X-Message-Number: 15289
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:03:07 +0000
From: Phil Rhoades <>
Subject: Living beyond our means

Hi all,

Just shows you how hard it is to say what you actually mean - you think it 
is clear and then someone responds and shows it obviously wasn't  . .

>Message #15280
>From: "John de Rivaz" <>
>Subject: Living beyond our means
>Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:28:40 -0000
>
>It has been suggested several times on Cryonet and elsewhere that humanity
>is living beyond its means.

When I said this I was using the term very narrowly ie in a biological 
sense - we have inherited a large amout of biological diversity as 
"capital" which we are currently squandering at an alarming rate instead of 
making use of the "interest" which would be to put some of this 
biodiversity to use eg researching all the biota in a rainforest/jungle for 
(potentially) extremely valuable medicines etc instead clear felling 
everything in sight, burning all the timber and planting a few crops to 
grow a few hamburgers until the poor soil gives up the ghost and turns to 
desert. The potential return on maintaining the "jungle" and sensitive 
mining for new tech products exceeds by orders of magnitude what a slash 
and burn will make (not to mention the aesthetic value of what is 
lost).  This really is environmental vandalism but it is also particularly 
stupid even from a conventional economic viewpoint (albeit a bit more 
long-term than the one year bottom-line perspective).  We can make 
hamburgers anytime - you can't recover lost species that you didn't even 
know existed.  At least I am hopefull that more enlightened capitalists are 
realising what the potential is and starting to advocate conservation (even 
if it is from self-interest).

>I wonder if this takes into consideration the growth of technology. Anyone
>who read Mark Plus' links on economics would have seen how in the oil
>industry technology growth has made many predictions laughable with
>hindsight.

And this is a good thing? Oil industry growth I mean? Surely instead of 
just burning the stuff in gas guzzlers etc it would be better to use if for 
petrochemicals/ pharmaceuticals etc?

>Although oil could run out eventually (unless some as yet unknown
>geological rather than biological process is making it inside the planet)
>technology growth will enable mass transport to be achieved by other means I
>am sure.

I certainly hope so but it is a long time coming . . I may be paranoid but 
I'm sure a cleaner mass transit system could have been available long ago - 
in who's interest is it for this not to happen?

>If someone has means (ie capital) that is growing at a greater percentage
>than the funds they are withdrawing, then they are not living beyond their
>means, even if they are withdrawing more than the  3% that everyone thinks
>capital *ought* to make after taxation penalties on owning it.

Again, I was talking biology not banks etc - biologically we are living 
well and truly beyond our means . .

R&LL,

Phil.

-
Philip Rhoades

Pricom Pty Limited  (ACN  003 252 275)
GPO Box 3411
Sydney NSW	2001
Australia
Mobile:  +61:0411-185-652
Fax:  +61:2:8923-5363
E-mail:  

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15289