A systems theory approach is an opposite of a reductionist approach. From Wikipedia ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Complex_system ) :
> The study of complex systems regards collective, or system-wide, behaviors as the fundamental object of study; for this reason, complex systems can be understood as an alternative paradigm to reductionism, which attempts to explain systems in terms of their constituent parts and the individual interactions between them.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/4615/whats-th...
The World3 model of the MIT study is just a set of 149 differential-algebraic equations [1]. The output of the model (population, industrial output, etc.) is mathematically a composition of simpler parts. They are saying that the earth is a very complex system but these four or five variables can be explained by these bunch of equations that represent basic processes. To me, that is reductionism.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147466701...
That sounds very much like what FA Hayek called “the presence of knowledge” and warned us of in his 1974 Nobel acceptance speech [1]. Maybe you are an Austrian after all. ;)
1. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1974/hay...
That being said, it is equally true that very few people who study economics actually ask basic questions about how and why economic growth occurs. Economic growth is just energy consumption. That is it (whether humans burning food or oil or gas or whatever, the industrial revolution was about unlocking energy for production...note, this plays no role in Solow growth). And if you build a system which is unable to improve efficiency than that process is logically finite (but, as in paragraph one, no-one knows how finite...you can do all the computer simulations you want, no-one knows...a good example of this is shale oil, Russia has unfathomably large resources of shale oil...everyone knew it was there but it didn't matter until fracking, peak oil was a mania).
So I don't think anyone is really asking the right questions. It is really simple: do we want free energy? Do we want to improve the efficiency of our energy use? Even if climate change wasn't happening, we would need to look at solar/wind/whatever (and, hopefully, this will lead to a new industrial revolution). Imo, population control is also important. We can improve energy use but population will just grow to fill the space (and part of the problem is here actually poor quality elder care and weak pension systems caused by low savings rates). Obv, population control isn't popular anymore but...it makes sense once you understand economic growth.
Energy and resources are force multipliers for that human, so making more energy available increases what someone can do.
There is also an organisational aspect in there: A better organized group can do more with resources and reach more resources for the same amount of human time. A human's time is more valuable if the human has a more centralized location an an organisation.
I look at psychologists, hookers, priests as people who sell basically their attention for emotional needs. Not much energy or resources in those transactions, but very lucrative. At the other end of the spectrum is the sun, dumping tons of energy on us, mostly worthless until humans organize the power.
More people than before getting a car inherently requires an increase in consumption of energy and resources as car manufacturing needs to grow; but more people getting access to a Netflix series does not; if people use larger cars then it requires an increase in consumption of energy and resources, but iPhone 12 mini is much better than the original first iPhone and meets more needs while requiring about the same energy and resources.
With a product like Netflix, is that the result of greater productivity? Did Netflix invent some kind of new food that meant humans who made the films or created the website could work twenty hour days for the same wage? The innovation was cutting out other parts of the distribution chain, not more efficient energy usage.
It isn't about more stuff either but more inputs. And there has been a significant increase in energy capture (I was talking about a far larger timescale, but this is over the 20th century) but there has been a larger increase in inputs (and a small increase in efficiency, although one that continues to compound), that is why climate change is occurring. Intangibles are neither here nor there because humans still expend calories (real solar energy) to produce those intangibles.
To say this another way, the value of an intangible product is (usually) closely related to the productivity of other parts of the economy. A film in Mauritanian street market is not worth as much a film on the Apple Store in the US. That elides the point that growth either comes from growth in inputs, or growth in efficiency of input usage (the increase in energy capture is, I think, efficiency...but it is usually not what people are thinking of when they think about efficiency).
The IUD in my gf says otherwise. What forms of population control did you have in mind? (And where are you in the queue?)
Individually humans are hard to predict... but a flock of humans might not be so hard to predict :)
That said: it's easy to underestimate the power of economics. Once natural resources becomes expensive, we'll find ways to minimize, recycle and migrate to renewable resources.
The biggest risk is if we don't limit pollution.
I wonder this a lot myself, but how could we see it without Aeons of data? Will we survive ourselves long enough to find out?
What ideas made you change your view?
Ex: People were predicting Peak Oil is the end of our civilisation. Turns out there is plenty of oil deep in the seabed if you are willing to pay $100 per barrel. In turn, $100 barrel push hard on consumers to use more efficient vehicles.
Market prices are a powerful signal that causes everyone to adapt.
The Malthusian (doom scrolling) impulse is stronger than ever. I feel happier not subscribing to the “end of the world” views that are prevalent everywhere.
It reminds me of a lot of theory papers you see in the likes of the Journal of Finance where they start by saying, "This is how x works (given this large list of constraints or ignoring this large list of variables)" which makes it completely unrealistic.
There are two general approaches that lead me there: the utilitarian and the ethical.
The utilitarian approach: I see lots of government interventions that, while allegedly well-meant, end up causing more harm than good. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff for a couple of examples of clearly economically counterproductive policies that governments nevertheless engage in again and again; lots more are less clear but just as bad. Some of these are due to special interests somehow convincing the government, or voters, that the policy is net beneficial or virtuous or something, when it actually enriches the special interests at the expense of others. Some terrible policies are just due to naivete or lack of caring—and those who suffer from the policies not being a sufficiently well-organized political force to stop it. Others have more complicated explanations.
The common thread I see is, these are policies imposed by force on nonconsenting people. (The "social contract" theory is a rationalization that doesn't pass basic scrutiny. When a person opposes a policy and votes against it, and then 60% of the other inhabitants vote in favor of it, you can't meaningfully claim that the person has "consented" to the policy; that's not how contracts work. It's even less tenable when the votes are for politicians, who make decisions years later on issues that didn't exist at the time the votes were cast.) When those policies cause suffering to some people, it doesn't matter—they can't do anything about it, so the policy remains. Well, occasionally the suffering group is better at politics than whoever created the policy, but often they're not.
A question is, if these policies are so good, why do they have to be imposed by force? After all, if, for example, a policy would benefit three people by $100 worth and harm someone else for $50 worth, one could arrange for the three to each give, say, $30 to the fourth person, and then it would be +$70 for each of the three and +$40 for the fourth—i.e. it's net positive to everyone, and then it could be done voluntarily. (It might not happen in practice due to transaction costs, or if someone else holds out for a better deal, but one would expect something like it to happen eventually.) Every net-positive policy could be implemented voluntarily. The only policies that absolutely require force are those that are net-negative. Sounds like an excellent heuristic for policies to forbid. Only allow policies that are voluntarily agreed to by everyone involved.
Transaction costs are not zero (although technology tends to reduce them), and there are some things where a force-based approach looks simpler and more workable. And there are certainly hard problems—how to fund public goods and what to do when someone doesn't want to pay, how to have a stable society with multiple competing private police forces. Various people have proposed solutions; I suspect that at least some of them could be made to work tolerably well, and I think experimentation plus further technological development will make some of them clearly better than state-based alternatives.
I wouldn't advocate tearing down every government in the world today to switch to anarcho-capitalism. I do think it's a goal they should all approach, and that many of the paths in that direction (i.e. reducing government interventions) are obviously net-positive. (There do exist some policy kludges to make other policies less harmful, and if you canceled the kludges but kept the original harmful policies, you could be net-negative; you do have to be somewhat intelligent about it.) Some problems might not have anarcho-capitalist solutions that could be implemented today; some might never have them, I can't rule out the possibility. But I suspect it can be done; and anyway, if we only manage to cancel 95% of harmful government interventions and conclude we can't remove the last 5%, that'll still be a great achievement.
The ethical approach is this: The non-aggression principle. Physical force is immoral unless it is used to defend against or punish the aggressive use of force. You do need a concept of property and a notion of what counts as "force", but that's basically it; I think an ethical system has to be a Schelling point, which everyone might agree to without needing to communicate let alone negotiate, and I haven't encountered anything else nearly as good as this one. Anyway, it follows that all government interventions either involve aggressive force, and are thus immoral, or else they could be implemented by private parties.
Now, ethics aren't necessarily to be obeyed absolutely. Pretty much any ethical system will tell you that murder is wrong. But you can imagine scenarios where, say, someone with godlike foresight perceiving what Hitler was going to turn into when Hitler was still a child, and deciding to kill him first. (Somewhat more realistic are trolley problems and organ donor problems. Also genuinely realistic is a whistleblower engaging in stealing, lying, and possibly worse behaviors to exfiltrate the data. If the data is important enough, how far do you go?) My take is, the law must forbid such things—the law must be ethical—but individuals might rationally decide to step outside the law in extreme circumstances. When they do, they should bear in mind that (a) they now have no right to complain when good people use force to stop or punish them, and (b) ethical violations generally have bad second-order effects ("So, does that mean the guy with five healthy organs should expect the doctor to try to murder him, and therefore he should incapacitate the doctor first and skip town?"); but it's not impossible to conclude that breaking the law is still the best approach.
So, it's possible that a grossly unethical legal system—one which routinely violates the non-aggression principle—is the best choice in a tough situation. (Earth is a tough situation.) But there'd better be a damn good reason for each violation—which I expect there usually isn't. The violations should be scrutinized, and unjustified ones should be eliminated, as quickly as possible. We probably won't eliminate everything—any more than we can bring the murder rate to zero (and the most salient proposed societies with zero crime are dystopias)—but, again, every step in that direction is a good one, so let's go as far as possible.
I do not feel easy about your comment. Sure the Austrian School describes a comprehensive model which might give you feelings of being able to describe the world, yet it might be a model towards self-destruction?
The term doesn't make much sense, it was likely coined by people who do not understand our economic system. Capitalism never went away, it's the dominant system we live in now and have for centuries. There isn't anything "neo" about today's capitalists.
As for some of the promoters of Austrian school teachings I agree with you they aren't the most charitable types, however the theory itself just looks at the economic system the way it works - there's actually less social judgement in Austrian school thought than other economic schools. Which is why it's less popular. A rational and neutral approach when it comes to macroeconomics does not have mass appeal.
Individuals are motivated primarily by self-interest. Within a family people are strongly charitable, within a neighborhood (tribe) somewhat helpful, and beyond that altruism cannot be relied on to power the system forwards. Any system that relies on people to be altruistic to strangers is doomed to failure. Instead, you should create systems where people, by acting in their own self interest, help the larger society.
Capitalism is emergent phenomena - where you ban markets, they spring up organically. This occurs even in the most socialist / communist systems such as Cuba and North Korea. Markets allow people to agree voluntarily to prices based on their own subjective opinions of value.
Within any society that isn't forcing everyone to be perfectly equal by threat of death, differences in wealth naturally emerge. Over time they become pronounced. It is impossible to end inequality without coercion - some people naturally value their leisure time over being productive, and it is unfair to coerce someone to artificially reduce their productivity. There is no such thing as economic equality in any meaningful sense, only equality under the law.
> Ludwig von Mises called the book the best introduction to the Austrian School of economics
And in analogy to this, I am very optimistic about the future, because the resources are indeed infinite, because the human ingenuity is infinite. There is no peak oil. There is no peak food. There is no peak climate. There is no water. It's all bullshit doomer porn.
We had a world war less than a century ago that killed around 80 million people. Did it end the world? No, but it ended the world for 80 million people.
So yes, you might be right that the world won't end from any of these scenarios.... but a lot of people might die horrible deaths, and I don't want me or my loved ones to be among them.
The follow-on effects of the resulting refugee crisis are hard to predict, but likely won't be pretty.
Human ingenuity is impressive, but not infinite. I recommend Collapse by Jared Diamond. It's a long read, but every single society he examines thought they were doing great but ended up eating each other (literally) within a couple of generations once some vital resource dried up. Human ingenuity failed all of them.
I'll give you peak oil: our ingenuity is already finding viable alternative energy solutions. But climate change is going to destabilise so much more - food, water, land, security - that I'm pessimistic that our civilisation will last more than a few generations.
So far we've only discovered more positive feedback (e.g. methane from melting Siberia), when we desperately need strong negative feedback. A bit like Covid, where everyone assumed the ingenious new vaccines would get us back to normal in a couple of months, but mutations, politics and social dynamics mean we're still very much on the back foot.
But hey, I'm 60 and still a lefty so obviously no brain and just a bullshit doomer :) But do grab a copy of Collapse, there are a lot of "whoa!" insights and it's a fascinating read.
Societies have collapsed for reasons other then resource scarcity. In fact I'd say more often they collapse for reasons other then resource scarcity.
I don't think the Mayans ran out of anything. Neither do I believe the Romans ran out of anything.
My guess? The professional political/priestly/mid-level manager class gaining self serving control and cannibalizing productive (and competitive) capacity is a very common cause of collapse.
We see it on a smaller scale in companies real time.
Is this true? I thought it was drought and deforestation and over-farming that sped up the Mayan decline and that soil erosion and exhaustion and agricultural decline aided in the fall of Rome.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/0...
You could probably say the same about Rome. Once everyone in the empire could out-Legionary the Romans (the provinces were the main source of military might anyway at this point), sending tribute suddenly became a bit of a waste of time. Any disruption can trigger a chain of revolts. A revolt could be armed, or a soft revolt where the locals start acting like feudal lords and claim it's necessary to keep the peace.
Societies collapse from social factors, not just resource scarcity and social factors are in my opinion a more common cause. War, internal conflict, and political instability.
And my favorite theory, the rise of parasitic and short sighted bureaucracies which snuff out the creative and competitive impulse of a culture.
This is a bit moot, considering that resource scarcity is a very, very good reason for societal collapse, as well as potential a root cause of other reasons you cite for societal collapse, and resource scarcity is exactly what we are beginning to experience.
Perhaps you should... fuck, I don't even know. All of this information is completely free and accessible and nobody gives a single fuck because they think they're smarter.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/24/kiribati-and-c...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-maldives/w...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maldives-environment/mald...
I had a fried who read Von Mises’ Human Action and he labeled me as a neo-Malthusian . And, according to his “school of thought”, my understanding of the world and economics incorrect. We had many interesting discussions about what we thought we knew.
Now I’m in my 30s and my thought has changed drastically. I believe that reductionist (materialistic) approaches to analyze human endeavor are misguided. There is a bit of hubris in thinking that a computer simulation can predict the entirety of human action. I am definitely not suscribed to the Austrian school of thought, however.