Jevon's Paradox?

Economics Political Theory
61

JLR

Because species extinctions happened before humans were even around. If an extinction occurs, you have to show that the market caused it: causation v correlation. Right now it seems as though you’re talking about non-market goods (to your question: “What is the price of phytoplankton die-offs? Not a valued product in the least”). It seems here however that you’re implying that the trouble comes in areas where the market does not touch. I’m also implying that with this

NEPHiLiX

The emphasis here being that these kinds of market goods are quite effectively rationed. Rising prices force increasingly stringent rationing and/or the flight into alternatives, etc etc.

In any case, to use a different example: in North Korea there’s a unique kind of moss (I don’t know if there is, this is just hypothetical). Whether the actual extinction is caused by the regime (burns it all out of existence to make way for a new Gulag) or not (earthquake exposes it and a sudden cold snap wipes it out of existence): how is the market responsible for this? I’m no biologist, but isn’t extinction a natural part of the ecosystem?

NEPHiLiX

JLR

I was speaking globally. Otherwise I think that this can degrade into silliness pretty quickly. If I define it very locally, I can say that my cat’s death (I don’t have a cat) represents an extinction event, that my throwing out a used bunch of litter depleted that bag completely, etc. When whatever is used to make litter gets harder to get a hold of (making it more expensive), producers will switch to something else and, being a man of limited means, so will I.

62

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Why would you want to ignore all of our previous “interaction”?
[/quote]

It was pointless contradiction and flaming.

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Posting disjointed examples and making rhetorical statements about them does not constitute an argument.
[/quote]

Well, I guess I’m not “arguing” then.

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
You can claim that nothing qualifies as “real” to you, but your behavior shows otherwise. So as I see it, you’re constantly engaging in a performative contradiction.
[/quote]

Oh brother, THIS argument again?

Have you ever heard of the phrase,

“for the sake of argument”? Is it “dishonest” to adopt a stance “for the sake of argument”?

I use concepts and ideas as I see fit, but I try not let them rule me. It’s a Stirner thing.

Thinking about it more, perhaps I am dishonest. I lie to myself all the time to keep “sane”. I think that reflects more on my limitations as an individual. Essentially, I lie to myself and cling to by reified abstractions because I can’t handle the truth.

“All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts,”

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Apparently you don’t like to hear that, so you retreat into embracing absurdity and making ridiculous statements just to get your critics off your back.
[/quote]

Now you’ve revealed yourself. You just don’t like my opinions, plain and simple. In fact, they are so foreign and vexing to you, that you must fabricate some sort of malicious personna (yes, malicious. You might as well be describing an angler fish in the preceding passage) in order to reconcile my philosophy with your worldview.

“There’s no way he can actually BELIEVE what he types, so he must just be trolling, or lying!”

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I don’t think you’re trying to hurt anyone, but you’re not engaging in actual debate.
[/quote]

LOL, by who’s standards? OK, so I’m not engaging in an “actual debate”… So what?

63

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
The air is getting cleaner, in market economies. Rivers are cleaner, in market economies. Forests are growing, in market economies.
[/quote]

LOL, compared to what?

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
Environmental degradation is always a socialist problem.
[/quote]

Can you back this assertion up? Most native American tribes where relatively egalitarian, and they lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years in the same location.

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
capitalism protects the environment
[/quote]

Assertion. Cyanide leaching gold?

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
I was talking about natural resources and their renewability.
[/quote]

So am I. Animal species are never converted into goods?

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
Species have always gone extinct.
[/quote]

Odd point… Do you equate natural and anthropogenic extinction? Can you think of any reasons why they may differ?

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
that doesn’t mean that resources overall are finite
[/quote]

Do you think the universe is infinite? Or rather, our ability to exploit the universe is infinite?

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
What’s considered a resource depends on technology, and that’s why the notion of a “total amount of resources” that could be “used up” can just kinda be refuted in its entirety.
[/quote]

I think you are taking a rather cut and dry approach to what is a nuanced problem, IMO. What is technology? Does technology itself require resources?

Can we agree that the planet is physically finite? If so, we should also be able to agree that each element is present in finite amounts (only so much hydrogen, iron, phosphorus, etc.). If we rely on an infinite growth model, is it also safe to assume that eventually, the demand for those finite elemental resources will outweigh their availablility?

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
No, why would it?
[/quote]

Because if you are producing unsustainably, you would have to keep moving on (expanding) to maintain production output.

64

By the laws of thermodynamics, all production is unsustainable. Now what, Jackson?

65

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
Anecdotal evidence isn’t really helpful.
[/quote]

But two esoteric articles on oil wells fefilling is?

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
I might be able to say that murder rates have gone down in some area, but you can always point and say, “Oh look, someone was murdered in my area!”
[/quote]

Yeah, which is the relevant issue, at least as far as I am concerned.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
The US is cleaner than it was 100-150 years ago.
[/quote]

And? I don’t see how this is a point. Is it cleaner than it was in 1491?

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
The Charles River in Boston used to be so dirty that if you fell into the water, you would have to go to the hospital and get shots.
[/quote]

And? If anything, you are proving my point. Did you have to do that before the Puritans got here? Where are all the salmon? When’s the last time you ate anything out of the river? When was the last time it ran in it’s actual river bed (it has been completely engineered from Cambridge downstream)?

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
The Charles River is cleaner than it used to be, and you can fall in without having to go to the hospital.
[/quote]

LOL, what’s next, telling me that the market was responsible for the clean up? The Charles is fucked, hate to break it to you. The same goes for most rivers in New England/Northeast. The Hudson, the Housatonic, the Connecticut, the Thames, the Providence (hell, it was underground till a few years ago!), the Charles, the Merrimack, etc.

Just because your definition of “not trashed” is “won’t send you to the hospital”, doesn’t mean that the ecology of the region hasn’t been severly impacted and the carrying capacity severly reduced.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
Nuclear energy is clean energy.
[/quote]

Yeah? Here’s a good disposal solution!

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
People have already demonstrated that it is the case.
[/quote]

Where?

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
Ok, we are sure that capitalism is sustainable. It’s that or extinction.
[/quote]

Are you saying that existence is impossible without capitalism?

66

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
I’m not saying that capitalism is the only cause, just that you were mistaken when you said growth was required for capitalism.
[/quote]

Well, if capitalism is inheirently unsustainable (Jevon’s Paradox), we can assume growth is required, because if one produces unsustainably, one would have to unceasingly expand the resource base to maintain the output required to overcome marginal utility. The resources in question continuously diminish, since the growth in demand is unceasing.

In sum:

Increased production=increased demand (more and more marginal users brought on board) ad infinitum

inceased demand=increased exploitation (more marginal resources brought into production) ad infinitum

Therefore, the model (Capitalism) requires (infinite) growth (i.e., production and exploitation).

If anything, I am failing to understand how exchange and surplus are inextricably linked (capitalism is required for growth).

67

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
By the laws of thermodynamics, all production is unsustainable.
[/quote]

Makes sense to me. Entropy is a bitch, eh? Of course, I have no doubt in Capitalism’s ability to innovate towards achieving perpetual motion (apparently no one else here doubts it, either ).

68

Considering you were vague and the articles deal with actual places, yes. Plus, the articles throw a wrench in the idea that oil is a fixed resource.

I think I see the problem here. You want to live in a perfect world. That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the real world.

Firstly, capitalism is not what was originally the system here. For hundreds of years, it was mercantlism and some socialism. After capitalism, people improved the environment. So, this would contradict your belief that capitalism must lead to a worse environment. Secondly, if you would prefer we go back to 1491, I shall direct you to this thread here.

No, it does not prove your point. As I said above, capitalism is not the cause of destruction everywhere. It is typically other forms of economies that have destruction. In addition, capitalism is able to reverse problems when they occur if people care. If they don’t, well, so what? We should all be forced to listen to you?

Furthermore, you just don’t even know what you are talking about:

There are fish in the Charles River in the Boston area, and you can eat some of them. Follow the link and choose the part of the Charles River that is in the Boston area, as that is what we have been discussing.

It’s been getting rated B and B+ from the EPA. It used to be a D. The idea is to keep improving it.

It’s not my problem that you didn’t define your idea of a “trashed” environment. Civilization itself severly impacts the environment. I’m still not gonna burn my home down just to satisfy you and Freedom4Me.

So what? There will be improvements in disposal. Disposal need not cause problems for people. If it has, then those affected have every right to sue. That is, if the government permits it. But then we are no longer talking about capitalism, and we are back to the government screwing things up.

Open your eyes and look.

No. I’ll be more specific. It’s capitalism or extinction, unless you want to just run around aggressing against everyone who doesn’t do things the way you would like.

Of course, that’s the option you want. I shouldn’t have left it out.

69

It appears that you have trouble with logic. Capitalism does not require growth. Capitalism is just a system where capital is private and there is the free market (unless you are defining capitalism as crony capitalism, but then why argue with ancaps who don’t support that notion?). No where in that definition does it say that growth causes capitalism. It is the reverse. Capitalism causes growth. Once people start saving and accumulating capital, it makes it possible for them to be more productive, which causes growth.

I’m not sure what is so tough about this for you. It’s pretty basic logic.

70

Therefore, by your reasoning, we should stop all production.

71

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Because species extinctions happened before humans were even around.
[/quote]

I think there is a distinct difference between natural extinction, and anthropogenic extinction, from an ecological standpoint.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
If an extinction occurs, you have to show that the market caused it: causation v correlation.
[/quote]

I’m confused by this passage. What do you mean by “the market”? Seems to be a reification. I consider “the market” just the aggregate of economic activity, which can practically be expanded to encompass all human action, which can be expanded further to encompass all thermodynamics.

I am question the viability of the western dominator culture, and consequent industrial production, if it supposes infinite growth as a prerequisite. I am speaking nothing towards exchange and transition.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
The emphasis here being that these kinds of market goods are quite effectively rationed.
[/quote]

If they are considered atomistically as discrete “goods” in a vacuum. The phytoplankton comment was really meant to demonstrate that even though the goods themselves may be rationed, unintended consequences may still prove detrimental enough to extinguish the resource. I think this could be considered market failure.

Even though you attempted to exclude the biosphere (because it was the only way this point could begin to make sense), it is nonsensical to consider any resource in a vacuum. Holistic thinking is required to consider the actual sustainability of resource exploitation.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
how is the market responsible for this?
[/quote]

Well, why did the North Korean regime take power? What caused the earthquake, or the cold snap? How did the first kings even create the first states?

Do you think that production and commerce are completely free from any responsibility in the history of the world?

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
Otherwise I think that this can degrade into silliness pretty quickly.
[/quote]

We poison ourselves every day. I’d say we are already rather silly.

[quoteuser=“NEPHiLiX”]
producers will switch to something else and, being a man of limited means, so will I.
[/quote]

Ad infinitum?

72

[quoteuser=“Esuric”]
this does not yield the sort of paradox you’re describing, where efficiency gains actually lead to a more rapid depletion of resources.
[/quote]

I don’t think that’s what Jevon’s Paradox states. I think it is stating that when efficiency in employment of a resource is increased, one would assume that consumption of that resource would decrease, since one is able to “do more with less”.

Instead, consumption just rises unceasingly, no matter how efficiently a resource is utilized. But, as you said,

So it seems as if infinite growth is sort of expected and obvious to most posters here.

[quoteuser=“Esuric”]
This, according to your theory, will increase the consumption of iron and therefore lead to less steel and iron in the long run.
[/quote]

As long as the method of production is unsustainable, yes.

[quoteuser=“Esuric”]
But this, again, will only occur if the rate of consumption exceeds the efficiency gains made in steel, and if there isn’t simultaneous gains in the efficiency of iron production.
[/quote]

This confuses me. No matter the efficiency of production, the system described here still seems to be linear. That is, iron ore turns to steel, is consumed, and never utilized again. A linear system must be finite, given the restrictions of our physical universe. Does that seem reasonable?

Even granted a cyclical system of production, since we know there isn’t such thing as perpretual motion, there are external inputs required for the production of steel, which may still be linear.

And even if all of the auxillary inputs required were also cyclical with a complete return of resources, then we’d still be capped by the entropy of the universe (thanks, Autolykos!)…

Bummer.

73

Jackson, why aren’t you stopping your production yet? Are you trying to hasten the heat-death of the universe?

74

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
Plus, the articles throw a wrench in the idea that oil is a fixed resource.
[/quote]

At the risk of going on a tangent about oil, no, they don’t, and that is a strawman anyways. When all the methane is water and CO2?

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
I think I see the problem here. You want to live in a perfect world. That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
[/quote]

Perfect is relative, but a world where clean water, air, and food exist would be a start.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
So, this would contradict your belief that capitalism must lead to a worse environment. Secondly, if you would prefer we go back to 1491, I shall direct you to this thread here.
[/quote]

Strawman. Please quote me where I said that capitalism must lead to a worse enviroment. I think I’m adressing unsustainable production more than anything else. It’s funny, I’ve been involved on that thread as well. I’m going to catch up with it when I’m done here.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
In addition, capitalism is able to reverse problems when they occur if people care. If they don’t, well, so what? We should all be forced to listen to you?
[/quote]

How can capitalism reverse the problems of industrial production? I don’t think anyone has to listen to me, but if I am getting poisoned all of the time, then I’m going to try to do something about it. I just think it’s a stupid idea to shit where you sleep.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
There are fish in the Charles River in the Boston area, and you can eat some of them.
[/quote]

Dude, how far in denial do you have to be? Enough to rely on the hated state to tell what is safe and not safe to eat, apparently. And we invaded Iraq because of WMDs, right?

LOL, did you even bother to check?

Town(s)

Hazard

Advisory

Fish Type

Boston, Cambridge, Dedham, Dover, Natick, Needham, Newton, Watertown, Wellesley, Weston, Waltham

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and pesticides

P1 Children younger than 12 years of age, pregnant women, women of childbearing age who may become pregnant, and nursing mothers should not eat any Carp or Largemouth Bass fish from this water body.

Carp
Largemouth Bass

P2 The general public should not consume Carp from this water body.

Carp

P3 The general public should limit consumption of Largemouth Bass fish to two meals per month.

Mmm, sounds delicious!

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
It’s been getting rated B and B+ from the EPA. It used to be a D.
[/quote]

Again with the appeal to the government, and this also begs the question:

Do you have any evidence that “the market” was responsible for the clean up?

This also ingnores the fact that the destruction has just moved to China. If it made any sense to keep manufacturing in the Boston area, the Charles would run different colors everyday once again.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
Civilization itself severly impacts the environment.
[/quote]

Civilization is also part and parcel with the state, coercion, and ultimately violence (towards people and the enviroment). It is exploitation and rape writ large.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
I’m still not gonna burn my home down just to satisfy you and Freedom4Me.
[/quote]

LOL, why? You don’t like breathable air, drinkable water, edible food, and safe shelter? We are killing ourselves, that’s all.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
There will be improvements in disposal. Disposal need not cause problems for people.
[/quote]

Sorry, Charlie, you may have to argue yourself on this one,

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
There is a lot of information that we just don’t know. Why are you assuming we know everything now?
[/quote]

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]
But then we are no longer talking about capitalism, and we are back to the government screwing things up.
[/quote]

How? By inventing nuclear power? And again, it’s unsustainable production that I’m having trouble with.

[quoteuser=“gotlucky”]

No. I’ll be more specific. It’s capitalism or extinction, unless you want to just run around aggressing against everyone who doesn’t do things the way you would like.

Of course, that’s the option you want. I shouldn’t have left it out.
[/quote]

What are you talking about?

[edit] Do you believe in property rights? Or the NAP? The supremacy of science or logic? You might be carrying around way more authoritarian baggage than I.

I’m just saying we are shitting where we sleep, and I find it hard to believe it can go on forever.

75

Jackson, are you going to actually respond to my posts? Or do I need to publicly accuse you of trolling and start reporting your posts as such?

76

Calm down Autolykos, remember, it’s not all about you.

How would you like me to respond?

77

Once again, I never said it’s all about me.

I’d like you to respond however you’d like to - as long as you do actually respond.

78

gotlucky,

But how does one aquire capital? Production, right? And if that production is unsustainable? Capital eventually ceases to accumulate, right? So, what would a capitalist be required to do if they wish to keep accumulating capital? Expand the resource base, right?

79

[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Therefore, by your reasoning, we should stop all production.
[/quote]

To achieve what end?

80

LOL, compared to what?
[/quote]

Compared to previous decades. You actually didn’t know this? In our parents youths most large harbors and rivers in population centers were completely foul, as they still are in India and China today (i.e. socialist countries, until recently). Forest area is growing in the US and western Europe, you can look this up. The air one too.

Environmentalism is not a growing problem, the reason there’s so much focus on it these days is that people are rich enough to afford the luxury. Ironically, people started to care about protecting the environment when it got better. Which is typical for social activist movements, they follow the progress.

Can you back this assertion up?
[/quote]

It’s just an empirical observation, see quotes above. Or check out that picture of the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The Dominican Republic is somewhat capitalist and therefore people could afford to protect their environment for eco-tourism. The Haitian side is completely deforested because people are poor and need the charcoal. In capitalist countries people can afford stoves, hence growing forests. Capitalism causes wealth, and environmental protection is a consumer good that we can afford if we are rich enough. Socialism causes poverty and therefore environmental degradation.

Don’t confuse state-socialism and egalitarianism.

Assertion.
[/quote]

So is environmentalist dogma.

Mostly done in poor socialist countries. Capitalist countries have safe modern factories for gold extraction.

So am I. Animal species are never converted into goods?

[quoteuser=“EmperorNero”]
Species have always gone extinct.
[/quote]

Odd point… Do you equate natural and anthropogenic extinction? Can you think of any reasons why they may differ?
[/quote]

Species are going extinct when nobody owns them. As I said, it’s a socialist problem. For example, elephant heards in national parks are shrinking, while privately owned elephant heards, for paid hunting, are thriving.

Do you think the universe is infinite? Or rather, our ability to exploit the universe is infinite?
[/quote]

No, but the universe is pretty big. So is the earth. Resources are not finite for our purposes.

I think you are taking a rather cut and dry approach to what is a nuanced problem, IMO.
[/quote]

That’s interesting, I find your logic regarding finiteness overly reductionist.

Yes.

We don’t rely on infinite growth, plenty of rich capitalist countries have shrinking populations. And yes, the demand for those finite elemental resources would outweigh their availability. But by then we will use other finite resources. You see? We keep using different finite resources, therefore the set of “resources” is not finite.

Because if you are producing unsustainably, you would have to keep moving on (expanding) to maintain production output.
[/quote]

You never really said why capitalism should “require growth to exist”. If you aren’t stating your argument, then I can’t respond to it.