption. The environmental movement largely left behind concerns about overpopulation after the fiascos with Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s and 1980s.
Now, having said that, I will also point out that the real story is far more complicated. Many people in this debate assume that the causation only runs from population to energy use, resource consumption, pollution, etc. The idea is that if you have more people, they'll be using more energy, consuming more resources, etc. But the causation is very complex and bidirectional. Changes in energy use or resource consumption, or just changes in social and economic policies that affect those two things, can also provide causal constraints on population dynamics. These would be things like shifting employment and investment from sectors like agriculture towards sectors like industry and services, promoting policies that boost labor force participation among women, and so on. Then there's also the impact of technological change, everything from improved agricultural yields to greater automation. These can also affect population dynamics. You can read Ester Bosrup for more on this stuff if you're interested. Anyway, however you slice and dice it, the general point in what I'm saying is that we shouldn't be heavily focused on population levels, but rather on all these other policies, as getting those right will mean getting the population levels right as well.
These are very complex, complicated and interconnected issues, which is why we need to "walk AND chew gum"! Especially since we are so far along in the self-extinction process, we have to address ALL these things simultaneously, and not just focus on one thing at at time. It's kinda like arguing over which limb to untie first to free someone who is tied to a railroad track with a train now in sight!
If anything, many have been warning the opposite, that Macro population may be reversing, dramatically, & the problems it will cause. For instance, China could go down to 400 million, etc., etc., etc.
I don't have the receipts of who I've read that from, over some years, I just remember it...
I don't mean elon's latest warnings, either, though he too, is...not sure what his motivations are... I mean some others, who have warned this.
I'm really interested in the idea of sortition. I find it very intriguing. With some appropriate safeguards, it seems to me that it would be a far better way to run government at all levels.
This one is actually a Macro N Cheese all-timer folks at least in my humble opinion. It deep dives into the environmental & ecological crises facing our planet & how to effectively address them. #LearnMMT #ClimateCrisis #Biodiversity
It was a great discussion Steve! Thank you for having me on!
One of my faves. We want to build on Valerism. Our team is absolutely onboard. Love that you open the door to the discussion!
My understanding of valerism is that it is a modernized extension of capitalism. If this is accurate, I fail to see how it would help anything on a sustained basis. Capitalism itself is fundamentally flawed due to its assumption that accumulation (hoarding) of wealth is something that should be protected and even encouraged. Do you use that term to describe something that is not an extensionof capitalism?
Hi Lee,
At a very high conceptual and thematic level, the fundamental difference between capitalism and valerism is that capitalism is premised on unbounded energy and resource growth whereas valersim calls for a regime of energetic stability. So in the crudest formulation possible, capitalism = growth while valerism = stability. Stability here means many things as I clarify in the book and in the interview with Steve, but primarily it means imposing dynamical constraints on energy use and resource consumption. I clarify that a valerist society should stick to an average daily per capita energy use between 30,000 to 60,000 kilocalories. That would require major changes from many Western nations that are outside of this range. Valerism also encompasses a new kind of political economy and political regime based on universal social programs and democratic control over many economic resources, new methods of industrial organization and production, and a proposal for an entirely different global order that would replace the United Nations and most of the international institutions established after World War II, which are serving the interests of corrupt elites while ignoring the democratic will of the people all over the world.
So no, valerism is not an extension of capitalism. It's meant to replace capitalism.
Thanks for the clarification. The first time I looked it up online, the definition that came up said it was an extension of capitalism. That's why I asked you about the definition you use. I am strongly against any form of capitalism, due to our innate human propensity for individual accumulation of wealth, which embracing capitalism actually encourages. Thanks again.
Is not reducing world wide population growth a big answer to/ the first imperative when working towards many questions of sustainability/ climate stablisation? and bear in mind that improvements in female education have been shown as likely to reduce population growth. Inequality is obviously an issue too, but surely reduction or diminution in population increase can only help? (this is where GDP measurements are less than helpful)
Why? Military Industrial Complex should be your focus, not stopping procreation
It is not a matter of either/or. It is a matter of needing to end the military industrial complex AND stop growing in population (and that is NOT "stopping procreation"). We could at least start urging people who live in countries where they have the luxury of not needing a large number of children to take care of them as they age, to have no more than 2 children. From any perspective... clearly there is a limit to how many humans the planet can support.
I dont see that as something I would be fighting for. I would be more inclined to focus on eliminating known modes of production that have all kinds of downstream impacts. The tech solutions seem to have far more deleterious effects that are downstream. But I am not going to focus on population control
Nope. Population growth is not the problem, not ever. The rights of women to choose when or if they wish to have a family is the issue, and all the basic living factors that entails, like clean water and unviersal basic healthcare.
If women are given equal rights and are not facing constant precarity and imposed austerity then child infant mortality decreases dramatically, and women have fewer children. Demographers have understood this for a long time.
Grumbine is correct. The problem is the power elite exercising control and suppressing universal healthcare globally.
I believe the extreme wealth inequality, overconsumption of resources, overpopulation, and major conflicts and wars are all due to our embrace of capitalism, which in turn, is based on the false premise that we are somehow outside of "nature". In my opinion, the only ultimate cure for all these problems is the recognition of, and respect for the total interdependence of all life... actually... all things ("living" and "non-living").
Hi Eudoxia,
India has over four times the population of the United States and yet the United States uses over two times more energy than India every year. So the standard response is that it's not really population that matters, but per capita consumption. The environmental movement largely left behind concerns about overpopulation after the fiascos with Paul Ehrlich in the 1970s and 1980s.
Now, having said that, I will also point out that the real story is far more complicated. Many people in this debate assume that the causation only runs from population to energy use, resource consumption, pollution, etc. The idea is that if you have more people, they'll be using more energy, consuming more resources, etc. But the causation is very complex and bidirectional. Changes in energy use or resource consumption, or just changes in social and economic policies that affect those two things, can also provide causal constraints on population dynamics. These would be things like shifting employment and investment from sectors like agriculture towards sectors like industry and services, promoting policies that boost labor force participation among women, and so on. Then there's also the impact of technological change, everything from improved agricultural yields to greater automation. These can also affect population dynamics. You can read Ester Bosrup for more on this stuff if you're interested. Anyway, however you slice and dice it, the general point in what I'm saying is that we shouldn't be heavily focused on population levels, but rather on all these other policies, as getting those right will mean getting the population levels right as well.
These are very complex, complicated and interconnected issues, which is why we need to "walk AND chew gum"! Especially since we are so far along in the self-extinction process, we have to address ALL these things simultaneously, and not just focus on one thing at at time. It's kinda like arguing over which limb to untie first to free someone who is tied to a railroad track with a train now in sight!
If anything, many have been warning the opposite, that Macro population may be reversing, dramatically, & the problems it will cause. For instance, China could go down to 400 million, etc., etc., etc.
I don't have the receipts of who I've read that from, over some years, I just remember it...
I don't mean elon's latest warnings, either, though he too, is...not sure what his motivations are... I mean some others, who have warned this.
This was great.... loved it!
I'm really interested in the idea of sortition. I find it very intriguing. With some appropriate safeguards, it seems to me that it would be a far better way to run government at all levels.
This one is actually a Macro N Cheese all-timer folks at least in my humble opinion. It deep dives into the environmental & ecological crises facing our planet & how to effectively address them. #LearnMMT #ClimateCrisis #Biodiversity