Best products from r/Foodforthought

P2

There are other problems with production-for-profit economies, according to ecosocialists. The system can lead to self-destructive rushes to produce commodities. For example, in a system where we produce for profit, we might build more houses than we have homeless people (as is currently the state of things in the US) or have other boom-bust cycles of overproduction as things remain profitable for various producers up until their collective production leads to a price crash. Presumably, say socialists, if industrial mass society produced for the use-value of the homes, some social planning would avoid the irrational boom-bust action. In addition to resource-wasting overconsumption, there's a problem of overharvesting to feed insatiable far-away markets. The Iroquois in the northeast hunted the beaver almost to extinction in much of its range there. A bit of this had to do with new guns, but much of it was with bows. What changed wasn't the technology so much as the motive. Where before a hunter had no reason to kill more than he needed, he could now kill a whole bunch and trade them for money or wampum that he could spend on things he did need- and the possibility of those demands could be endless. Suddenly, an Iroquois had a reason to go out and kill tons and tons of beavers- and by and large, they did (the book "Changes In the Land" by William Cronon is a fascinating exploration of the development of this and other trends during the settlement of New England. I very much suggest reading it for anyone interested in environmental history or political ecology).

Also, if you produce for exchange values, you can end up with a situation where things are being produced that have exchange-value but little or no use-value. Consider diamonds. There was little popular demand (and little use-value for most people) for diamonds before DeBeers started a campaign to make them the centerpiece of every wedding (restricting supply was also a masterful stroke on their part). Because firms in a market economy have to swim or sink, and keep selling, there is an incentive for them to create new demands and desires where none existed before, because this makes more consumers. It is not good for the economy for you to be satisfied with what you have. It's very much not good for the economy for you to say, "Well, my material needs are basically met, so I'm going to focus on things like friendship, belonging, and personal fulfillment, that I can't really just buy in a store". Companies would rather you believe that those needs can be fulfilled with more consumption, because if you're satisfied, you stop buying- and if you stop buying, investors stop making money, people get laid off, and the economy crashes. Remember that in a market economy, it is more 'rational' to convince a person with disposable income that they need to buy their kid a new cheap gizmo, then manufacture and sell that gizmo to them, than it is to produce bread to feed hungry people who can't pay- the hungry people have a demand but no money to make their demand bear any exchange value, and so don't get to eat, but the person with money has to be squeezed for every last consumer dollar to create more niches for investors. They have to be convinced that they want more things. This is basically what advertising is- a market economy creates a demand for demand. Advertising largely exists to convince you that a diamond is a prerequisite to love, Coca-Cola is a prerequisite to a good time, a watch is a prerequisite to the respect of your peers, a fast car is a prerequisite to the love of a beautiful woman, etc etc. Some of this might even be true, if the advertisers succeed in shaping cultural norms to make it true. In this way, a production for profit economy, because it has to keep selling, profiting, and growing, creates and propagates a consumer culture. The impact of this on the environment, of course, is that more and more natural resources have to be sucked up to feed that consumption and more pollution and waste is churned out. You have an economic system that has to keep growing forever, on a planet with finite resources.

All of this amounts to an 'internal contradiction' in capitalism, according to ecosocialists. In Marxism, which uses dialectical analysis, an internal contradiction is when conflicting tendencies and trends in a system lead to the self-destruction of that system. For example, the rising role of the merchant class that would eventually usurp power from the hereditary gentry was an internal contradiction in feudalism. In capitalism, the 'internal contradiction' laid out by Marx is the conflict between capital and labor (which he observed during his life and which has, in part due to his own writings, raged on since, at times somewhat suppressed by reforms, as environmental degradation can be somewhat suppressed by reforms). Some ecosocialists argue that because capitalism relies on endless growth, is ridden with market failures, encloses commons and commodifies people and the land, creates a consumer culture, and concentrates political power in the hands of an upper class that often resists attempts to fix the environmental problems, that environmental degradation (sometimes called the 'metabolic rift') is a second internal contradiction- that capitalism will undermine the base of ecological resources it needs to survive (and, unfortunately, the same base that all industrial society would need to survive, as well as non-industrial society). The scholar James O'Connor is the main theorist of the 'second contradiction', but I think it makes a great capstone to ecosocialist theory. This theory echoes some (rather under-developed but very important) observations of Marx (who is often painted as an environment-blind industrial development fanatic) regarding of industrial capitalist agriculture on soil fertility. Marx wrote on the subject, and in doing so began to make inroads in critiquing the ecological impact of capitalism, many decades before his time. This work has mostly been fleshed out by later Marxists, though.

TL;DR- Socialists believe that capitalism has enclosed the commons into a market system that is prone to market failures because it does not consider the common ecosystem or the full values and costs of ecological goods. They believe that much of this irrationality comes from the fact that markets produce for exchange-value rather than use-value. They note that markets need endless growth and consumption to remain healthy, and that capitalist societies spread capitalism globally to feed their need for resources and new markets, and that the environmental degradation of this global industrial market system will undermine capitalism and civilization itself.

Section 2: Who Are The Ecosocialists?

Some prominent ecosocialist theorists include John Bellamy Foster, Michael Löwy, Derek Wall, Joel Kovel, and others. There are some groups that promote ecosocialism or similar ideas, including Ecosocialist Network International, the CNS Journal, Ecosocialist Horizons, and the various groups of the Trotskyist Fourth International, which recently embraced eco-socialism. It should be noted that generally speaking, ecosocialism is mostly embraced by Trotskyists and other non-Stalinist Marxists, and ecosocialist theorists are almost universally anti-Stalinist. Most non-Stalinist socialist groups embrace some degree of environmental concern even if they are not ecosocialist.

In addition to these groups, there are some major green party organizations that have formed 'red-green' alliances with social democratic and socialist parties, particularly in Europe. These include coalitions in France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and other nations. In addition, some European political parties have outright merged into green-left parties, like GroenLinks in the Netherlands. In the US, a small red-green political alliance does exist between the Green Party and the International Socialist Organization (a Cliffite Trotskyist activist organization that is the largest socialist group in the US). ISO frequently endorses Green Party candidates and the two groups recently co-sponsored an ecosocialist conference. There is also a red-green alliance between the Industrial Workers of the World and Earth First!- though neither of these groups involve themselves in electoral politics, both preferring direct action. Red-green alliances should not be confused with 'blue-green' alliances in the US and elsewhere, which are alliances between reformist environmental and labor groups.

Some writers who are not 'eco-socialists' per se but do take a social-ecological view on environmental issues are Vandana Shiva (an Indian anti-globalization and anti-privatization writer and proponent of 'Earth Democracy'), Murray Bookchin (who formulated the concept and political program of 'social ecology'), Winona LaDuke (an Anishinaabe indigenous environmental justice activist), and Ariel Salleh (a social ecofeminist)- these are, of course, just a few, and there are many, many more. The social ecofeminist (as opposed to cultural/mystic ecofeminist), indigenous rights, environmental justice, and anti/alter-globalization movements often incorporate views from the social-ecological perspective. Earth First! is a group that often takes a social ecology view along with their deep ecology.

TL;DR- The ecosocialist theorists are largely academics from the first world who identify with Trotskyism and other non-Stalinist forms of socialism, though other thinkers who embrace similar views come from all over the world and many anti/alter-globalization and indigenous rights groups share many of the ecosocialist perspectives on globalization and capitalism. In addition to eco-socialists, there are some political alliances of less-green socialists and less-socialist environmentalists.

Edit: Regarding the role of production for profit in creating a consumer culture: This (as well as the concept of 'green consumption' and its associated greenwashing and consumer culture) should be understood in the light of other developments, including the rise of the mass industrial society over previous close-knit village societies, and the processes of alienation and commodity fetishism.

1. The Bible: Eh. I can sort of get behind this, but not for the reason he gives. The Bible's just really culturally important. I also wouldn't bother reading all of it. When I reread the Bible it's normally just Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels, and Eccelesiastes. A lot of it (especially Leviticus) is just tedious. The prophets are fun but I wouldn't call them essential.
   
   
2. The System of the World: Newton intentionally wrote the Principia to make it inaccessible to layman and dabblers. I really don't think you should be recommending a book like this to people who aren't specialists. Sagan's A Demon Haunted World will probably fulfill the stated purpose Tyson sets out better.
   
   
3. On the Origin of Species: A good book that's held up remarkably well, but a more recent book of evolution might be better. The Extended Phenotype or The Selfish Gene would both probably do a better job.
   
   
4. Gulliver's Travels: This is a great book. I support this recommendation.
   
   
5. Age of Reason: Haven't read it. I like Paine otherwise though. No comment.
   
   
6. The Wealth of Nations: Similar to On the Origin of Species. It's still a great read that's held up really well and offers an interesting historical perspective. That said, economic theory has made some pretty important advancements in two centuries (the Marginal Revolution, Keynes, etc). Still, if you want to stick to the time you'll probably get more out of reading Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy.
   
   
7. The Art of War: Very good book. I have nothing to add.
   
   
8. The Prince: Same as the above. Fantastic book.

>Your opinion seems heavily tainted by the transhumanist ideology propaganda

I don't see why you are calling it propaganda, nobody can really predict the future, all we can do is make assumptions and assign probabilities. We can choose to have hope and be optimistic, or we can choose to be pessimists. I choose to be an optimist and I don't see why you think that's a bad thing.

>while the trend of energy crisis becoming critical over the next decades is a certainty, even if we started changing our energy overconsumption habit today, we will still have to face the energy crisis and electricity shortage.

No way man, you're wrong. That's some negative bullshit you've got in your head. You're vastly underestimating mankind's ability to overcome challenges and make technological advances. Long before that happens we'll be adjusting air conditioners, replacing all of the light bulbs and putting solar panels and wind turbines on every roof and in every back yard. There's plenty of inefficiency that can be eliminated and plenty of energy sources to tap into. The only reason we're not doing that today is because energy is so cheap, so people don't care.

>Nasa warned of the upcoming solar storm which has the potential to wipe the internet off source.

We can always fix the Internet, that's not such a big deal. We built it in less than 30 years, and we can rebuild again it in 5, if we really needed to, assuming it was totally wiped out and we had to begin again from scratch.

>Turns out the reality is what you hope to see appear in the future already exist and have for decades

What we have today, those examples you gave, are just the very early prototype stages of the technology. What I'm talking about is having hundreds of millions of people all connected via neural interfaces to the global wireless network, not just connected for the sake of querying information, but sharing experiences, thoughts, emotions, memories, and expanding our sensory abilities beyond what we have now, all in real time. It will be like having telepathy and it will change the global human consciousness in ways we can only begin to imagine today.

>Lastly for the cumulative knowledge accessible via thoughts, you should look into buddhist tradition, they've been tapping into that for a few milleniums now. This will also help you improve with understanding of consciousness.

Oh, I've studied that, and more. In fact, here is a really fascinating book that explains that in pretty deep detail. Science and the Akashic Field.

I know this will probably sound like BS to you, but if you just think one dimension higher, it makes a lot of sense:

---
Mystics and sages have long maintained that there exists an interconnecting cosmic field at the roots of reality that conserves and conveys information, a field known as the Akashic record. Recent discoveries in the new field of vacuum physics now show that this Akashic field is real and has its equivalent in the zero-point field that underlies space itself. This field consists of a subtle sea of fluctuating energies from which all things arise: atoms and galaxies, stars and planets, living beings, and even consciousness. This zero-point Akashic-field--or “A-field”-- is not only the original source of all things that arise in time and space; it is also the constant and enduring memory of the universe. It holds the record of all that ever happened in life, on Earth, and in the cosmos and relates it to all that is yet to happen.
---

It's really sad that you seem to be so knowledgeable, yet so pessimistic. Try to look on the bright side and stay out of /r/collapse and avoid all of those doom and gloom folks. The future is bright and full of wonderful, fantastic, beautiful things we can't even imagine yet. Sure, we've got some rough times ahead of us. We'll probably have an energy "crisis" for a decade or so, but eventually we'll get past that. We'll have viable nuclear fusion technology in less than 50 years which will pretty much solve the whole energy problem.

I've read a lot more books than you think. :-P

> There seems to be an assumption that people whose basic needs are taken care of are all going to sit on their asses and watch Judge Judy all day. And I mean sure, there will be a certain percentage that does - but a) do you really want to have that cohort as your coworkers?

Work changes a person. "Free time off" for now leads to a life of inactivity. And yes, almost everyone I know would accept an offer for some free time off. And then when the next generation is coming up, they will be less likely to work when the payoff value is reduced, changing our culture and making us poor.

Leisure isn't bad. But you have to have a healthy understanding of leisure. This is a good source for starters. And leisure should never serve as a person's primary activity. Work that provides value to others (and value is often best measured through market mechanisms) is important.

> My sense is that people who view a college/university education as some kind of passport to a job are the ones who flounder.

I get what you are saying here, however I'd argue that in a society which has a healthy relationship between education and the labor force this would be the case. The result of a college degree should be a good job with benefits and good enough pay to support oneself, hopefully close to the field you majored in.

People are certainly hiring, but there isn't a demand for labor and we have a huge supply of graduates. That's the issue. Yeah you can find a job if you make the right connections and sell yourself well (which isn't hard to do, and the best jobs will go to the people that do those things anyways), but in a healthy job market you don't need to do that, especially for entry level positions.

What this comes back to is lowering the costs of production. There is a "profit squeeze" going on right now in which producers across the country are being 'forced' to reduce labor costs in order to gain profit. This is a result of us being in a changing world-system. (read that book, it's fascinating. Will blow your mind).

> Buddha will absolutely never let you down, hurt you, leave you.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Buddhism. I've been a practicing Buddhist for several years now, having converted from atheism.

You might be surprised by how different Buddhism is from other major religions. The Buddha was a teacher and that isn't even his given name. It simply means teacher. He was an ordinary human being, just like you and me. He lived and he died, just like everyone else. He never claimed to be a deity and never claimed to have supernatural powers. He was a regular, ordinary human. He just saw the world a little differently and taught that to others.

Buddhism is not a dogmatic belief system, it is much more of a practice. That oversimplifies it somewhat, but practice is key. You are supposed to question it and it's perfectly fine to take it for a test drive. Kick the tires, see what happens. You don't really learn anything until you experience it for yourself and the most others can do is point you in the right direction. It is not a "believe this OR ELSE" kind of thing. There is no conflict with science, either. Buddhism has a way of intersecting with science.

I initially bought Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen because I was curious. Here was this major religion I knew nothing about. I thought I'd get an understanding.

That I did, and plenty more. I initially tried meditation to see what would happen. It turned out to be a wonderful thing. I wondered what would happen if I tried practice. So I slowly did. And it was good. It took a couple of years to realize that this is what I am now.

If anyone is curious, /r/buddhism is a great resource. The sidebar has links to many free texts. The people there are supportive and welcoming to newcomers.

I never thought I'd be religious. But here I am.

Great read if you're in high school and never been exposed to these ideas

E: I feel like people are taking this the wrong way. If you're young and have a cursory interest in philosophy, pieces like this are great to stoke that interest. If you are more intellectually mature, or are deeper in to philosophy, there are loads of pieces that better explore The Cave, and that better explore the philosophy stuff behind The Matrix. Great example is "Philosophers Explore The Matrix". It's a great shallow dive in to some of the concepts, and then you can find more material to dive deeper later.

>In an ideal world, I'm 100% with you.

You may say I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one.

Have you read Ishmael? Would you believe me when I tell you that not only can it be done but it has been done. The idea that individual wealth (personal holdings) is more important than social wealth (a healthy and happy society) is one that has only been going on for a few thousand years. Prior to that, people knew how to live in harmony with each other and nature. This is not something we need to learn how to do, but instead something we need to remember how to do. We are Takers and we need to become Leavers (in the vernacular of Ishmael) and I hope we realize that soon before we destroy our habitat and each other.

If you've got a few hours I recommend you check out the book linked above. It completely changed my world-view.

i don't have to believe what is fact.

i don't think Americans understand or have ever been taught the truth that our country exists because of and was almost entirely built on the economic advantages of slave labor. that was the competitive advantage of the United States from the 1600s to the 1900s, in a world in which agriculture mattered more than anything else economically.

to be fair, the scholarship itself has been suppressed for generations. but it has been coming out of the closet, and there's no reason to pretend anymore that the economic juggernaut of the United States was really built by English Protestant homesteaders or German immigrants. (if you don't want to read the book, at least read about it.)

>In his work, Mr. Baptist also followed the money. “I started tracking the process of credit flow into the South, huge amounts of money,” he said. “Southerners created numerous financial innovations that were essential to the process of the domestic slave trade. Slave owners put mortgages on slaves as they bought them. Britain had abolished slavery, but you can essentially buy slaves by buying one of those bonds. It shows the linkage.”

>As he writes in the book: “The idea that the commodification and suffering and forced labor of African-Americans is what made the United States powerful and rich is not an idea that people necessarily are happy to hear. Yet it is the truth.”

that is the reality of the data, whitewashed by generations of denial: the United States is a slave state, first and foremost. all the idealism and our fetishizing of it is more or less wallpaper meant to cover that harder truth (denials by The Economist -- later completely retracted -- notwithstanding).

There's 3 kinds of incomes: A, B, and C income:

C - A job, the worst way to make a living. Working for another man trading dollars for hours. Slogan: "I'll learn to love (tolerate) what I do and live with what it gives me, at least until I save up enough money to strike out on my own."

B - Contracting work, a business you work. Trading dollars for hours still, but you work for yourself and set your own price. Example, creating and selling products or providing a service. Slogan: "I get paid what I'm worth because I work hard, make my own hours and prices"

A - Passive income streams, AKA residual income, a business that runs itself. Acquire a system of assets. Assets vary greatly and are generally built over time. Examples: Owning a rental unit, owning rental boats, owning a storage facility, really anything you can rent out is an asset, owning an online business that generates enough money for you to pay a manager to run it for you, investments in an institution that pays off high-yields, a copyright that leads to royalty payments, Or setting something up so others can make money, and take a small percentage (Facebook & twitter). Slogan: "Key word: Ownership. I've worked hard, sacrificed for the future, and made tough decisions most people don't. So now I don't have to work for money anymore... my money works for me now!"

Some books on how to get to Level A: 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad', 'The Richest Man in Babylon' Good luck out there :)

For anyone who is interested in reading about the background of the relationship between The United States and Saudi Arabia, there is a great book called "Thicker Than Oil: America's Uneasy Partnership With Saudi Arabia".

http://www.amazon.com/Thicker-Than-Oil-Americas-Partnership/dp/0195367057

Beyond oil, the United States has a lot riding on its close relationship with Saudi Arabia, particularly a common "adversary" in Iran, and it (Saudi Arabia) being a relatively stable regime in the Middle East. The book highlights the importance of Saudi Arabia's deeply religious state, which was important for the United States to support, as it was a means to oppose "Godless Communism" in the Soviet Union at the time (when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan). The author delves into why this (importance of religion in Saudi Arabia) is obviously less important now than it used to be (for the United States), and why the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia needs to be reassessed.

While it was difficult for me to pick up on what might actually be hidden in those 28 pages, it sounds as though it may be strong evidence which would implicate Saudi Arabia in the attacks, even more than they already have been. Perhaps it was not worth it to the United States government to reveal information that would harm relations with a government whom they've long needed the support from, especially given our long-running tensions with Iran.

As an addict in recovery for a few years now, I can honestly say I wouldn't change a thing about my life if I could go back and do so. Self-awareness, life experience, emotional intelligence, self-reliance...I could go on and on about the benefits of surviving addiction of any kind. I won't go so far as to say I think everyone should give addiction of any sort a try, but I will say that most so-called "normal folks" are often untested in life when compared to my less traditional brothers and sisters in recovery.

Thanks for posting a genuinely thoughtful piece, OP.

And for any other people interested in thinking differently about addiction, I can't recommend enough Dr. Gabor Mate bestseller In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts.

Cheers!!

I've read Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down", and his writing style for that is a bit sensationalist, too. It was confusing that in this .txt file, near the end, someone wrote that free market, pre-Civil War style schools are "UNavailable only to the
resourceful, the courageous, the lucky, or the rich." (Huh?)

If anyone takes anything from this, though - since I'm assuming everyone reading this post has already gone through said schooling system - is to look into homeschooling yourself now. You can still learn things from people in the community and or teach yourself. Sure, we don't have as much free time as schoolchildren anymore, but that doesn't mean we ought to not try. Inside of a school building is not the only designated place where you are allowed to learn, and after you graduate high school/college/trade school, that doesn't mean you have to be "done."

Gatto's writing, along with others (John Holt, Susan Wise Bauer, etc.) have been used by many who have decided to homeschool their children, but you can can become an autodidact and "unschool" yourself, no matter what age.




Edit: If you like the idea of Ben Franklin's self-education, you might find this book to be a really fun read.

If you're actually interested this is the book Dumbing Us Down by John Gatto, that made up my and my wife's mind to homeschool our son. We had a great experience.

Our initial concern that made us consider it in the first place was that he was a really inquisitive child and we feared that his enthusiasm for participating and learning would be crushed by the cookie cutter educational system.

Once we got into it many other benefits became evident.

Well, what I'm reading now is Down To Earth: Nature's Role in American History. The first couple chapters are about what we know about how native americans inhabited the landscape, and it moves on through the early settlers and on up to the modern day. It's where I got that information. Pretty good book.

Read up on the youth bulge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid#Youth_bulge_phenomenon

Chuck Palahniuk wrote a very interesting book focused on this concept. https://www.amazon.com/Adjustment-Day-Novel-Chuck-Palahniuk/dp/0393652599