A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

[jacob]

FWIW, this https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07S6RTTSP/ book or possibly an earlier version by Wackernagel was the initial inspiration for the "1 jacob" calculation. I read it in German back in 2000/01. (IIRC, I gave my copy to @Stahlmann?! ... if not, it's sitting on a bookshelf in Denmark) This talks about what's involved in developing these metrics. I believe it started with Wackernagel's phd dissertation.

I remain in favor of "full resource" accounting. Trying to optimize one measurement ("the system converges on its measure") leads to snafus like using ethanol for fuel or thinking that hydrogen is an energy source. CO2 is just one out of several problems. It just happens to be getting the most attention currently since we recently had some wildfires and some heatwaves in places we don't routinely ignore.

[Alphaville]

@Alphaville:

It’s not even internally consistent. See “Debunking Economics” by Keen. That said, it does work well for many micro situations. Who wouldn’t want 3 packets of heirloom tomato seeds for the price of two?

hah! never heard of it but will add to the pool.

but see: even in micro situations. the value that you just added here was not monetized and remains invisible to the accounting ledgers.

is it that poor people are forced to cooperate because they don’t have amy money? or is it the moneyed but uncooperative people who are the impoverished?

i’d like to know for real.

I remain in favor of "full resource" accounting.

agreed. and thanks for the book link! again, i’m richer with no money exchanged.

[7Wannabe5]

but see: even in micro situations. the value that you just added here was not monetized and remains invisible to the accounting ledgers.

True. I believe it is composed mainly of what Pierre Bourdieu referred to as Cultural Capital. However, it is also true that a good deal of Human Capital, including Cultural Capital, can be converted back into $$$. For instance, that’s why I noted that if Hristo retired early, it might be most precise and/or accurate to depreciate the remaining value of his law school education over X years spent devoted to domestic pursuits. It’s also why the fact that I value a used guitar over truck rally tickets has the somewhat perverse effect of garnering me more affluent suitors than a much more attractive female peer I befriended while temporarily working at Home Depot. (Although, I must note that the post-menopausal level of chub I’ve recently acquired combined with terrible Covid despair hair color/cut, and my wrinkled thrift store happy camper wardrobe may currently be strictly limiting my ability to signal anything like educated towards upper middle class. I am once more veering towards superficial appearance akin to Britney Spears’ Not So Pretty Aunt Who Lives In Trailer Park. (sigh) This is an expense for me, because, otherwise, maybe I could “afford” to live in a trailer park, but there is a limit to how many counter-class signals one can overcome simply by display of reading materials and/or pot of heirloom tomatoes.)

Also, I don’t grok why you keep typing variants on “cooperate” when I am sure you must mean “submit.”

[Alphaville]

Also, I don’t grok why you keep typing variants on “cooperate” when I am sure you must mean “submit.”

-

also, i believe bordieu was talking about distinction and taste, and status signaling, rather than actual value exchanged, no?

but that notion has evolved a lot since its inception. which i’m cool with.

[7Wannabe5]

The value exchanged is through keeping company. Also, status signaling is obviously hugely important in seeking employment as well as any sort of partnership. When I read Bordieu, I suddenly clicked on why I was able to have such an enjoyable lifestyle on such a small spending budget. There’s a huge advantage gained through those you are able to come to know.

[Alphaville]

for that reason too—writers, poets, artists, etc, always appear richer than they actually are

eta: the same logic operates among hipsters, who aren’t real artists but can be the ultimate snobs. you buy the wrong vinyl... no, you buy a cd—and you’re dead to them

[7Wannabe5]

Yeah, one of my ex brother-in-laws is a semi-famous musician and also damn good-looking, and my sister who is only about as much of an earner as me always had more money than him. Like she had to pay if they went camping I like me some good-looking musician too, but no way I’m going there. That’s one reason why I gotta stick to my I only date men who date me rule. The other, of course, being that I don’t want to be stuck as the one who does most of the heavy lifting in bed. I prefer men with slightly more money and a lot more active testosterone than me. Like somebody who will at least chip in 50/50 for camping fees, hopefully already have some equipment he knows how to use, and not be like “You’re covered with mud and bug bites. Ick.” or “I am meditating on the meaningless of life by this limpid pond. Why must you always disturb me?”

[Alphaville]

date

sexist!

[white belt]

My teenage step-daughter who liked to fish once made me promise that I’d cook a carp if she caught one from nearby river. As I recall, the consensus of suggested recipes it was something about the flesh staying unpleasantly damp and mushy even when cooked, so recommended making into something like fish cakes, so breading could absorb excess moisture and lend substance.

There is a significant difference between common carp and Asian carps. Common carp, which were introduced in the 19th century and are generally not considered invasive, have dark and fatty meat with a strong taste. Asian carp species, of which there are 4 and all are considered invasive, have a white and flaky texture with mild taste. Both are edible but will require different cooking strategies.

[Myakka]

https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-tran ... mate-envoy

All right there are signs. They look like clever advertizing to me, and therefore I choose to discount them.

[Alphaville]

All right there are signs. They look like clever advertizing to me, and therefore I choose to discount them.

o well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[7Wannabe5]

The proportion of U.S. spending devoted to personal goods dropped from more than 60% in 1950 to 36% in 2014, with services now comprising about 2/3of the total. There is talk of Western societies reaching “peak stuff”. As developed countries have grown richer, a smaller proportion of consumer spending wasdevoted to food; the same process may now be happening with physical goods. Many of the things that people consume are now in non-physical form.

-“More: A History of the World Economy from the Iron Age to the Information Age” - Phillip Coggan

This crossover does account for some decrease in energy intensity in affluent societies, but the important thing to note is that it is a crossover that generally does not occur until level of affluence equivalent to “my one daughter can afford to fly to Paris for her honeymoon” is achieved. Also, the higher the proportion of services, the higher the proportion of expert services, the higher the proportion of years devoted to education or training while still eating and buying/depreciating personal goods. Abraham Lincoln teaching himself the law in a one room cabin is the highly notable exception, not the rule.

[Hristo Botev]

Interesting. This was a theme of the book Elizabeth Warren wrote with her daughter ("Two Income Trap", I think). Almost everything we buy now is cheaper than it used to be--with the exception (I think) of education and housing (and healthcare), which are related. So, we buy more stuff--i.e., several pairs of new kids' cheap shoes as opposed to leather hand-me-down shows; we invent new stuff to buy; and we spend more on services we could otherwise do ourselves (e.g., childcare). So we spend more time at work, live in bigger homes, hire folks to clean and garden those homes, and we spend way, way more money on education.

[classical_Liberal]

...

[7Wannabe5]

@classical_Liberal:

The context of the quote had to do with increased technology and automation. The percentage of American population working in manufacturing has gone down, but productivity has improved, just like with agriculture earlier in 20th century. The evidence speaks to a limit to consumption of stuff without service heavy “experience “ value added, as with food—> expensive restaurant experience.

IOW, up to approximately global middle class income = $11/day/capita, basic security spending such as on food is primary. From level of global middle class to level of affluent society middle class = can afford trip to Paris, spending will be mostly on “ stuff”, beyond this level spending will be mainly on “experience “ and/or savings will accumulate. Therefore, it’s kind of old-fashioned to view spending on stuff as conspicuous while viewing spending on services or experiences as more benign.

@Hristo:

Part of what is going on with shift to two income households is ever increasing shift away from youth labor and extension of educational period. Simple example being 2 kid-dults in school full-time from age 16 to 26 = 1 parent working full-time for 20 years. The reason why this seems like a good idea or a necessary evil is that when you live in a technologically advanced society, most work that is available will be either highly skilled high paid service work ( lawyer, professor, project manager) or low skill low paid service work ( barista, nursery school aide, valet) and this tends towards creating a two-tiered culture in which almost everything including marital possibilities is part and parcel of this division.

This growing tendency towards assortative mating in the U.S. is a huge change from mid-20th century when there was MUCH less correlation, likely because people married earlier and made decision more heavily weighted towards sexual attraction rather than educational or career success attainment. Luckily, although IQ is partially heritable, it is also quite sporty (will frequently pop up unexpectedly), or results of meritocracy would be even worse.

[Alphaville]

Saw a mention about “buen vivir” and doing a search found this newspaper article:

If you put a price on nature, then you're suggesting an ownership of the planet ... Furthermore, capital is something that is interchangeable between people. But if you destroy the environment, then it's difficult to rebuild it, which undermines it being interchangeable," Guynas argues.

later down

In addition, consumers need to begin to pay the "real value" of the products they consume, Gudynas argues. That's to say, environmental and social costs should be incorporated into the final price and not externalised. He gives the example of a $25 electric fan on sale in his home city of Montevideo. "It's made in China, with plastic that isn't recyclable, with copper probably from Chile and other metals perhaps from Peru. None of the social and environmental costs of mining or transport appear in the price. If they did, it could never retail at that price."

the real problem, seems to me, is how to do “accounting.”

[7Wannabe5]

I think it comes down to measuring complexity. Don’t destroy the complexity of a coral reef to make a plastic fan, but also don’t destroy the complexity inherent in the last extant copy of “Persuasion” to make a fire. Unfortunately, complexity is damn hard to measure. Also, living creatures or grouped organisms must literally consume net total greater complexity in order to survive, because entropy. Maybe when the AI becomes more intelligent than Claude Shannon?

[Alphaville]

I think it comes down to measuring complexity.

yeah, accounting oversimplifies. “look ma, i made a profit by erasing reality in my mind”

IAlso, living creatures or grouped organisms must literally consume net total greater complexity in order to survive, because entropy.

not... necessarily at our scale, because we get free energy from the sun which allows us to build this negentropy.

what destroys complexity is... something else.

[7Wannabe5]

If you consider your skin sac to be the boundary of the system that is you, then you must consume food that is net more complex than you, because there is some complexity left in your shit.

If you consider system including you and the creatures that eat your shit which is open to energy flow from sun then that is different.

[Alphaville]

oh yeah “i” can’t possibly exist without “them”

the problem happens when i think i do

little box here, little box there... not real.