I would certainly argue that there should be a minimum access to resources for everyone. I would go further and argue there should be a maximum too.
I may be being quite literalistic here, but I'd always assumed equality meant, well, equality. That is, everyone having the same amount. If you have a minimum and a maximum (assuming they're far enough apart for those to be meaningful descriptions) then you still have inequality.
As for "shiny things", the whole point of having them is that not everybody has them. Take gold - it's the quintessential "shiny thing", but it's not actually particularly useful for anything other than ornamentation, and plenty of other cheaper materials are just as good at looking nice (better, if you're not particularly fond of yellowy-orange). Gold's value and desirability - it's "shiny thingness" - comes entirely from its rarity. If you could magically give everyone on the planet a hundred kilograms of gold the only effect it would have would be to make gold worthless - that is, no longer a "shiny thing".
I would certainly argue that there should be a minimum access to resources for everyone. I would go further and argue there should be a maximum too.
I may be being quite literalistic here, but I'd always assumed equality meant, well, equality. That is, everyone having the same amount. If you have a minimum and a maximum (assuming they're far enough apart for those to be meaningful descriptions) then you still have inequality.
Well, I'm glad to have cleared that up for you. No socialists I know have ever denied that differences will exist. What we are objecting to is the situation where some starve while others live with a super-abundance of resources. Taxing those with a super-abundance has never meant reducing them to the level of paupers: that is deliberate fallacy put out by those who want to keep everything for themselves, and I'm sorry that you seem to have believed them, rather than ask an actual socialist before now.
Take gold - it's the quintessential "shiny thing", but it's not actually particularly useful for anything other than ornamentation, and plenty of other cheaper materials are just as good at looking nice (better, if you're not particularly fond of yellowy-orange).
Gold is quite useful for electronic contacts, because it doesn't tarnish. I have a handful of other uses for Gold that don't rely on its rarity value.
Seems like the doughnut economic system isn't an economic theory, but rather a set of policy aims.
It says nothing about how the processes of production, consumption and trade work, but only comments on the ends that government economic policy ought to serve.
Seems like the doughnut economic system isn't an economic theory, but rather a set of policy aims.
It says nothing about how the processes of production, consumption and trade work, but only comments on the ends that government economic policy ought to serve.
Am I missing something ?
Actually, not really. Again, I should really reread the book, but I often get disappointed by essays like this: they lay out the problems very well, but the section on solutions is threadbare and nebulous. I remember seizing on _Wild Hope_ by Tom Sine. First half, excellent. Second half, didn't really say anything.
I think the implicit conclusions, that we are borrowing from the future to pay for the present, and have been doing so for the better part of two centuries, have been well made out. And also that the only way to contract our environmental overspend into what is sustainable (without overcontracting into personal poverty) is by deliberately limiting our use of resources to that which can be renewed.
How we do that without resorting to ecofascism is going to be an interesting problem, but it is perfectly clear that business-as-usual, unending growth, unregulated capitalism is right out.
Seems like the doughnut economic system isn't an economic theory, but rather a set of policy aims.
It says nothing about how the processes of production, consumption and trade work, but only comments on the ends that government economic policy ought to serve.
Am I missing something ?
Actually, not really. Again, I should really reread the book, but I often get disappointed by essays like this: they lay out the problems very well, but the section on solutions is threadbare and nebulous.
I agree.
I think the implicit conclusions, that we are borrowing from the future to pay for the present, and have been doing so for the better part of two centuries, have been well made out. And also that the only way to contract our environmental overspend into what is sustainable (without overcontracting into personal poverty) is by deliberately limiting our use of resources to that which can be renewed.
How we do that without resorting to ecofascism is going to be an interesting problem, but it is perfectly clear that business-as-usual, unending growth, unregulated capitalism is right out.
I see only three ways this all ends:
We carry on much as we are now, the climate is radically changed, a significant extinction event, loss of resources, generally a very bad time had by a lot of people.
It's possible this would eventually result in drastic lifestyle changes for everyone in order to better share the remaining resources, but I think it far more likely that the powerful nations would simply do what they could to hold on to as much as they can of their standard of living at the expense of everywhere else. A new Age of Empires with a handful of countries dividing up the rest of the globe between themselves in order to claim its resources for their own.
Ecofascism - the antidemocratic imposition of ecologically-friendly policies whether people like them or not. Would have to be worldwide - or at least encompassing all economically and politically powerful nations - to be effective. Would be worse than 1 for people in powerful nations, and probably about the same as 1 (Age of Empires version) for everyone else.
Technological change to enable most people to keep (or even improve) their current standard of living but with a far smaller carbon footprint. Barring completely new technologies I don't know about, this will have to mean far greater use of electricity in transportation and heating, with greatly improved power transmission/battery capability and electricity generation featuring significantly more renewable energy sources as well as nuclear power.
My preferred option would be 3, and I suspect that would also be the case for most people here. A lot of the required technology already exists or is in development, and it requires only the political will (read: resistance to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, and the willingness to cover a few beauty spots with wind turbines/dams/solar panels) to make it happen.
I'm not entirely convinced the dam solution is that fantastic, having seen the ecological damage down stream from, e.g. the Aswan dam. I suspect we'll find out when we've done it quite how much damage some of the other options really cause.
Seems like the doughnut economic system isn't an economic theory, but rather a set of policy aims.
It says nothing about how the processes of production, consumption and trade work, but only comments on the ends that government economic policy ought to serve.
Am I missing something ?
Yes, you're missing that the policy aims is the whole point. The question is, in a particular situation which of those aims are most important, and what do you do to reach those aims? It's the job of the local community to identify the aims they need to meet - for some it might be reducing the impact of local industry on the immediate environment, for others making sure all the children get decent schooling. And, then for the same community to work out how to reach those aims. There's not going to be a single "one size fits all" solution imposed by outside experts, but multiple solutions each devised by those who would have to implement it (with advice from relevant experts as needed and wanted).
If you want to see it in action, look at Amsterdam over the next few years. How it works out there is an outcome of the city government and people designing something they hope will reach their policy aims, and bring the city inside the green zone of the doughnut. But, what works in Amsterdam wouldn't automatically work in Brussels, much less in London or other cities and communities that are very different from Amsterdam.
Comments
I may be being quite literalistic here, but I'd always assumed equality meant, well, equality. That is, everyone having the same amount. If you have a minimum and a maximum (assuming they're far enough apart for those to be meaningful descriptions) then you still have inequality.
As for "shiny things", the whole point of having them is that not everybody has them. Take gold - it's the quintessential "shiny thing", but it's not actually particularly useful for anything other than ornamentation, and plenty of other cheaper materials are just as good at looking nice (better, if you're not particularly fond of yellowy-orange). Gold's value and desirability - it's "shiny thingness" - comes entirely from its rarity. If you could magically give everyone on the planet a hundred kilograms of gold the only effect it would have would be to make gold worthless - that is, no longer a "shiny thing".
Well, I'm glad to have cleared that up for you. No socialists I know have ever denied that differences will exist. What we are objecting to is the situation where some starve while others live with a super-abundance of resources. Taxing those with a super-abundance has never meant reducing them to the level of paupers: that is deliberate fallacy put out by those who want to keep everything for themselves, and I'm sorry that you seem to have believed them, rather than ask an actual socialist before now.
Gold is quite useful for electronic contacts, because it doesn't tarnish. I have a handful of other uses for Gold that don't rely on its rarity value.
It says nothing about how the processes of production, consumption and trade work, but only comments on the ends that government economic policy ought to serve.
Am I missing something ?
I suppose you could sprinkle this on a doughnut if you really wanted to.
Actually, not really. Again, I should really reread the book, but I often get disappointed by essays like this: they lay out the problems very well, but the section on solutions is threadbare and nebulous. I remember seizing on _Wild Hope_ by Tom Sine. First half, excellent. Second half, didn't really say anything.
I think the implicit conclusions, that we are borrowing from the future to pay for the present, and have been doing so for the better part of two centuries, have been well made out. And also that the only way to contract our environmental overspend into what is sustainable (without overcontracting into personal poverty) is by deliberately limiting our use of resources to that which can be renewed.
How we do that without resorting to ecofascism is going to be an interesting problem, but it is perfectly clear that business-as-usual, unending growth, unregulated capitalism is right out.
I agree.
I see only three ways this all ends:
It's possible this would eventually result in drastic lifestyle changes for everyone in order to better share the remaining resources, but I think it far more likely that the powerful nations would simply do what they could to hold on to as much as they can of their standard of living at the expense of everywhere else. A new Age of Empires with a handful of countries dividing up the rest of the globe between themselves in order to claim its resources for their own.
My preferred option would be 3, and I suspect that would also be the case for most people here. A lot of the required technology already exists or is in development, and it requires only the political will (read: resistance to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, and the willingness to cover a few beauty spots with wind turbines/dams/solar panels) to make it happen.
If you want to see it in action, look at Amsterdam over the next few years. How it works out there is an outcome of the city government and people designing something they hope will reach their policy aims, and bring the city inside the green zone of the doughnut. But, what works in Amsterdam wouldn't automatically work in Brussels, much less in London or other cities and communities that are very different from Amsterdam.