Heilbrener identifies three major areas of concern, external danger zones, if you like, which threaten the survival of the species o which, at any rate, are bound to affect the manner of our survival in the foreseeable future.
These are: (i) the proliferation of nuclear arms which, in addition to contributing to a general sense of unrest in the unlikely event of there ensuing a zero-sum, winner-takes-all game, only adds to the climate of global uncertainty at the fringes if such weapons were ever to find their way into the hands of rogue (read: underdeveloped) states intent on leveling the economic playing field, exacting concessions, etc., by resorting to nuclear blackmail and the like (Iran and North Korea come to mind) or, if worse comes to worst, to terrorist organizations, (Al Qaeda. e.g.); (ii) the ever-present danger of population explosion, still not under control, and its most likely concomitants, a worldwide food shortage and energy crisis, both promising to exact their gruesome toll and bring the world’s population to its knees; and lastly, (iii) the indisputable fact that the planet’s natural resources happen to be limited (and therefore exhaustible) if we are to press on with the rate of our expansion and the demands we place on them, mindless of the law of diminishing returns, just so we could sustain ourselves in the lifestyle to which we’ve been accustomed. (Under this rubric, there falls a multitude of environmental concerns and bio-hazards from water and air pollution to the endangerment of the species and the depletion of the world’s resources; for brevity’s sake, however, “climate change” is a convenient shorthand to refer to all of the above and to suggest, in passing, that unless we change our ways, and drastically, we all live on borrowed time.)
Needless to say, although it makes perfect sense to speak of these “danger zones” as though separate and distinct, they’re highly interdependent in that a perceived threat in any one area is bound to have severe repercussions in the other. A spread of worldwide hunger, for instance, due to uneven population growth in the developed and underdeveloped parts of the globe, is likely to trigger blackmail on the part of the impoverished nation-states, a blackmail aimed at redressing the imbalance and redistributing the world’s wealth and resources more evenly. Should the developed nations succumb to these demands, they’d stand to inherit an unprecedented quotient of social unrest and division at home because of stagnated rates of growth, already under pressure due to natural causes. And so on and so forth.
Article comments
1 - John Lake
O lahd, I get the first comment! [italics mine]
The comment of which I speak being…
So don’t just sit there, Heilbroner fans, start examining resiliency!
2 - Cindy
Roger,
I didn't know you wrote this. I was looking for an article to leave you this excellent interview with both Chris Hedges and Prof. Wolff called, Has capitalism proven its durability?.
Be back later to read your piece.
3 - Cindy
Is Heilbrener a key economist?
I just read that he had been a socialist most of his career (life?) then he adopted the position that Capitalism is superior.
I find it interesting that overpopulation is always blamed for food shortage. As if that fact of it existed outside politics. It strikes me that thinking back to my education, all such problems seem to have been attributed to causes outside the realm of the political.
4 - Christopher Rose
Is it actually possible to have a "zero-sum, winner-takes-all game"?
5 - roger nowosielski
Good point, Chris. In spite of the intended rhetorical effect, it is a poorly-constructed thought.
6 - roger nowosielski
Yep, Cindy, overpopulation gets the bulk of the blame according to conventional wisdom; not necessarily my opinion.
For all his faults, however, Heilbroner is a tough cookie and has to be dismantled systematically in order to put his kind of argument to rest. That's what I'm trying to do here, and I believe I'll succeed, give or take two more "installments."
7 - John Lake
And our readiness to respond to nuclear proliferation is as relevant today as it was in the 60s. I found nowosielskis interpretation of Heilbroner to be not only interesting, but refreshing!
8 - Dr Dreadful
I haven't read Heilbroner, Roger, so I'm not sure which in your review are his ideas and which are yours, but there's something in your article that strikes me as very odd. He (or you) seems to me to be talking about "a spread of worldwide hunger ... due to uneven population growth in the developed and underdeveloped parts of the globe" as if this hasn't happened yet. It has. But the prediction of impoverished states blackmailing the prosperous ones (how would that work, anyway?) hasn't come to pass; instead the former have become dependent on the latter in order to remain solvent - laying themselves more open to blackmail than the converse.
There's also the assumption (and this one is yours, Rog) that the current global recession is the economic "end game". While I agree that there must come a point at which the capitalist system, which relies on growth, will hit its ultimate limit, I'm far from convinced that point is now. Every human generation flatters itself that it's living in some pivotal era: but what's the evidence that this is in fact currently the case?
I do agree with John and others that this is an interesting discussion and I look forward to see how it progresses.
9 - Christopher Rose
Does anybody have any thoughts as to what effects the combination of nanotechnology creating literally anything out of anything else at the atomic level and significant human life extension would have on the human condition, poverty and life as we know it?
I think these two literally transformative technologies, which will almost certainly be available before the end of this century - and if I'm lucky, before I die - are going to make almost every aspect of current economic, political and social life unrecognisable, to say nothing of effectively eliminating two out of the three threats mentioned in this article...
10 - Cindy
Just fyi, Dr.D, coincidentally, the link I placed above with the interview of Wolff and Hedges makes all the best arguments in support of this being capitalism's end game that I have heard.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
Does anybody have any thoughts as to what effects the combination of nanotechnology creating literally anything out of anything else at the atomic level and significant human life extension would have on the human condition, poverty and life as we know it?
Frankly, given what we've learned over the years as to how aware (and in the case of dolphins, quite intelligent) animals are, I'm looking forward to vat-grown meat. I love meat, but I'm more and more hating the thought of eating the flesh of something that was aware of what was being done to it.
But as Feynman pointed out back in 1959, nanotech will change the world in ways we cannot yet imagine. Today's 3-d printers are but a foretaste - and unfortunately can already be used to make most of the working parts of an assault rifle - but I'd say that nanotech food will be available perhaps within ten years, and certainly within twenty.
12 - Cindy
I wonder if human beings will be capable of overcoming the dangers associated with nanotechnology.
From the link: Some of the dangers described here are existential risks, that is, they may threaten the continued existence of humankind. Others could produce significant disruption but not cause our extinction. A combination of several risks could exacerbate the seriousness of each; any solution must take into account its effect on other risks.
Looking at that page, there appears to be little room for error. Perhaps, we could put nanotechnology in the hands of someone who has proven trustworthy with protecting our environment and its inhabitants, like...um...er...
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
Good question, and I haven't a clue to the answer. Nanotech is a two-edged sword as are nuclear power and the internet. Hopefully we'll adapt, but his point is easily understood - one sociopathic mad scientist with enough knowledge and resources could kill much of humanity; indeed, that's a major premise of my book which is available now on Amazon:
www.amazon.com/Pilates-Choice-The-Proprietress-ebook/dp/B009ZL11CG
(attempting to do an end-run around the comment blocker)
14 - Doug Hunter+
Heilbrener starts by identifying three major areas of concern... and he's wrong on two and a half out of three. Chris has already started unraveling the thread of one (and pointing out the silliness of the winner take all, zero sum game statement which could only occur in a low stakes casino or an economics textbook)
i. Nukes. They've likely prevented more deaths in war (and prevented wars from starting) than they've caused so far and what would change that? It wouldn't take one nuke smuggled somewhere to destroy large swaths of an ever increasing civilized area of the planet, it takes thousands. no rogue state is going to build up that type of arsenal in the foreseeable future. It may help marginal states at the bargaining table to have a nuke in their pocket, but the little guys need help anyway. Still, I'll give him half credit on this as it is an issue to keep an eye on long term.
ii. Population. Fertility going down everywhere fast, global capitalism and industrialism are transforming nations creating wealth and the need for education, two things that have been shown to quickly lower fertility below replacement rates (at least for Europeans and some Asian societies). Even the poorest areas in Africa and Asia where industry and modernism has not taken hold yet are being softened up by aid and education programs that have had good success. The easiest way to end this as an issue is to hurry up and develop the rest of the planet... of course that calls for the ugly "G" word... growth and is best accomplished by the ugly "C" word... capitalism.
iii. Malthusian Catastrophe. Not going to happen in this epoch. One day we were worried about how the world would deal with all the horse manure city transportation would require, then we think oil will run out within 20 years of 1970, now it will get expensive and last for a couple hundred years, by that time Chris's nanotechnology point will be available for harvesting so we'll have a thousand more years worth, far before any of that happens though we'll have an entirely new energy paradigm. Every other resource can ultimately be created or destroyed using energy and is hence solvable. People have to this point for the most part utterly failed in predicting the speed and capacity for technological adaptation and change and I don't see this being any different.
In light of the fact that the setup of the initial conditions by Heilbrener are fairly shaky it makes me doubt the veracity of his conclusions. I think Chris's #9 introduces better areas of concern, we need less worry about doomsday scenarios and more thought about how to handle the power we're handing ourselves with technology... genetics, nanotechnology, robotics, those should be the areas of concern.
15 - Doug Hunter+
#8
I think capitalism will hit it's limit long before 'growth' does. At some point I think the amount of wealth and amount of general welfare will be so high it will no longer be an effective motivator... an alternative system will need to be developed. I think we're seeing the start of this in today's wealthy countries with 'jobs Americans won't do' and I think it will continue on up. As technology replaces labor, intellectual contributions will be more valued and as that bar rises less and less people will be able to contribute while vast wealth and resources will be created by machines. How to distribute is will then be the question.
16 - Cindy
Now allow me to present an amazing, amazing thing. Nanotechnology and Google and a special teenager = an early diagnosis for pancreatic cancer never seen before.
Pancreatic cancer is one, that, once detected means you are dead. There is no cure and it is too far advanced once detected.
A 15 year old came up with a test for pancreatic cancer that is 100% effective (so far) and costs pennies per test (which could be done at home).
Watch the video here.
17 - Cindy
Oh, btw, the detection based on his method is early enough to cure about 100% of cases that have always been 100% fatal once detected.
18 - Cindy
Chalk one up for 15 year old brains with a need and desire to know. It'll beat private industry hands down.
19 - Clav
Cindy,
I have a friend who is in her sixth year of survival after a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. She received the Whipple Procedure and is still testing negative, six years later.
Never one to quit, she took her retirement and has spent the past six years traveling the world pursuing her favorite activity, SCUBA diving, and is methodically covering all the world's best diving spots.
A very cool lady.
20 - Cindy
Amazing, Clav! Usually when they catch it it is too late. I never underestimate attitude though.