November 2015 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fw: Fw: Info
by Natalie Golovin 10 Mar '26

10 Mar '26

Mark: You and your compatriots on P2P view the world from revisionism. Go ahead and keep looking through your microscope-provided by your "teachers." Or take the time and read some very old documented evidence available at a library near you= but you may need to stay there awhile on microfiche. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Janssen Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 4:39 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Fw: Info On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Natalie Golovin <10natalie(a)cox.net> wrote: > The European Tribes treated the Natives no worse than they treated each > other. Whoa. You should really stop talking. You have NO idea what you're talking about. How about forced acculturation, not allowing them to speak their own language (which hold the record of their own history), confined them under threat of violent force into reservations, among other things. But, really, that's probably not even the worst of it -- the worst of it is that for reasons they couldn't ever understand is why you were doing all of these cruel things when they were willing to share it it all with you. Why, when they handed out their hand to be friends, you chopped it off. Remember, they're the ones who gave us Thanksgiving which is still "celebrated" in this nation today. Read the reports made of making first contact with the Native peoples here. You really should read up before propagating the attitudes of conquest. Sorry.... marcos _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

3 4

Re: [P2P-F] Automation Doesn't Just Destroy Jobs--It Destroys Profits, Too
by Eric Hunting 03 Dec '15

03 Dec '15

This is an argument I've been making for many years myself. In the debate about automation and job destruction it is commonly overlooked that labor and capital are in the same boat when it comes to long-term impact because production capability itself is becoming a commodity. Machines aren't just getting smarter, they're getting smaller, more adaptive, progressively lower in minimum necessary production volumes, and cheaper. You can now initiate more kinds of production 'out of pocket' than ever before. You can now competitively manufacture more things in the space of a four car garage than ever before. You can now approach a conventional middle-class standard of living based on entirely local and personal production and open source designs. Corporations are beginning to abandon the ownership of their own means to production in favor of job-shops because as that production capacity becomes more of a commodity the cost of money and the adaptability lost to amortization becomes the chief drag on market competitiveness. The volume of consumer goods produced in job shops went past that from traditional factories in the year 2000, and it never went back. The factory--and the traditional capital creating it--is already an anachronism. This brings us to the core premise of Post-Industrial futurism; that the paradigms of the Industrial Age are being eroded by the evolution of the very technologies on which they depend. This is the ultimate crisis of Capitalism; the eventual obsolescence of capital itself by the automation it cultivated as value shifts away from material goods and the means to make them and becomes virtualized, integral to design. The product has no value. The real value is in the 'spime'. Already corporations are increasingly obsessed with litigation, intellectual property, whittling-away at the First Sale Doctrine, and limiting the rights and controlling the behavior of the consumer as means to maintain market share. The long-term evolution of production and distribution is a transition to localization, networking, production-on-demand, increasing reliance on management automation through quantitative analysis, increasing cost-transparency, and eventual integration into the infrastructure of the built habitat as a kind of municipal utility. The global economy will shift from trading in goods to trading in commodity refined materials and modular parts. As labor is factored out of production, cost of production becomes more transparent, market prices capitulate and fall except where they can leverage the value of exclusive design and designer prestige. 'Brand' manufacturers will increasingly take on the aspect of ateliers--design studios. The next Apple will be composed of a relative handful of people whose chief jobs are design, development, and the management of spimes with all production owned by someone else and local to the consumer. The next Ford or Toyota will assemble cars on demand at the dealership--maybe generic dealerships. (an overlooked impact of electric cars and the electric power train is their ability to radically drive the number of components in a car down. Tomorrow's car might have less than 100 parts and go together like a desktop PC!) So Capital is running out of things to do, the paradigm or money is failing, and the model Westphalian state is running out of people to tax, while, now evolved to accommodate Industrial Age paradigms, having no other mechanism to define, capture, and collectivize surplus social productivity to do anything with. (are you going to conscript labor off the street to make fighter jets?) The state and the monetary system have been very closely wedded through the Industrial Age, premised on a concept of extracting and collectivizing monetary capital as societal debt to gift to elites to create the means of production, and now their common paradigms are breaking-down. To continue to exist government will have to devise a new basis of economics--a new paradigm by which to define resource collectivization and a rationalization for it--or (more likely) a new economy will emerge stigmergically by the logic intrinsic to the underlying technology and the compulsion of people to make things work day-to-day. This is why, when I talk about basic income myself, I talk about two forms of it. An 'institutional' basic income--that is disbursed as money and administered by some kind of bureaucratic institution--and an 'integral' basic income that's built into the 'firmware' of the infrastructure of the built habitat and disbursed as on-demand access to goods based on a systemic quantitative analysis of demand. Long-term, we are likely to evolve toward that integral form as local communities are compelled to take on increasing responsibility for keeping daily life going as the state increasingly fails them and people discover the at-hand means/technology to do that in their now local production capacity. All these things add up to a picture of a very different lifestyle in the future that I don't think we communicate too well right now. This is why I've been very interested in the notion of using the approach of Living Museums in a future context to illustrate future lifestyle and am working on projects like the Open House documentary to showcase open source living. On 11/9/15 4:52 AM, p2p-foundation-request(a)lists.ourproject.org wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Chris Quigley* <cmqesquire(a)gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 6:33 PM > Subject: Fwd: Excellent Art By Charles Smith > To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Michel, > > > Thought this might be of interest. > > Kind regards, > > Christopher > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Musings <http://www.oftwominds.com/musings-sample.html> My Books > <http://www.oftwominds.com/CHS-books.html> Archives > <http://www.oftwominds.com/archives.html> Books/Films > <http://www.oftwominds.com/books.html>* > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Automation Doesn't Just Destroy Jobs--It Destroys Profits, Too* > <http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov15/automation-profits11-15.html> > > /November 9, 2015/ > > /The idea that taxing the owners of robots and software will fund > guaranteed incomes for all is not anchored in reality./ > > *Automation is upending the global order by eliminating human labor on > an unprecedented scale--and the status quo has no reality-based > solution to this wholesale loss of jobs.* > > Two recent articles highlighted the profound consequences of advances > in robotics and AI (artificial intelligence) on employment: four > fundamentals of workplace automation > <http://www.mckinsey.com//Insights/Business_Technology/Four_fundamentals_of_…> and > Robots may shatter the global economic order within a decade > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11978542/Robots-may-shatter-th…> as > the pace of automation innovation has gone from linear to parabolic > (via Mish). > > > *The status quo apologists/punditry have offered two magical-thinking > solutions to the sweeping destruction of jobs across the entire > spectrum of paid work*: > > 1. Tax the robots (or owners of robots) and use the revenues to pay a > guaranteed income to everyone who is unemployed or underemployed. > > 2. Let the price of labor fall to the point that everyone has a job of > some sort, even if the pay is minimal. > > Neither one is remotely practical, for reasons I will explain today > and tomorrow. > > *Today, let's examine the misguided fantasy that automation/robotics > will generate enormous profits for the owners of robots.* Here's the > problem in a nutshell: > > *As automation eats jobs, it also eats profits, since automation turns > labor, goods and services into commodities.* When something is > commoditized, the price drops because the goods and services are > interchangeable and can be produced almost anywhere. > > Owners must move commoditized production to low-tax regions if they > want to retain any profit at all. > > *Big profits flow from scarcity, i.e. when demand exceeds supply.* If > supply exceeds demand, prices fall and profits vanish. > > (Monopoly is a state-enforced scarcity. In our state-cartel economy, > there are many monopolies or quasi-monopolies. While eliminating these > would lower costs, that wouldn't reverse the wholesale destruction of > jobs and profits--it would only speed the process up.) > > *The other problem the "tax the robots and everything will be funded" > crowd overlooks is the falling cost of software and robots lowers the > barriers to competition*: nothing destroys profits like wave after > wave of hungry competitors entering a field. > > The cost of automation and robotics is falling dramatically. This > lowers the cost of entry for smaller, hungrier, more nimble > competitors, and lowers the cost of increasing production. When > virtually any small manufacturer can buy robots for less than the > wages of a human laborer, where's the scarcity necessary to generate > profits? > > The parts needed to assemble a $45 tablet are dropping in price, and > the profit margins on those parts is razor-thin because they’re > commodities. Software such as the Android operating system is free, > and many of the software libraries needed to assemble new software are > also free. > > *Automation increases supply and lowers costs. Both are deadly to > profits.* > > *Here’s the core problem with the idea that taxing the owners of > robots and software will fund guaranteed incomes for all:* the more > labor, goods and services are automated/commoditized, the lower the > profits. > > The current narrative assumes more wealth will be created by the > digital destruction of industries and jobs, but real-world examples > suggest the exact opposite: the music industry has seen revenues fall > in half as digital technology ate its way through the sector. > > A $14 billion industry is now a $7 billion industry. Profits and > payroll taxes collected from the industry have plummeted. So much for > the fantasy that technology always creates more jobs than it destroys. > > As subscription music services replace sales of songs and albums, > revenues will continue to decline even as consumers have greater > access to more products. In other words, the destruction of sales, > employment and profits is far from over. > > *Examples of such radical reductions in paid labor abound in daily > life.* To take one small example, our refrigerator recently failed. > The motor was running but the compartment wasn’t being cooled. Rather > than replace the appliance for hundreds of dollars or hire a high-cost > repair service, I looked online, diagnosed the problem as a faulty > sensor, watched a tutorial on YouTube (what I call /YouTube > University/), ordered a new sensor for less than $20 online and > completed the repair at no cost beyond a half-hour of labor, which > cost me nothing in terms of cash spent. > > The profit earned by YouTube was minimal, as was the profit of the > firms that manufactured the sensor and shipped it. The sales and > profits that were bypassed by using nearly-free digital tools were an > order of magnitude higher. > > I was recently interviewed via Skype by an online journalist with > millions of views of his YouTube channel. A decade ago when he worked > in mainstream TV journalism, an interview required costly, > time-consuming travel (for the crew or the subject), a sound engineer, > a camera operator, the talent (interviewer), editor and managerial > review. These six jobs have been rolled into one with digital tools, > and travel has been eliminated entirely. > > Some will argue that the quality of the video and sound isn’t as high, > but the quality of the user experience is ultimately based on the > viewer’s display, which is increasingly a phone or tablet. So in terms > of utility, value and impact, the product (i.e. output) produced by > one person replaces the conventional media product that required six > people. > > My own solo digital content business would have required a handful of > people (if not more) only a decade ago. With digital tools and > services, it now requires just one person. Those of us who must work > with digital tools to survive know firsthand that what once required a > handful of workers must now be produced by one person if we hope to > earn even a marginally middle-class income. > > Multiply an appliance that doesn’t need to be replaced and a repair > service that doesn’t need to be hired, a half-dozen positions replaced > by one part-time job, a fully functional commodity tablet that costs > 10% of the high-profit brand and you understand why profits will > plummet as software eats the world. > > *These are not starry-eyed examples based on projections; these are > real-world examples of widely available digital technologies > destroying costs, sales and profits on a massive scale.* > > Some observers have suggested taxing wealth rather than profits to > fund the super welfare state of /guaranteed income for all./ But the > value of assets ultimately rests on their ability to generate a > profit. As profits fall, wealth may be more chimerical than these > observers believe. > > Tomorrow we'll look at the rising costs of human labor and explore why > this trend will persist even as labor becomes increasingly surplus. > > -- Eric Hunting erichunting(a)gmail.com

2 1

Fwd: The Church of Economism and Its Discontents (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 29 Nov '15

29 Nov '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:39 AM Subject: The Church of Economism and Its Discontents (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Steve Marglin <smarglin(a)harvard.edu> ------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: Thanks again for all of the thought-provoking comments so far. Just a reminder that the open discussion will close at the end of Monday (11/30), after which Norgaard will have the opportunity to respond. -- Jonathan] A few comments about Richard Norgaard’s analysis of the church of economics. First, I agree with much, perhaps most, of his argument. I would go further though in situating the ideology of economics in modernity. Norgaard emphasizes individualism and self-interest as foundational assumptions, and these are key. But I would add three more assumptions: an ideology of desire that assumes wants are unlimited, an ideology of knowledge that prioritizes rationality, and an ideology of community that assumes the nation state is the primary, if not the only, community. Taken together, these are not only the assumptions of mainstream economics, but also the assumptions of modernity. Indeed, economics is the cutting edge of modernity, the formalization of its unconscious cultural presuppositions. So the challenge is larger than economics: it is one of redressing the extreme imbalance of the ideology of modernity. Many people see the ideology of modernity as liberating. And so it is when the imbalance is in the other direction: when communities stifle individuals, when the poor receive meager rations and are taught that to want more is a sin, when rationality is not allowed to challenge tradition, when the nation is suppressed by empire. But modernity too suffocates when society is regarded as nothing more than a collection of individuals; when having becomes being; when experience is denied, or, equivalently, is dismissed as superstition when it cannot be explained by the dominant rationality; when the nation state undermines other communities. The problem with modernity is not individualism. Neither is it individual desire, rationality, or the nation state. It is rather a state of imbalance in which these assumptions crowd out other ways of being and knowing. Yes, we need a new economics, and we need to situate this economics in a new set of cultural presuppositions, ones more suited to an age where sustainability is the watchword. And we need as well to pay attention to the point that John Ashton made in a recent post--"This is a political struggle as well as an intellectual one. There is no point in building a better theory if we cannot at the same time weaken the hold of the prevailing one over the choices made on our behalf." The success of the Keynesian revolution in economics, limited as it was, was in no small part due to its symbiosis with the political revolution of social democracy in Europe and the New Deal in the United States. It is no coincidence that the counter revolution in economics that brought us the new classical economics took place at about the same time that center-left coalitions responsible for the New Deal and social democracy came to grief. The failure of radical economics to create a new paradigm in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s cannot be attributed to a single cause. But the political failure of the New Left to build a new politics is certainly one of the reasons. If a new economics is to thrive it will only be in conjunction with a new politics. Some hoped for that new politics in the person of Barack Obama—and were disappointed. Some looked to Occupy—and were disappointed. Until we find the basis of a new politics, people like Richard Norgaard (I count myself among them) can plant seeds, but unless the soil and climate are favorable, the seeds will not flourish, and may not even germinate. Stephen Marglin Harvard University *********************************** Saturday, November 28, 2015 >From John Ashton <john.ashton(a)co2.org> ----- [Moderator's Note: Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far! It has been a very intellectually stimulating discussion. I just wanted to remind people that Monday--November 30--will be the last day to submit a comment. After that, Norgaard will have the opportunity to respond. -- Jonathan] Dear Friends Despite many years on this list, and a vocational commitment to its goals, I have not (forgive me) hitherto contributed to these debates. But Richard Norgaard’s essay and the ensuing discussion have been of such high quality, and so valuable for me in my work, that I wanted to express my gratitude to him and to everyone who has responded. I would also like to add something of my own that might, I hope, be helpful. I should confess immediately that I have no academic credentials and am not formally trained in economics. My formation was in physics, from which I defected at an early stage. Most of my career has been in diplomacy and politics, where I have at least been an active participant in economic policy debates. Latterly, after six years as the UK’s diplomatic envoy on climate change, I have become a kind of itinerant pontificator, speaking out about questions of politics and society from my experience and, by choice, without institutional or other ties. The collision between my training and my later experiences pushed me inexorably to a view of the neoclassical orthodoxy very close to that set out by Richard and elaborated, with greater rigour than I could ever muster, in this discussion. I came to feel that our biggest choices as societies were being made according to the reflexes of a system of belief that in many places is embedded in our institutions and has achieved hegemony over our politics. It is as if we had surrendered our destiny to a cult. This system acts as if its main objective were to tighten its own grip, though it is skilful in equating this falsely with the common good. It displays little genuine interest in what is real (loaded though that word is: in a sense the current crisis is rooted in confusion about reality and what we know or think we know about it). It cannot accommodate any commitment to the integrity of the social and ecological fabric, whose value it axiomatically denies. In its more flamboyant forms it even seeks to eviscerate the very idea of virtue (including care, to borrow Richard’s word) by claiming to embody it already through its totemic attachment to “efficiency”. Much of this came into focus for me in conversation last year with Bill Rees (who I think is a member of this list. I hope he won’t mind me referring to him in this way. I seek only to set out my views not his). We found ourselves giving complementary lectures at a meeting in Shanghai, and started talking. At the heart of our discussion was the question of power. This is a political struggle as well as an intellectual one. There is no point in building a better theory if we cannot at the same time weaken the hold of the prevailing one over the choices made on our behalf. A political struggle needs a political strategy. Nobody has a comprehensive view of what such a strategy might look like nor of how to build it. There has never been a greater endeavor. If it flourishes it will be the work of generations. But the following considerations seem important. Language will be crucial. It is the foundation of this project. It will not be enough to work conventionally through institutions, old or new, nor merely through campaigns and movements. We need at one and the same time to tell a story about the world and our place in it, and to find a new and compelling language in which to tell it. This is necessary because we are seeking to change the frame, not just to change the view from within the existing one. We should strive, without losing precision or honesty, for language that brings people towards us; that is accessible not forbidding. The academy must play a role, but reaching beyond its accustomed sphere. Emotion will count as much as analysis; poetry as much as prose. We should avoid language that is scarred or open to misrepresentation as a result of past struggles. We certainly need, in our story, a description of modern capitalism and its flaws. Success will result in the eclipse of what many people would call capitalism. But if people feel we simply want to reenact of an old play, we will attract allies we don’t want and repel those we need. The contending political forces, and a clear understanding of them, will be crucial. They will be at the centre of this project. How they combine and are marshaled will determine its outcome. At present, the forces of incumbency are well entrenched. Their position can seem impregnable. But I am struck, at least in post-crash Britain, by the decline in public confidence in the ability of incumbent powers to act in the public interest, and of public trust in their will to do so. As a result, my country for one is more divided and disgruntled than at any time in living memory. That is worrying if you live here. But it does mean that there is a large, uncommitted constituency for renewal. The extent to which young people have turned their backs in disenchantment on mainstream politics is particularly striking. They are a natural force for renewal. My generation (I’m 59) should do all we can to help them find their voice. The campaign by young economists in many universities to break out of the neoclassical monoculture is of special significance and should be encouraged. Battles will be crucial. Battles provide the drama and energy in any political project. They can sharpen the choices between change and the status quo. We must choose to fight on the right issues, on the right ground, at the right time. We need not win every battle. But each time we fight we should be looking to draw new forces into the arena on our side, and to open up new political spaces into which to advance. It is not for me to judge, but I wonder if now is the time for a concerted intellectual assault, from inside and outside academic economics, on the neoclassical citadels: in teaching, in the peer review process, in wider public discourse, and as an uncontested orthodoxy influencing politics and much else. The orthodoxy has for some time been subject to incursions, including by participants in this discussion. But there is surely scope for a more sustained and strategic approach, with greater alignment across heterodox economics and the many other disciplines that have much to contribute. The goal would not of course be to search for any illusory “unified theory”. It would have a liberating effect simply to make it more widely evident that the neoclassical emperor has no clothes. Finally, even more than language, political forces, and battles, values will be crucial. This is a transformational struggle and therefore, in a sense, a revolutionary one. Most revolutions either fail or become corrupted in success. And, in this case, the aim is the peaceful overthrow a system of belief, not the defeat by any means of people in thrall to that system. There is indeed no well- defined enemy; or perhaps more accurately we are all the enemy, so entangled have we become in the current system (its beneficiaries, though, more than its victims). If this is a revolution, it must at every stage be compassionate and rooted in reality. It is because the current system has rejected compassion and reality that it has become so destructive. We must not under any circumstances take on the form of what we seek to overthrow. Our end can never justify our means. In any political struggle, the values with which it is conducted become frozen into the outcome. Forgive me for writing at greater length than I originally intended. I am not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth; only to share some thoughts of my own in the hope that they will be useful. Some of you may feel that I have tried to reach too far beyond the original scope of this debate. The hegemony of a set of economic ideas is far from the only flaw in modern politics. But wider renewal will remain out of reach until it is broken. And in the end this debate is about our relationship with each other and with the ecosphere of which we are part. There is very little in human affairs that it does not encompass. With gratitude and respect , John Ashton ******************************************************** Friday, October 30, 2015 >From Paul Raskin <praskin(a)tellus.org> ----- GTN Friends: I write to launch our NOVEMBER DISCUSSION, which will consider Richard Norgaard’s new GTI essay, “The Church of Economism and Its Discontents.” Please read it at www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discont…, and consider commenting. Is orthodox economics akin to a secular religion? Are we living in the “Econocene”? Is there a way out? Norgaard, a founder of ecological economics, argues yes, yes, and maybe. In so doing, he guides us further into the terrain of alternative economics we’ve explored recently in our discussions of GTI pieces by Herman Daly, Giorgos Kallis, Peter Barnes, and John Bellamy Foster. I wonder, though: * Is economism still a monolithic ideology? Or are critical currents within the economics mainstream increasingly questioning its reductionist framework and false predictions? * As a framing for our contemporary condition, is “the Econocene” a useful corrective to the geologic emphasis of “the Anthropocene”? How do these compare to GTI’s term, “The Planetary Phase of Civilization,” which aims to convey the multi-dimensionality of the globalizing social-ecological system? I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts on these and other issues raised by Norgaard’s stimulating essay. Comments are welcome through NOVEMBER 30. Looking forward, Paul Raskin GTI Director NOTE ON GTI’S PUBLICATION CYCLE: GTN discussions occur in ODD-NUMBERED months, and GTI publishes in EVEN-NUMBERED months. Each discussion takes up a new essay or viewpoint prior to its publication. After the discussion closes, GTI publishes the piece, edited comments from the discussion, and a response from the author (along with other new articles). You can review all GTN discussions at www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-forum. ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/171-the-church-of-econ… Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: The Church of Economism and Its Discontents (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 29 Nov '15

29 Nov '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:48 AM Subject: The Church of Economism and Its Discontents (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Ugo Bardi <ugo.bardi(a)unifi.it> ------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: Thanks again for all of the thought-provoking comments so far. Just a reminder that the open discussion will close at the end of Monday (11/30), after which Norgaard will have the opportunity to respond. -- Jonathan] Dear colleagues, I am a recent member of this forum, and, so far, I have been just lurking, but I have been following the discussion. Now, I thought I might intervene with a comment, directed in particular to the concept of "econocene." First of all, we are all familiar with the concept of Anthropocene, an idea that has been incredibly successful in the recent debate. As Randy Hayes points out in a previous message, the idea of Anthropocene has led to a branching of different concepts, with some people seeing it as proof of how dangerous we are as human beings, while others take it as meaning "Look how great we are: man wins, nature loses." Among other things, the Anthropocene has generated a specific version of the concept of "decoupling" that assumes that humans do not really need nature in order to survive - they can build up their own artificial life support system. It is the attitude, among others, of the "ecomodernists," www.ecomodernism.org/. The idea of humans "decoupling from nature" arises strong feelings of horror in many, but, the way it is proposed, it may be seen as a genuine attempt to preserve nature from the human assault that has generated the disasters of the Anthropocene. If Man does not need Nature, then Man can leave Nature in peace (and Nature can leave Man in peace). This would be, in my opinion, the embodiment of the concept of "econocene." While economics as a science is often accused of not including Nature in its models, this is the true revenge of the economists; who can then respond, "but who needs Nature?" In a sense, all this has a certain veneer of elegance; the problem is that elegant theories have a way of getting mauled when clashing against a reality that may not be elegant at all - rather, ugly and clumsy – but that appears to be made of somewhat harder materials than the stuff dreams are made of. So, can human beings really decouple from nature and peacefully abandon the destructive Anthropocene to enter the peaceful Econocene? That would be truly the triumph of the church of economics. On the other hand, we might as well see the revenge of the Anthropocene and the dismissal of economics as a heretical subset of biology (that might well entail also the dismissal of humans as a species). On this point, I can suggest to you my paper (presently being submitted to a scientific journal): "What future for the Anthropocene" - arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02040.pdf, where I argue that the time subdivision called Anthropocene in its strong dependence of fossil fuels will be short lived because of depletion and destined to transform itself into something very different that I called the "stereocene" (the age of solid state devices). Ugo Bardi University of Florence, Italy ugo.bardi(a)unifi.it > > *********************************************** > > Friday, October 30, 2015 > > > From Paul Raskin > > ----- > GTN Friends: > > I write to launch our NOVEMBER DISCUSSION, which will consider Richard Norgaard’s new GTI essay, “The Church of Economism and Its Discontents.” Please read it at www.greattransition.org/publication/the-church-of-economism-and-its-discont…, and consider commenting. > > Is orthodox economics akin to a secular religion? Are we living in the “Econocene”? Is there a way out? Norgaard, a founder of ecological economics, argues yes, yes, and maybe. In so doing, he guides us further into the terrain of alternative economics we’ve explored recently in our discussions of GTI pieces by Herman Daly, Giorgos Kallis, Peter Barnes, and John Bellamy Foster. > > I wonder, though: > * Is economism still a monolithic ideology? Or are critical currents within the economics mainstream increasingly questioning its reductionist framework and false predictions? > * As a framing for our contemporary condition, is “the Econocene” a useful corrective to the geologic emphasis of “the Anthropocene”? How do these compare to GTI’s term, “The Planetary Phase of Civilization,” which aims to convey the multi-dimensionality of the globalizing social-ecological system? > > I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts on these and other issues raised by Norgaard’s stimulating essay. > > Comments are welcome through NOVEMBER 30. > > Looking forward, > > Paul Raskin > GTI Director > > NOTE ON GTI’S PUBLICATION CYCLE: > GTN discussions occur in ODD-NUMBERED months, and GTI publishes in EVEN-NUMBERED months. Each discussion takes up a new essay or viewpoint prior to its publication. After the discussion closes, GTI publishes the piece, edited comments from the discussion, and a response from the author (along with other new articles). You can review all GTN discussions at www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-forum. > > > > > ----- > Hit reply to post a message > Or see thread and reply online at > www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/171-the-church-of-economism-a… > > Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org > > > -- Keep Calm and Use Renewable Energy ******************************** Prof Ugo Bardi Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Firenze c/o Dipartimento di Chimica, Polo Scientifico di Sesto Fiorentino Via della Lastruccia 3 - 50019 Sesto Fiorentino (Firenze) - Italy tel +39 055 457 3118 www.cassandralegacy.blogspot.com **************************************** --- Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/171-the-church-of-econ… Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Transnational responses to Global Capitalism
by Michel Bauwens 29 Nov '15

29 Nov '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> Date: Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:02 AM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Transnational responses to Global Capitalism To: peter waterman <peterwaterman1936(a)gmail.com>, Orsan Senalp < orsan1234(a)gmail.com>, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)riseup.net>, " networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org" <networkedlabour(a)lists.contrast.org> Excellent recording of William Robinson talking about his new book http://www.opednews.com/Podcast/Why-We-Need-TransNational-by-Rob-Kall-Capit… _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [climate trade union] Corbyn and Klein speaking in Paris
by Anna Harris 23 Nov '15

23 Nov '15

Begin forwarded message: > From: Jonathan <findjonathan(a)hotmail.com> > Date: 23 November 2015 at 14:58:17 GMT > To: ccctu ccctu <climate-change-trade-union-network(a)googlegroups.com> > Subject: [climate trade union] Corbyn and Klein speaking in Paris > Reply-To: findjonathan(a)hotmail.com > > > Jeremy Corbyn and Naomi Klein will be speaking in Paris on Monday 7 December at an event co-organised by Global Climate Jobs (inluding Campaign against Climate Change). They will be talking about trade unions and climate change. Tickets are free, but you have to register in advance, and the hall only hols 800. > > The details are here: https://globalclimatejobs.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/naomi-klein-and-jeremy-c… > > Please spread the word widely, particularly to trade unionists who might be in Paris. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Trade Union" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to climate-change-trade-union-network+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to climate-change-trade-union-network(a)googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climate-change-trade-union-network. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

Braungart on Circular Economy
by Anna Harris 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

https://www.thinkdif.co/headliners/michael-braungart This recording of the originator of 'Cradle to Cradle' design, at the Circular Economy Disruptive Innovation Fest. A new approach to waste and production. Worth listening to. Less bad is not better. It's still bad. Toxic chemicals in everyday products. "Can I burn it in my fireplace, put it in my compost, or will you take it back?" No waste, everything a nutrient Anna

1 0

CfP: Demystifying Blockchain Through an STS Lens
by Vasilis Kostakis 22 Nov '15

22 Nov '15

Dear all, A call for papers for a special issue of "Engaging Science, Technology, and Society" (eSTS), a new open access journal of the Society for Social Studies of Science: *Demystifying Blockchain Through an STS Lens: Challenges and Opportunities of a New Infrastructure for the Commons.* “The reward of labour is life. Is that not enough?” William Morris (1834-1896) In News from Nowhere (Morris 1890/2008), the narrator, William Guest, finds himself in a future society based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. Morris’s utopian society has no authority, no monetary system and functions in an autonomous way because individuals find pleasure in their collaborative work. Now let’s fast forward into the beginning of the 21st century, and reflect upon the emergence of digital commons of knowledge, software and design which celebrates human collaboration and recreates commons-oriented modes of production. In these new systems, value is created through contributions and not labor per se, with the output being commons, not commodities. Initiatives such as myriad of free/open source software projects or the free encyclopedia Wikipedia, have highlighted the emergence of new “technological-economic feasibility spaces” for a new type of social practice (Benkler 2006: 31). These feasibility spaces include different social and economic arrangements, where profit, power and control seem to decrease in importance and be replaced by a commons-oriented process at the core of value creation (Benkler 2006; Kostakis et al. 2013). However, for a long time, commons-oriented communities have been institutionalized around centralized or federated structures, which might bring a series of trade-offs in terms of democratic governance, flexibility, and ability to evolve. These institutions were mainly built to facilitate the coordination of disparate groups of people that would otherwise have had a hard time coordinating themselves, because of either scale or lack of proper coordination mechanisms. They also served the purpose of establishing trust among groups that did not engage into sufficiently frequent and repeated interactions. Nevertheless, today traditional issues related to shared common-pool resources could be addressed with the implementation of an arguably pervasive open source technology, called “blockchain”. In short, blockchain is a type of a distributed database which is maintained by a network of user and eliminates the need for a trusted third party. The most widely known application of a blockchain is the public ledger of transactions for digital currencies first used in Bitcoin. The transparent and distributed nature of the blockchain makes it easier for small and large communities to reach consensus and implement innovative forms of self-governance. The possibility to record every interaction on an incorruptible public ledger and the ability to encode a particular set rules linking these interactions to a specific transactions makes it possible to design new sophisticated incentive systems, which might significantly differ from traditional market-based mechanisms. Thanks to these new technologies, alternative value systems based on reputation, merit or other type of metrics might emerge, as an alternative to traditional market based mechanisms which only focus on economic value. In the near future, centralized intermediaries coordinating the action of a large number of individuals might be replaced by peer-to-peer transactions performed in a trustless environment, without the need for any intermediary entity to manage the flow of contributions. Disintermediation and independent value production might promote a greater degree of individual autonomy and emancipation, but at what cost? In Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (2003), Cory Doctorow describes a society based on a post-scarcity economy, where money has progressively been replaced by a reputation-based currency, as a new expression of wealth. In spite of the apparent benefits, the drawback of such a reputation-based system is that every human interaction can potentially be evaluated, virtual turning any social interaction into an economic transaction —something that could be highly disruptive to the commons-oriented ecosystem, which is for the most part driven by social and ideological values. The aim of this special issue is to deepen our knowledge about the potential challenges and opportunities of blockchain technologies, from an STS perspective. We welcome reflective, imaginative and critical scholarly articles and commentaries that address any of the following themes and beyond. Read more here: http://estsjournal.org/announcement/view/6

1 0

Fwd: Interesting article
by Michel Bauwens 21 Nov '15

21 Nov '15

------------------------------ *Musings <http://www.oftwominds.com/musings-sample.html> My Books <http://www.oftwominds.com/CHS-books.html> Archives <http://www.oftwominds.com/archives.html> Books/Films <http://www.oftwominds.com/books.html>* ------------------------------ Thought this was an interesting article. Kind regards, Christopher ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Social Revolution To Continue ............ *November 17, 2015* *The current world-system is as doomed as the Titanic.* *We're like the passengers on the Titanic 10 minutes after the mighty ship struck the iceberg:* there is virtually no evidence to those on deck or those snug in their warm cabins that everything they reckoned was safe and secure was doomed to perish. Only those who witnessed the damage below the waterline and *who knew the limitations of the ship's design* grasped that *the loss of the ship was inevitable and could not be reversed.* *The current world-system (call it whatever you like--cartel-crony neoliberal-state capitalism, etc.) is as doomed as the Titanic, for the same reasons:* the design of the system is the source of its failure. I recently had the opportunity to discuss the inevitable systemic failure of the current arrangement with Chris Martenson ofPeakProsperity.com <http://www.peakprosperity.com/> and Cris Sheridan of the Financial Sense Newshour <http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour>. The podcasts are: With Chris Martenson: Fixing The Way We Work: Closing the wealth gap with meaningful work <http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/95323/charles-hugh-smith-fixing-way-w…> (44:54) With Cris Sheridan: Book Interview: A Radically Beneficial World <http://www.oftwominds.comchs-interview11-15.mp3/> *Why is the current world-system doomed?* 1. Automation will not just continue replacing human labor--the pace of this trend is increasing exponentially. 2. The wishful thinking that technology always creates more jobs than it destroys is, well, wishful thinking: just ask the music industry, which "grew" in the era of digital technology from a $14 billion industry to a $7 billion industry. 3. The wishful thinking that taxing the owners of robots and software will pay for guaranteed income for all: nobody who favors this seems to have done any math. Current corporate profits (which are about to be eviscerated by global recession and the commoditization of goods and services via automation) are around $1.9 trillion annually, while current government (federal, state, local) spending is $6.2 trillion. So if the state took every single dollar of corporate profit (and how realistic is that?), that would fund less than a third of current state spending. And if the state is going to pay tens of millions of additional households a guaranteed income, state expenditures will rise by trillions more. The idea that profits can support this enormous spending is simply not realistic. 4. Since taxing profits won't work, let's tax wealth. Once again, this isn't realistic. For one thing, concentrated wealth has captured the political machinery, so politicos aren't going to impose wealth taxes on the hands that feed them. Secondly, wealth is increasingly mobile. When faced with high taxes, wealth simply moves to more hospitable locales. 5. Well, then we'll tax land--they can't move that, can they? No, but as economist Michael Spence and his colleagues have pointed out, profits and gains are increasingly flowing not to traditional labor or capital (financial capital, land, etc.) but to the *third form of capital*, which is innovation, new business models, etc. So taxing land may look promising on paper, but wealth will flow to outsized returns, and if land starts getting taxed at a high rate, wealth will migrate to the third form of capital, which is mobile and global. *Remember that we're not talking a mere trillion or two here:* to fund the existing government we need to lay our hands on $6.2 trillion every year, and paying a guaranteed income to everyone replaced by automation will kick that higher by a few more trillion. 6. The issuance of money and credit are not connected to the creation of jobs. Very little of the vast sums of money and credit issued since the 2008 Global Financial Meltdown flowed into productive investments that generated new jobs. Most of the money went into "investments" that are wealth-skimming operations that don't create a single job: stock buy-backs, for example, or buying rental units and raising the rents. It doesn't require a single additional worker to maintain those rental units under the new owner; the only things that changed were the rent (higher), the profits skimmed by the new owner (higher) and the disposable income of the tenants (lower). 7. We can pay for everything we want essentially forever with borrowed money. More wishful thinking... 8. The system requires permanent growth of everything simply to keep from imploding: more debt, more jobs, more wages (and payroll taxes on those wages), more profits, more consumption, more taxes, more, more, more. Unfortunately, there are limits on all of these, and the moment the system stops growing it doesn't just lag--it implodes. 9. Nearly "free" credit/capital only further incentivizes the replacement of labor (whose overhead costs are rising relentlessly) with robotics/software. There is much more in these two discussions; please give them a listen. -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Interactivos?'15: Material Cultures in the Digital Age. Call for collaborators
by Michel Bauwens 21 Nov '15

21 Nov '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Difusion Medialab-Prado <difusion(a)medialab-prado.es> Date: Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:42 PM Subject: [NetworkedLabour] Interactivos?'15: Material Cultures in the Digital Age. Call for collaborators To: "\"networkedlabour"@lists.contrast.org Interactivos?'15: Material Cultures in the Digital Age. Call for collaborators Call to collaborate in the project workshop *Interactivos?'15: Material Cultures in the Digital Age* <http://medialab-prado.es/article/interactivos15-culturas-materiales-en-la-e…>, that will be carried out *from **December 2 to 16, 2015*. Collaborators will participate in the production of the selected projects <http://medialab-prado.es/article/interactivos15-culturas-materiales-en-la-e…>. The workshop is complete with a series of conferences and meetings and takes place in the framework of the project Common Objects <http://medialab-prado.es/article/objetos-comunes>, in cooperation with Constant vzw <http://www.constantvzw.org/site/?lang=en>. Free registration. Deadline: *November 30*, 2015. Medialab-Prado offers free lodging to collaborators in youth hostels during the workshop (limited seating, shall on request and by order of registration).The last day to ask for a place is November 23. More information: <http://medialab-prado.es/article/interactivos15-culturas-materiales-en-la-e…> http://medialab-prado.es/article/interactivos15-culturas-materiales-en-la-e… -- Medialab-Prado Plaza de las Letras Calle Alameda, 15. 28014 Madrid T. 912 191 157 difusion(a)medialab-prado.es FB MedialabPradoMadrid Twitter: <http://www.facebook.com/MedialabPradoMadrid%3C/a> @medialabprado <https://twitter.com/medialabprado> "Este correo y sus documentos adjuntos pueden contener información confidencial y/o privilegiada que sólo podrá ser utilizada por su destinatario para el fin del cual es objeto el presente correo. Si usted no es el destinatario o lo ha recibido por error rogamos nos lo comunique y proceda a su eliminación advirtiéndole que toda copia, revelación, distribución y/o cualquier otro uso queda terminantemente prohibido pudiendo incurrir en responsabilidades legales. En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 5 de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre, de protección de datos de carácter personal, MADRID DESTINO CULTURA TURISMO Y NEGOCIO, S.A. (en adelante, MADRID DESTINO) le informa que sus datos personales o de contacto profesional facilitados serán incorporados en nuestros ficheros de datos personales con la finalidad de gestionar el envío de comunicaciones informativas, así como la relación promocional, comercial y/o negocial (incluyendo, como tal finalidad, la formalización y gestión de contratos y la gestión contable, fiscal, laboral y administrativa) que MADRID DESTINO pudiera mantener con usted. Si lo desea, puede ejercer sus derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición dirigiéndose a MADRID DESTINO CULTURA TURISMO Y NEGOCIO, S.A. sita en Madrid, c/ Montalbán 1, 7ª planta, 28014. El medioambiente es cosa de todos: antes de imprimir este e-mail, piense bien si es necesario hacerlo. This email and the attached documents may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the exclusive use of the person named above for whom this message is intended. If you are not the designated recipient or have received it by mistake, please notify us and delete this message. You are also hereby notified that copying, revealing, distributing and/or using the contents of this email in any other way is strictly prohibited and may have legal consequences. In accordance with the stipulations of Spanish Data Protection Law, MADRID DESTINO CULTURA TURISMO Y NEGOCIO, S.A. (hereinafter, MADRID DESTINO) hereby informs you that the personal or professional contact details you provide will be recorded in our personal detail files for the purposes of sending announcements and notices and for managing the promotional, commercial and/or business relationship (including, for such purposes, the formalisation and management of contracts as well as accounting, fiscal, labour and administrative management) that MADRID DESTINO may have with you. If you wish, you may exercise your rights of access, rectification, cancellation or objection by writing to MADRID DESTINO CULTURA TURISMO Y NEGOCIO, S.A. situated at c/ Montalbán 1, 7ª planta, 28014 Madrid. We are all responsible for the environment: please think before you print this email.” _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list NetworkedLabour(a)lists.contrast.org http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0