Industrialism can be seen as having captured (or harvested) energy for human purpose. It took the embodied energy of coal and turned it into work in the economic sense. Coal energy could be focused by machines to perform specific tasks and was capable of moving large masses of stuff much more cheaply than human labor can do, and do it on a much larger scale. It was cheaper because it was more efficient, and efficiency gains could be measured by how many people or animals a machine could replace. Over the subsequent centuries, the number of working people and animals that were replaced by machines steadily rose, and is the process called "creative destruction" by economists, the advent of which is widely regarded in economics textbooks as the greatest gift from the Hindu god Shiva.
Economic Liberalism and Industrialism were, for the most part, concurrent streams throughout history. The Industrial doll was the necessary precondition for Economic Liberalism as we know it today because it provided the physical basis in the form of surplus capital to be invested in newer, more specialized jobs for the displaced ruralites as well as for the construction of liberal institutions in the cities. For those who tout human innovation as the prime mover of this particular march of history* would do well to consider the primacy of industrial production in the development of subsequent economic theory. Though a historical double helix of feedback between economic theory and industrial production certainly exists, it is not a chicken and egg problem. Rather, economists put the cart before the horse in their history. This is at the heart of the economist's delusion and why their forecasts of the future should be regarded as delusional.
The reason, as I've said before, is the concentrated energy that could be used to do physical work that is at the root of economic value. Without it, economic specialization doesn't occur, large factories don't get built, cars don't get invented, and most of what the modern life has at its disposal does not come into being. If Britain hadn't been blessed with abundant coal, then it would have run out of trees sometime in the 18th century, and, in fact, it more or less had run out of trees. Coal was a second option that proved to have superior energetic qualities. Economists coined the process "substitutability", a mythical process based on the ignorance of natural limits. A glance at Britain's rise and fall as a coal producing nation really puts an end to the idea that natural resources can be replaced once they are gone. What can replace coal? China may provide an answer but, the way things are going there, I remain skeptical.
And this, at last, takes us to the Earth doll. Where industrial production meets the Earth and what it means for all the other dolls nested within it is the piece provided by the scientific inquiry begun in the seventies at the latest. This is where the economy is cast as an energy system that must follow the laws of nature. Human civilization, however you want to define civilization, is wholly dependent on the Earth. Escaping the Earth, however desirable that may become, is not a reasonable option due to natural laws that extend well past the confines of the Earth. We have been fed this techno-cultural delusion for the better part of a century now and it will only serve to add to the bitterness of disappointment when people generally come to terms with the dream's suicidal downside. The Earth is the only accessible place to live. I am strongly of the view that we should think of it as such.
*It is certainly warranted to highlight innovation as a main feature of the human skill set. I have no quarrel there. Chimpanzee innovation, for example, has been largely a dud and not worth investment capital. It does not follow that human innovation can overcome all obstacles, which is born out by the historical record.
Below is a good introduction from the seventies to a more sustainable space exploration grounded firmly in Cosmic Law.
No comments:
Post a Comment