"Currency is just a means for purchasing goods and services, and providing an accounting system."
Sounds like a typical line pulled from a Milton Friedman book or one of his course's syllabus that I have heard, well, forever. But it has been around for 4 thousand years, give or take (Not Milton I mean, currency).
Perhaps some analogy's.
"Human beings are nothing more than a big pile of cells (60% water) that happen to have the capability of moving around and make sounds."
I mean to be fair, we are really just that, and that is a true statement that you really can not argue with.
Now given that factual description, if the word "oversimplification" did not exist in the human make sounds dictionary, I think some human upon reading my definition would say, "I am creating a word called oversimplification which will mean the following, "
the action of describing or explaining something in such a simple way that it is no longer correct or true"".
The Milton Freidman thinking line is guilty of such a condition. However, the
real error is in the approach to use the definition of "something" as an answer for its effect on humanity, as some kind of end all in causality and justifications.
In a way, it is a misdirection or what I like to call smoke and mirrors.
Understanding the atom and being able to control it to an extent, is nothing more than controlling in part a bunch of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. Harmless enough. It is simply understanding and quantifying a bunch of matter.
However put hose "constructs" and understandings in the hands of man and he can wipe out all life on the surface of this planet. SO, one might ask, is it really the "definition" of a thing that needs to be addressed to solve a problem(s) or is it its impacts on the human environment (And humans) that is where the rubber meets the road?
I believe it is. And there are two main descriptors:
Choice impacts and inherent impacts.
A choice impact is something that is a "clean" open choice without any core motivations.
If you throw water on "yourself" (Clothed or not) "you" will get wet. Simple.
Now do you have to do that inherently without escape? No. But if you do you will get wet.
It is a choice if you want to get wet.
Inherent impacts are ones that are basically inescapable.
Lets try eating. Do you have to put food in your mouth. Well, sort of no. No one is forcing you to do that. You have a choice. You have a choice of whether and what you choose to put in your mouth. I mean its not like it is in any way Foods fault that you eat./s. Its what you choose to do with it. Right? Well, not really. Because if you do not eat, you will die, which last time I checked was kind of a big deal. Eating is an inherent impact of having food, because organic life forms are coupled by a necessity to consume matter to create energy. So if you have food you will eat it. There is no escape basically.
Currency has the same inherent impact when present for man. Like food forces man to continue to live as a result of its necessary consumption, currency forces man into a hierarchical structure because it is based on math (No denomination less currency). And it is that forcing that causes man to remain true to his lower brain functions. In my TFTD #126 (probably 15 years ago or so), I expressed it like this:
#126. "I am not saying money is the "root of all evil" here. I am saying that currency is the perfect choice catalyst for the human animal instinct to reveal its worst sides, competition, selfishness, greed, in lieu of cooperation, compassion and equivalency."
Any political structure from Gilded Age Capitalism to practiced Communism all have a hierarchical structure. The ruling party is never poor. There is no "poor" Royal or power/money "poor" bourgeoisie. And as far a Marxism goes, it is theoretical and never has solidified into a real social structure, for the very reasons I am trying to point out here. Marxism is trying to be water that is not wet. But because it still has to play ball in currencies open stadium, it gets rained on..
SO, the only way for man to move beyond his historical ills, and to embrace his higher brain functions (TFTD#126), is to move beyond the currency construct. A start would be to stop playing in the weeds of definitions as a prophetic end all.
Since I have bestowed so much optimism to this thread, here is a short pros I wrote back in 1996, at 6PM while I was running 4 miles. I think you will find it an emotional shift. It is pure creative writing which I love the most, and has absolutely no direct connection to the aforementioned topics.
The Way We Are
Standing in the mass of the ages. We choose this often
over our own solitude, even though much of the pain we
feel comes from our choice.
We crave, desire even bleed not to be lonely. What
drives this mad compulsion? Is it masochism or the
inherited wants of the forgotten.
Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, but it does
subscribe to some standard definitions. Many languages
does it speak and many lies does it tell. But perhaps
only time and understanding can transport to us the
truth and happiness we all so need and desire.
11/26/1997 6pm WHFIII
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-14-2023 11:38 AM
From: Thomas Grant
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
Mr Fitch, I admire your detailed knowledge of solar components and systems, but sometimes you get on a thread that I just cannot follow the logic. This "currency" thread happens to be one of them. Currency is just a means for purchasing goods and services, and providing an accounting system. Every country in the world, representing every type of economy, has a currency.
Examples: Capitalist, market economy - US Dollar; Communist - Russia Ruble, China Yuan; Socialist - Nicaragua Cordoba, Marxist - Cuba Peso; Theocracy - Iran Rial; Semi Feudal - Saudi Arabia Ryal; etc. Even bizarre North Korea which has a strict Centrally Planned Economy has the North Korean Won. Why? Well right now the currency system is the only economic alternative to the barter system, which the world abandoned thousands of years ago. I think you are trying to make points about wealth inequality, excessive consumption, concentration of power, decision making, how to support population growth, etc. and how this effects the solar market. I just fail to see the connection to "currency".
------------------------------
Thomas Grant
Director
XanaduEnergy
Fairway KS
Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2023 02:52 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
"The human population cannot be larger than the capacity of the Earth to produce enough food, just like other species in their limited environment."
Totally agree! Completely. (Caveat; The amount of food we can produce is largely depended on tech advance)
"We could abolish currency and completely replace fossil fuels, and still starve if there are too many people."
Now this is the interesting one. I could go long on this but I am not going to (Thank god).
Instead I will go on the short side.
Currency STOPS us from being able to proactively create processes to be able to stop this from happening in the first place. Also, if currency had been abandoned sooner, global warming would not be a thing along with War as we know it, etc., etc..
I know this end I suggest is incredibly scary, and I don't mean that in a Hollywood way. Its like a bad relationship. A male and female ( I "hate" that it is necessary to delineate that) are in a bad relationship. But do either leave and call its quits? Allot of the time, no. Why? Because humans do not take kindly to giving up "anything" for an unknown. In short, the most probable end for that example is when one or the other finds a person who makes them happier than the one they are with. Only then, does the break occur from the unhappy status quo. Unfortunately in the case of currency abandonment, there is not exactly a test case person. You must jump in the deep end and learn to swim.
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2023 01:04 PM
From: M Keith Sharp
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
Sure, there are a number of differences, but one thing is not different. The human population cannot be larger than the capacity of the Earth to produce enough food, just like other species in their limited environment. Money, fossil fuels and everything else is secondary to that immutable principle. We could abolish currency and completely replace fossil fuels, and still starve if there are too many people.
------------------------------
M Keith Sharp
Emeritus Professor
Louisville KY
Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2023 01:34 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
"The Isle Royale deer and moose do not use currency, nor do bluegills in a farm pond or trout in an alpine lake"
Yes, but they don't burn fossil fuels do they. So apparently we are not quite Lions, Tigers and Bears in totality...
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2023 01:03 PM
From: M Keith Sharp
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
From a population dynamics standpoint, homo sapiens is not much different than any other species. The Isle Royale deer and moose do not use currency, nor do bluegills in a farm pond or trout in an alpine lake. Yet all are subject to the limits of their environments. The human overpopulation problem is more fundamental than the prevailing economic system. Communism, or some other form of equitable distribution of wealth, does not make more corn grow in Iowa.
Experts expect America's production of corn, wheat and soybeans to start falling off a cliff in the 2030's with rising temperatures. Genetics and more favorable conditions in northern states has kept production more or less constant in the last few decades. But the reductions in productivity already experienced in southern states will get worse and will travel north as temperatures rise. Crop genetics to deal with hotter growing conditions appears to have limits.
------------------------------
M Keith Sharp
Emeritus Professor
Louisville KY
Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2023 11:19 AM
From: william fitch
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
"In fact, it seems to me that if there is any non-technical barrier to sustainability, it's the emotional need for wealth. "
Let's see. Everything in our world has a price tag. Food, housing, healthcare, social recognition and appeal, time, land, water, literally everything that a human on this planet comes into contact with. When you have financial freedom (Not my word creation) you can smash you car, have your house burn down, need your appendix out, on and on. Just snap your fingers and voila. No problem. See you next week on our monthly vacation. If not, and you have some money but no health insurance, a slip on ice can wipeout everything you have and put your new place of residence into a shopping cart, for REAL!! To say that the real world allure for wealth is emotional, not hard core substantive, is like saying sexual intercourse has nothing to do with over population. Its insulting frankly.
"I'd argue that currency (money) isn't itself the problem, but rather the fact that once accumulated beyond a certain level, it ....."
Yes, but that is exactly the point. Currency is inherently hierarchical since coupled to math (Unless you know of a denomination less currency) and by nature demands more, and more, and more. Once you have 10 million in cash assets, at a 5% yearly guaranteed rate (Easy at that investment level), that is a yearly income of $500,000 dollars that you simply acquire curtesy of math. You acquire it. You don't EARN it. You don't have to work for it. Be thrifty and you get wealthier and wealthier every day.
So my point is that you cannot put the wealth inequality genie back in the bottle, because it is the bottle.
And as a final, given such a structural dynamic, the purpose of life simply becomes more money, more wealth above all else. Even all that is ACTUALLY real.
As a separate thought for you. Too many people on the planet. Not sustainable. Human labor ending being replaced with tech. People who are rich (The few) and people who are not rich (The masses). The masses keep using up valuable resources the rich need. SO if you hold all the strings, what do you think you should do with all the extra unneeded people who won't stop procreating?
What was it the Alien said through the glass wall to the US president in the movie "Independence Day", when asked, "What is it you want us to do?"
Now compared to that, you can feel you are optimistic.
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2023 08:24 AM
From: Bob Scheulen
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
I'd argue that currency (money) isn't itself the problem, but rather the fact that once accumulated beyond a certain level, it gives those people power over everyone else with the usual result of a very unequal distribution of wealth. Still, I'm not convinced that unequal wealth stops us from reaching sustainability, although it does seem to get in the way. However that only seems to be because those with wealth seem to value that wealth far beyond any question of sustainability. In fact, it seems to me that if there is any non-technical barrier to sustainability, it's the emotional need for wealth. The whole "solar doesn't pay" argument is really just an emotional reaction saying that the speaker doesn't value sustainability--at least not more than whatever else they'd do with the money they have. No one seems to bat an eyelash when they drive off the new car lot and the value of that car goes down by thousands... My point being that even with equitable distribution of wealth, it's not clear that people will choose sustainable options. The issue is more cultural/emotional. The thing that brings this group together is our the high value we place on sustainability. Sadly this does not seem to be a huge priority for most people, and in my view this is the main problem.
I can't say for sure that population is a problem, but the math doesn't appear very good to me. We're currently nowhere close to reaching sustainability for the 8B of us. Everything I read about scaling up is daunting and it seems like even with government support, we in the US are unlikely to reach sustainability anytime soon... and that doesn't even consider the needs of the 4B+ people who currently consume far less that the US average. We in the developed world could certainly cut our consumption and not suffer in the least, but even if we all did, the resource demand to supply that level of consumption to 8B+ people seems nearly impossible to achieve. And not only that, but it seems we're already reaching a point where we lack resilience in that we seem to be pushing the limits of resource extraction... forestry, fisheries, fresh water etc. Maybe technology will fix it. Seems like a bad bet to me.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic because I happen to be one of those people that really values those blank spots on the map.
------------------------------
Bob Scheulen
Original Message:
Sent: 01-11-2023 10:19 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
As I have mentioned before in other threads as well, over pop is really not the main problem with man. Our chosen currency construct has created a societal structure that is not sustainable for man, probably well before 2100. Man to survive needs lateral structures being need based and far more equal. Not totally equal, but more equal. Currency forces a hierarchical structure and all the associated ills of man. This is why we as man have really not progressed for thousands of years. Longevity sure. Technology sure. Morally and ethically, not really. A quick look around the globe illustrates that. But few recognize it as the problem. People ask than what is your solution. The biggest task to the solution is to get EVERYONE to recognize what the problem is. Then processes can advance to correct this imbalance, IE CW. (Concentrated Wealth) and moving beyond currency. Likely hood, next to zero before collapse.
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
Original Message:
Sent: 01-11-2023 07:08 PM
From: M Keith Sharp
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
Fitch,
I find your comparison between a population solution and fusion interesting. Both are extremely difficult, granted. The difference I see is that population stabilization is required for sustainability, but we may be able to get by without fusion energy. Without population limits, we will reach a threshold at which food production is less than what is needed to survive. People will starve and die. It could be argued that this is already occurring due to uneven distribution of riches, particularly food.
Fusion might fill in clean, dispatchable power when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, but there are other possibilities to serve this need. Grid-scale battery storage is still a challenge, and thermal and thermochemical storage still need lots of development.
Best,
Keith
------------------------------
M Keith Sharp
Emeritus Professor
Louisville KY
Original Message:
Sent: 01-03-2023 08:01 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
Pick your number... right...
In a way, picking a fight with over population is a reverse logic in the negative, resulting in a similar "effect" as hitching our RE future on production level Fusion. Neither are achievable now or perhaps ever, and only dilute the already dilute fight against the FFI and all upstream and downstream interests.
Do not forget that this threads original post started with, "I will add this bit of serious trivia regarding our global condition for your consideration and year-end reflections." Being blunt, I put this in the same category as 'news years eve' resolutions for loosing weight. Great to talk about and speculate with, but have a chance in hell of working out in the positive way for any real significant percentage of the population.
Stay focused on Solar. The solution comes up every morning.
""Keep still, Sancho, my friend," responded don Quixote. "Things associated with war, more than others, are subject to continual change. Moreover, I believe-and it's true-that the sage Frestón-he who robbed me of my library-has changed these giants into windmills to take away the glory of my having conquered them, such is the enmity he bears me. But in the long run, his evil cunning will have little power over the might of my sword.""
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
Original Message:
Sent: 01-03-2023 09:25 AM
From: M Keith Sharp
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
Thanks, James and Steve, for the history of ZPG and Sierra Club. It is disturbing that truth became unsayable.
Can't remember who at this point, but a population scientist said many years ago that the Earth could support 10B people in relative comfort or 15B in squalor. I think both numbers are human-centric, i.e., they do not consider other species. It also leaves out people for whom "happiness is a blank spot on the map."
------------------------------
M Keith Sharp
Emeritus Professor
Louisville KY
Original Message:
Sent: 01-01-2023 05:57 PM
From: william fitch
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
Hi and happy new year: I can see that while I was on my 11 day vacation, some people have been busy. After walking in the door about an hour ago, I thought I would take a look out here. This seems to be the thread of popularity other than food.
Let's see. All systems have limits. They are a function of the elements in the system and the quantitative nature of reality. I use the word quantitative here, not as relating to math as such, but simply as what we perceive as more or less to our senses.
Human population has a limit on this planet because this is the only planet we can live on at this point in time, as we are today biologically, and most likely very, very far in the future. And I don't mean "live" in some narrowly defined and chronological limited sense (A hut or even Elonville on Mars), but the LONG HAUL with quality. I am not going to go down the extraterrestrial direction any further because this thread is not about that as such.
SO yes here on Earth there is a limit to population . Using what might be an agreement to what the "quality of life" baseline might be, current estimates put a sustainable way of lasting life at around 5 Billion people. SO assuming that number as valid for the purposes of this discussion, we have already blown by that by 3 Billion.
Nature has for millions of years found a way to control population "overflows" by any given species by killing off the excess by one means or another. Predator's I believe have been a popular choice regarding all other life forms. Some would argue that man has none. I would disagree. Man is, in all ways his own predator. We kill for wealth and power, both constructs have no tangible reality. SO we are more than happy to sacrifice all that we know to be actually real, for something that has no tangible reality. I think that qualifies us as the perfect unsustainable species. Here I use the word unsustainable, not as Energy dirty or equivalent noun, but merely as self ending.
I don't want to run long because I am still "unwinding" from Disney, but all the "problems" you list as basically mans "ills" (100 fold) are really not population related. All people who are alive today were not alive 130 years ago. I apologize if somebody out there is 131 or greater. These problems existed not long after man became agrarian (Territorial, 10 millennium ago) and created currency about 4 millennium ago, give or take.
Our problems at this point (Lack of Tech and means no longer the issue) are because we chose to run our entire world on the currency construct. No one is willing to look at that of course because all the King Midas's (Double digit millionaires and up) will never, ever complain their seat of Gold is too hard and uncomfortable. And since they by definition are the wealth and power construct holders and rule society, as long as currency exists (Man does not move beyond currency for a cooperative society) man will eventually fail. Currency FORCES competition not cooperation, even when it is in our own best interest as a species. It holds us back.
SO, is over population a problem? Sure. But is it the primary cause of our current Earth ills? No. Will doing a "Thanos snap" solve our Human ills? No. Its not that simple or easy.
As an additional thought, if man had solved our Earth problems by not continuing the currency addiction, we would have already proactively prevented the over-population reality, by not having it in the first place through cooperation, logic and reason.
------------------------------
william fitch
Owner
www.WeAreSolar.com
Original Message:
Sent: 12-24-2022 06:20 AM
From: Dennis Garde
Subject: World Population - 8 Billion Cannot be Ignored
I will add this bit of serious trivia regarding our global condition for your consideration and year-end reflections. The world population has reached 8 billion. Only one decade ago in 2010 the population was 7 billion. It is frightening to imagine where we will be in another decade or two? Some say mankind's origins began 50 thousand years ago, some say 100 thousand, some argue 250 thousand years. Take your pick - it matters not. The real impact statistically and physically and socio-economically and politically is the fact that today, eight out of ten (80%) of all the humans that have lived on this planet since the beginning of mankind are alive today. This is the harsh and unavoidable reality, "the inconvenient truth," we must face. EVERY regional conflict, energy shortage, water emergency, mass refugee movement, failed state, pandemic, natural disaster, famine, etc. are magnified 100-fold directly by the pressures of overpopulation.
In 1960 the population was at 3 billion. In 1975 we reached 4 billion. By most accounts this was a sustainable population, albeit the maximum, that could feed itself without consuming natural resources beyond the capacity to replenish those resources. Natural balance was feasible. Technology advancement is not the primary solution be it nuclear fusion or any combination of renewables' applications. However, I do not diminish the technical applications referenced and detailed conversations within this forum. I too want to be part of the solution. And I realize preaching to this choir is slightly more than hearing the friendly echo. But any discussion about a sustainable planet that does not include the realization of overpopulation is simply folly. And until we elevate the thinking and perspective of Greta Thunberg over Elon Musk we do not have a chance.
------------------------------
[Dennis] [Garde AIA, LEED AP]
[OMTC, NEC Ankara, Turkey]
[US Dept. of State / OBO]
[Savannah] [GA]
[Dennis.Garde@gmail.com]
------------------------------