by bodigami » Sun 07 Oct 2007, 20:21:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('turmoil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zensui', 'T')he question was not for me, but still: what about ecological cost? Explain ecology in a way that is dead-clear for an economist that the ecological cost was never relevant for calculating the total cost. It's profitable for our species to stop destroying nature; if we keep destroying nature and become extinct there won't be any kind of profit anymore.
In terms of Profit there's current cost and future cost. A carbon cap and trade system or tax would try to put a value on future resources, which is almost impossible. Unfortunately, the value of all resources consumed would be probably be worth more than the gross revenue of all businesses. The problem is that the current value of those resources allows companies to make a profit on volume production. That model is impossible when you try to estimate the actual value of the resources.
For instance, an iPod might actually be worth $1,000,000 dollars, but no one would buy one at that price.
As I see it, the problem is shifting from the industrial age to the sustainable age. It basically requires all business to go out of business, and figure out how to make a profit based on a much higher value of resources. Once resources have a higher value, the businesses can function at a much more efficient level and provide sustainable products that make better use of valuable resources.
Economically it could work, but there is a huge amount of political inertia, which could probably be solved with lobbying, but I guess there's just no money there yet.
it's clear that economy and politics needs to be rethinked. mass production + mass publicity + debt-based money (with no economical value... the contradiction) just doesn't work ecology-wise. Barter may not be the best economical system, but exchange instead of profit is.