This speaks for itself, and we have only ourselves to blame.
American Totalism: Technology, Economy, and Nationality (steadystate.org)
It's past time for a new paradigm. Tick-tock.
......................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2020
Thursday, September 24, 2020
"What is the Bioeconomy?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/7/691/htm
Via a scholarly review of over 450 journal articles, the piece at the link above identifies and discusses three approaches or "visions" of the bioeconomy:
1) a bio-Tech vision;
2) a bio-resource vision; and,
3) a bio-ecology vision.
Two or more of these different approaches sometimes are implemented in combination with each other. As you might surmise, the first two are primarily concerned with technological "fixes". The bio-ecology approach is, in my opinion, the closest to the view of Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of bioeconomics.
Despite early theoretical work done in this discipline, the more recent research has evolved in such a way as to attract a broad range of sciences, and a heavy technological flavor. To have a significant, long-term, and global impact on future human endeavors, Bioeconomics needs to further identify its scope and purpose, and its adherents need to consider the following.
Our primary focus should not be more technological fixes, but rather, the adoption of Ecoethics and striving to live within our means (as aggregate humanity). The elephant in the room is Unlimited Growth. It's not sustainable... period.
...........................
Not only my opinion. Be Well
Friday, August 14, 2020
Ignoring Uncomfortable Knowledge
Preface
There's a popular term, the "circular economy", making the rounds in the economic arena and in the halls of policy making... especially in Europe, a region in the forefront of the search for sustainability. Proponents of the circular economy appear to be on the cusp of finalizing a concept which seems to provide a solution to the vexing problem of saving the ecosphere, the technosphere, the economies of the world, and society in general. As my father used to say, however, "Hold your horses... not yet.".
............................
Uncomfortable Knowledge
While the "circular" economists acknowledge the dependence of the economy on biophysical elements/flows, they simultaneously ignore the fact that those same elements are subject to thermodynamic constraints. Their solution to any problems encountered is to: 1) "decouple" the economy from natural resources; and, 2) to rely on technology, human genius, and the magic of the Market to do so. In part, such thinking is based on the following.
The agricultural "Green Revolution" increased world food production exponentially in the late 1960's. That was due mostly to the development of high-yielding cereal grain crops, and from the petrochemical industry, the development of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides.
In addition to the concept of entropy, the uncomfortable knowledge being ignored by proponents of the circular economy are the following facts.
1) Agricultural and urban/suburban runoff of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers has caused massive eutrophication of bodies of fresh water, thus depleting them of oxygen and essentially killing all life in them.
2) Synthetic pesticide use has had disastrous results over the decades on both nonhuman and human life.
3) Synthetic fertilizers have caused a significant negative impact on soil structure, resulting in increased soil erosion in many places.
In other words, using the ag green revolution to encourage reliance on technology, human ingenuity, and the Market to solve social-ecological problems is not a good idea. It totally ignores the downside of that revolution, and all the downside is not even fully known yet.
For a full (& brilliant) discussion of this topic, see this journal article---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120302033 ,
From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy.
For anyone studying the crisis in economics, it's a must-read.
..............................
Conclusion
It seems to me that mainstream/neoliberal economists are attempting to repackage their economics as even more "circular" than before, and now "green" as well. The problem is that they're still promoting unlimited growth and overconsumption. Meanwhile, our life support systems on Spaceship Earth continue to be negatively impacted. The "new" circular economy being proposed will not stop that. And by the way, tick-tock. Time is getting short.
.............................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
There's a popular term, the "circular economy", making the rounds in the economic arena and in the halls of policy making... especially in Europe, a region in the forefront of the search for sustainability. Proponents of the circular economy appear to be on the cusp of finalizing a concept which seems to provide a solution to the vexing problem of saving the ecosphere, the technosphere, the economies of the world, and society in general. As my father used to say, however, "Hold your horses... not yet.".
............................
Uncomfortable Knowledge
While the "circular" economists acknowledge the dependence of the economy on biophysical elements/flows, they simultaneously ignore the fact that those same elements are subject to thermodynamic constraints. Their solution to any problems encountered is to: 1) "decouple" the economy from natural resources; and, 2) to rely on technology, human genius, and the magic of the Market to do so. In part, such thinking is based on the following.
The agricultural "Green Revolution" increased world food production exponentially in the late 1960's. That was due mostly to the development of high-yielding cereal grain crops, and from the petrochemical industry, the development of synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides.
In addition to the concept of entropy, the uncomfortable knowledge being ignored by proponents of the circular economy are the following facts.
1) Agricultural and urban/suburban runoff of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers has caused massive eutrophication of bodies of fresh water, thus depleting them of oxygen and essentially killing all life in them.
2) Synthetic pesticide use has had disastrous results over the decades on both nonhuman and human life.
3) Synthetic fertilizers have caused a significant negative impact on soil structure, resulting in increased soil erosion in many places.
In other words, using the ag green revolution to encourage reliance on technology, human ingenuity, and the Market to solve social-ecological problems is not a good idea. It totally ignores the downside of that revolution, and all the downside is not even fully known yet.
For a full (& brilliant) discussion of this topic, see this journal article---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901120302033 ,
From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy.
For anyone studying the crisis in economics, it's a must-read.
..............................
Conclusion
It seems to me that mainstream/neoliberal economists are attempting to repackage their economics as even more "circular" than before, and now "green" as well. The problem is that they're still promoting unlimited growth and overconsumption. Meanwhile, our life support systems on Spaceship Earth continue to be negatively impacted. The "new" circular economy being proposed will not stop that. And by the way, tick-tock. Time is getting short.
.............................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)