My original objection (crib?) with Jacob, was indeed about the excessive focus on the "Go efficient, young man!" exhortation in his OP, and the responses from others has pretty much stayed on topic since. If Jacob wants to move it, that's fine, but I don't think this is a hijack. We are still discussing his POV from others'.
@Dragline,
Thanks for taking the argument forward and teasing more points, and fielding questions on "framing of the point" in a super cogent way. Good call on pointing to Steve Keen too.
@Chad,
No worries. *shakes hands*
@teewonk,
Everyone suffers from that phobia that Felix uncannily pointed out.
@m741,
"At heart this is a question of whether increasing efficiency is moral or not"
I agree with Dragline's reply to that point. Then I thought about it a little. So let me leave you with those thoughts on the question.
Deep sea trawl fishing is probably the most efficient way to catch fish, but if you spend enough time on the subject beyond the "efficiency" aspect, you can find the adverse effects of the process through
a) depletion of fishing stocks,
b) other deep sea fishes caught in the nets,
c) ecological (coral reefs, etc.) destruction,
d) devastation of coastal communities in developing-
countries where these trawlers illegally operate,
e) fuel subsidies up to $50 mil/year to prop up the industry
and so on.
Whether so much collateral damage done in the name of being efficient in order to ship cheap canned fish to big supermarkets for consumers in a few countries is a moral thing or not, I leave it to you.
@m741,
"Actually I'm approaching this with an engineering perspective,"
Actually, I would say that I am also looking at it from an engineering perspective, only it is a Systems engineering perspective. We engineers would be naturally good at systems approach. We are all culturally primed into wearing some kind of "autistic horse blinds" like some badge of honour. High time we rejected it and be more holistic in our approach.
@Felix,
Your rant induced an uncontrollable burst of laughter from me, which amused the wife to no end. Thanks for making two people happy in one go.
But it was all true :-\Yes, that Rushkoff article was indeed well articulated. I think I also fall in that camp in my thinking. But, in this context I also want to place these old (and offensive to some maybe?) jokes that I heard some 15 years or so ago.
One day, a reporter found an American, a Russian, a Chinese, and an Israeli together.
"Excuse me?" The reporter asked. "What is your opinion of the meat shortage?"
The American asked, "What's a shortage?"
The Russian asked, "What's meat?"
The Chinese asked, "What's an opinion?"
The Israeli asked, "What's excuse me?"
This is the other one:
A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was:"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a huge failure...
In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
And in the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
Just like the thread of those jokes above, 'scarcity' takes on a different meaning in different parts of the World. It is a Human construct in some countries, whereas it is a reality and fact of life to many others.
In other words, Scarcity is real and present thing in many places around the World. At least where I am writing this from (maybe bigato's place too?).
Just one example from one State
=-=-=-=-=
And before I press "send", Cheers Felix!. I thought my opinion of humanity couldn't sink any lower. Your "Pet rock" link just made it sink lower!