23 May 2005
ABUNDANCE ECONOMICS: Design Science’s more with less advantaging has proven the Malthus dictated scarcity ethic, which is the working assumption of the world’s major states, is fallacious. The scarcity ethic dictates that there is not enough of the World’s resources to go around; Design Science’s abundance ethic/economics frame of reference dictates that there is enough for everyone if we utilize the Earth’s resources comprehensively and anticipatorily.
R. Buckminster Fuller, ‘The World Design Science Decade’ (PDF 3.8mb)
I was extremely lucky whilst at art school to have a lecturer, Keith Critchlow, who worked with Buckminster Fuller and who introduced me to the ideas of Fuller and who even got me involved in working on designing and building geodesic domes and other, even more daring design conceptions. And although I had problems with Fuller’s technocratic approach, he most definately convinced me that there is no problem that we, as a species, can’t overcome given that we collaborate on finding solutions, the operative word of course being collaborate.
Partly, I think it’s because it’s an appealing hypothesis insofar as it appears to fit the insanity of capitalist over-production. Second, it also appears to fit the ‘oil wars’ hypothesis but as I have pointed out innumerable times before, imperialism has been going to war over oil resources for well over a century. Oil is after all, the lubricant of the capitalist economy; without a relatively cheap source of oil not merely for energy but pretty well everything else – from packaging to fertilisers – there can be no endless expansion of production, the raison d’etre of capitalism.
But oil is only part of the story. We have, ever since the technological revolution kicked off in the 18th century, been producing more and more of just about everything, with less and less. One need only compare the amounts of energy, materials and labour used to produce say a telephone one hundred years ago and what is needed today, to see that the vast increases in the efficiency of production should have resulted in enormous gains for all humanity.
MORE WITH LESS: The comprehensive, anticipatory, design science capability to effect greater resource performance per each pound, kilowatt and man hour of invested resources. All World Game strategies deal with ways of doing more with less for the entire planet in such a manner as to effect the total success of total humanity in the quickest and most eternal way possible. The comprehensive, recirculation of all chemical constituents of resources involved results in a more with less resource utilization. For example, each time copper is scrapped, melted down, and re-cycled, it is re-employed at a higher rate of efficiency. The first copper telephone wires carried one message per wire, subsequent more with less improvements carried 2, then 4, 16, 250, then in the thousands, and now with the satellites, it’s gone wireless. From millions of tons of copper to next to no tons of copper. From visible to invisible.
(R. Buckminster Fuller’s ‘World Game’).
It should come as no surprise then, that the surplus has been appropriated by the capitalist classes of the developed economies who have grown wealthier and wealthier even as the bulk of the planet’s population have gotten poorer and poorer.
Those who disagree with me will no doubt argue that even if this is so, there is a finite amount of oil, so that sooner or later, the wells will run dry. The guru of the ‘peak oil’ hypothesis informs us that next year we hit the peak of the ‘Bell Curve’, that from that point on, production will get progressively lower, and that all the major sources of oil have been explored and exploited to their max. But even assuming that this is so, just as with the switch from wood to coal and from coal to oil, alternative sources of energy will be found, for example gas, solar, wind, tidal, hydro or whatever. And just as importantly, without a rational approach to the use of resources that benefit all of humanity, no amount of technological advance will solve the problems we confront as a species.
The issue is therefore, not about running out of oil anymore than it is about running out of any other raw material, but how it gets used and here we see the real issues emerge and why the leading capitalist economies refuse to address global warming and climate change, let alone the increasing immiseration of the majority of the world’s poor. Because in order to address these issues means getting rid of capitalism, period. Therefore, the ‘peak oil’ hypothesis does not address this fundamental issue, anymore than the vast increases in the efficiency of food production have addressed the issue of starvation.
The ‘population explosion’ myth is closely associated with ‘peak oil’ because it stems from the same ideology. Indeed, the prime movers for population control in what was then called the Third World, was the Club of Rome, the World Bank and individuals such as Robert McNamara who is worth quoting once again:
“…There are only two possible ways in which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly. Or the current death rates must go up. “There is no other way. “There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a thermonuclear age, war can accomplish it very quickly and decisively. Famine and disease are nature’s ancient checks on population growth, and neither one has disappeared from the scene… “To put it simply: Excessive population growth is the greatest single obstacle to the economic and social advancement of most of the societies in the developing world.”
– Robert McNamara, Oct. 2, 1979
One person wrote me and told me that we have reached the limits of the planet’s ability to support so many people, citing the ‘per capita energy consumption’ idea. Nice phrase isn’t it, ‘per capita energy consumption’, it sounds so authoritative and ‘scientific’ that surely it must be true, after all scientists know what’s going on, don’t they?
It also assumes that there are no alternatives to oil. And third, long before we chow all the sources of fossil fuels on the planet, unless we do something about greenhouse gases, we’ll all drown and/or overheat. So no doubt, the unrestrained use of fossil fuels is madness, but not because we’re ‘running out’ of the stuff but because of climate change and the fact that the West is waging war on the planet in order to control energy sources for wasteful capitalist economies as well as for the armies and weapons needed to maintain that control.
Frankly, it’s bollocks, absolute, total bollocks to raise the issue of what level of development the Indians or, for that matter, any other developing country should achieve. It’s racist, elitist, arrogant, and none of our damn business!
“As far as overpopulation is concerned, it is a fact. What people in the past complaining about overpopulation missed was the energy subsidy which made that overpopulation possible. We are living on millions of years of concentrated sunlight. That cheap energy has made population overshoot possible and when fuel becomes really expensive, there will be hell to pay.”
First, we are still living on sunlight and as long as there’s a nice, yellow sun in the sky, we shall continue to do so. The Earth is actually a net gainer of energy (or anti-entropic, as we’re in a ‘scientific’ frame of mind today), even if only about 2% of it is actually retained and used in photosynthesis (the rest is reflected back into space or not converted via photosynthesis into plants and animals, just converted directly into heat, but even here, it plays an important role in the various cycles including the weather, the nitrogen and carbon dioxide cycles and so on) and points to just how much of the stuff (energy that is) the sun pours out 24/7/365! Current estimates put it at ‘running out’ in about 4 billion years so we’re roughly halfway there, so are we at the top of the Sun’s ‘Bell Curve’ too?
Second, ‘overpopulation’ is not in any way connected to how much ‘concentrated’ sunlight there is. Indeed, I refuse to recognise that there is such an animal, I merely ask that those who tout the ‘carrying capacity’ stuff to give us a number that is not too much for the planet to ‘carry’? I will be told that there is only so much nitrogen available for plant production (fertilisers etc), which is true but, most plant production (grains etc) is used for raising beef, the most inefficient converter of sunlight into food that there is. So get rid of hamburgers, something that won’t happen unless we get rid of capitalism. Moreover, the switch from indigenous food production to beef for export is one of the major causes of poverty in the developing world, yet again pointing to the role of capitalist economics in distorting the entire relationship between production and consumption.
A writer informed me in response to my reply to his letter:
You ask that I don’t get “taken in” by “pseudo-scientific buzzwords”, yet I know for a fact that “carrying capacity” and “per capita energy consumption” are genuine technical terms used in many sciences, with definitions I can readily grasp and apply constructively to my mental models of reality.
Carrying capacity is a term taken from ecologists and doesn’t apply to animals like us who can change their environment and who don’t depend (directly at least) on a fine balance between different species for their survival. That’s why I term it a buzzword, because for anyone not familiar with its context, it sounds eminently reasonable.
Fact: Just to reproduce the existing population, two children per ‘family’ per generation need to be born.
‘Over-population’ (actually an increase) was not made possible by cheap energy but by a falling death-rate due to medical advances (something that is currently being reversed due in no small part to the West’s policy of ‘structural adjustment’). Fuel for the great mass of the planet’s population is still wood and animal doo-doo, so there is simply no connection between ‘over-population’ and ‘cheap’ energy. Cheap energy is a term that can only be used to describe the 10% or so of the planet’s population’s level of consumption.
In fact I don’t advocate ‘population control’ at all. After all, who is to do the controlling eh? Like they do in China for example, with state intervention, making it a crime to have more than one child? Population control is an outmoded and thoroughly scurrilous invention that goes back to the 18th century and is, without exception directed toward poor people. After all, the wealthy never, ever talk about their own population control, it’s always someone else’s birthrate that has to be controlled. (Ie, the ‘fecundity’ of masses etc. In other words, it’s always poor men wot can’t keep their dicks in their pants).
The size of one’s family is entirely a personal issue and is dependent on economic and educational circumstances such as access to birth control and personal preferences. The state can butt out! More generally, falling birthrates come about as a result of development – economic and social as the Japanese experience informs us for example.
“…[Y]ou pit Colin Campbell’s analysis (a geologist with extensive experience and little if any vested interest in the information he disseminates), against the USGS and IEA (public bodies with at least a vested interest in not being doom-sayers). And even these bodies predict peak oil within a generation or two. It’s only capitalist myopia that would see this as “not worth worrying about” – so I wonder what your issue is with Colin Campbell, who, as far as I know is pretty catholic in his oil depletion recommendations (no bashing of the developing world as far as I can see).”
Campbell has, in any case, continually put forward the date when ‘peak oil’ will be reached at least three times (his latest being next year). But more importantly, oil is by no means the only source of energy we have, supplies of gas outstrip oil by several orders or magnitude (see Odell’s ‘The Global Energy Market in the Long Term: The Continuing Dominance of Affordable Non-Renewable Resources’, a very conservative academic). So one has to ask the question why is ‘peak oil’ the only focus of concern?
Because ‘peak oil’ is an ideological/political construct.
I have also been accused by my critics of backing unrestrained economic expansion and the motor car. Well I thought that I made it quite plain that climate change/global warming is a real threat to the entire planet but I don’t see that as being presented by advocates of ‘peak oil’ as the real issue. Again, we come back to the nature of the capitalist system and its dependence on oil and the refusal by the major consumer on the planet, the US, of altering its ways.
Assuming that we do ‘run out of oil’ (not a practical reality, anymore than the switch from coal to oil was because we ran out of coal as any number of unemployed coal miners will tell you), but yes, assuming that we did ‘use up all the oil’, then technology would produce a solution, but that’s not the point. It seems that all the people who have criticised me, seem to think that I’m defending the wasteful use of oil, in spite of going to lengths to show (I hope) that’s not my point. And once more, population is not an issue (unless you’re an advocate of global extermination?). The people are here and we need to put in place policies that see to it that everyone is properly fed, housed, clothed and educated, period. Capitalism is clearly unable and unwilling to do this, so we need a change to a more just and equitable distribution of resources (which are not in short supply, merely not distributed fairly).
Related is yet another fallacious idea that the ‘pie is shrinking’ in size, hence the emergence of yet another fashionable phrase, ‘resource wars’? The West has been starting wars for over a century over oil, long before Campbell was a gleam in the eyes of his parents. The control of resources is not merely an economic necessity for capitalism but a military/political one in order to preserve the capitalist way of life and has absolutely nothing to do with how much of a particular resource there is but where it is and who controls/owns it. As some wag put it, if Iraq had been the world’s number one producer of broccoli, would Bush/Blair have invaded?
The pie grows, not shrinks, we have continually done more with less since the technological revolution started. It requires less labour, less energy, less in the way of resources to achieve the same result. What has changed has been the useless and wasteful squandering of resources, not to improve peoples’ standards of living around the world, but to increase the wealth of an infinitesimally small number of people.
But perhaps the most insidious aspect of the ‘peak oil’ hypothesis is an implicit but entirely unstated one, namely that, conveniently for us in the West that is, development has to stop here. So does this mean that the rest of the planet’s population are forever frozen in under-development? Well it would appear so wouldn’t it, after all, if the ‘peak oil’ hypothesis is correct, for the bulk of the planet’s population, there will be no development, as according to the doomsayers, there is simply not enough go around. The world will degenerate into increasingly vicious ‘resource’ wars with no hope for those unlucky enough to be born in the ‘wrong’ place at the ‘wrong’ time, an idea that I view as reactionary, defeatist and anti-human in all its aspects.