* To establish feasibility, it is necessary to include some items in the energy invested term that are normally not thought of as investments. For example, the cost of sequestering such carbon dioxide as will be produced by the energy technology under investigation should be added to the energy invested term because feasibility requires that our society be sustainable (until astronomical events intervene). In this thought experiment, the support of an alternative energy technology would be the sole concern of every citizen.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Wealth sharing is necessary and philosophically correct.
The first characteristic of the natural political economy as envisioned by this author was stated as follows in http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/: (Note that Proviso (b) (below) ensures that wealth sharing does not lead to population growth.)
1. A give-away economy with no monetary system. Each economic actor¹ notifies directly the enterprises that supply his genuine needs, which, in turn, tell him when the item or items can be picked up or will be delivered depending upon which mode has the lower emergy costs. Clearly, delivery syndicates will need to minimize emergy by solving optimization problems – possibly of combinatorial complexity – by computer, if computers are available in the wake of Peak Oil. Otherwise, emergy consumption is not likely to be minimized, although it may be acceptably low. Being too poor to afford a computer for each economic actor is another case of the poor communities getting poorer; but, even in the worst case, it will not be accompanied by the rich getting richer to exacerbate the situation. These enterprises also report the emergy values of the item or items to each economic actor and to a public servant if the community deems this necessary until people have learned the lesson of minimizing their consumption. Thus, the economy is consumer-planned subject only to the consumer's responsibility (a) to use no more than 1/Nth of the total sustainable dividend of the economy (measured in emergy units) where N is the number of consumers and (b) to reproduce himself only, to pass on his reproductive rights to another, or not to reproduce. Life can be made discouragingly difficult for cheaters.
Nearly every progressive visionary includes some proivision in his plan for those in society who are unable to care for themselves. Normally, though, this type of charity assumes that those who cannot do better for themselves deserve no more than the minimum stipend, which is assumed to permit bare survival. Two comments on this follow:
1. In the post-Peak Oil world, the minimum for survival is likely to to be the maximum possible equal share or very close to it. (If there should not be enough survival shares to go around, we expect that those who are not capable will be the first to perish.)
2. Although the world has evolved into a place where certain types of creatures are better adapted to survive and/or thrive, this is an artifact of evolution and not inherently fair or moral. If the class of people who are most capable of doing so impose their will upon the others, this is not a moral choice and may not be defended philosophically. To assume otherwise, requires the world to have evolved under the direction of a divine (moral) intelligence, which is nonsense.