What points did I not address? I agree that I’m more optimistic than you were, but I don’t believe that’s without base. I could describe you as overly pessimistic.
I would receive such a description with nothing but respect and appreciation!
I really don’t mean to insist on splitting hairs or further complicate matters. Others are getting involved and I seem to have perturbed more than a few with what I’ve already said. I admit, I am absolutely an insensitive brute that really must learn to do better, tho I hope I’m still allowed to ask for help and clarity. Any feedback that isn’t too degrading is most welcome.
I’m obviously not great at expressing things, so I did wish to try an answer to your question(sry for delays; am hardstuck at long workdays) for my own development on top of what I hope is an obvious respect for you and your contributions/work.
The main missing point for me was why/how specifically does the removal of the ‘profit drive’ alone stop the ‘need drive’ from expanding in its place? If a socialist state is trying to meet the advancing needs of its substantial population, the material requirement constantly grows. What is the specific mechanism that forces a socialist planner to say, “No, we cannot provide this new advancement to everyone because the mining required would cross our ecological limits”? It seems like whatever forces the planner to restrict consumption to stay within physical boundaries is, by definition, an act of degrowth, no?
When the state decides that green infrastructure is a pressing need, what forces the planner to say “No, we must limit this specific project because the physical cost to the local watershed is too high”? Without that limiting principle, it seems like the planner just approves the massive extraction anyway, just with better intentions than a capitalist. I don’t mean to make this only about scaling back green infra tho. Just providing a baseline standard for many largely populated regions/areas would already exceed the carrying capacity.
Again, I feel I am merely questioning your optimism further, but the answers I don’t have might be the only reason I stick to my moderately conservative preference. I do strongly hope my pessimism is most wrong. I guess you could say I do ultimately wish to be converted. Politics is more religious than religion itself some times lol
PS: Apologies for my previous comment which seems to be removed. I don’t remember what I said, but I am sorry for any grievances caused—Please advise if there is anything I can do to reconcile/be forgiven
I think the big disconnect is in understanding of the “need drive.” The profit motive systemically selects for the maximum production and consumption possible, as it searches for the highest circulation of commodities and the fastest rate of returns. It’s a control system with consumption as the driving factor. The “need drive” isn’t the same control system, all it means is that humans will actually begin to consciously plan production and distribution. This means it is human decisions that can scientifically advance non-profitable or costly measures that seek ecological improvements and minimizing useless and non-productive sectors.
You have to dissect the actual profit motive itself to see why consumption has skyrocketed. Comsumption is the driving factor of profit. “Satisfying needs” isn’t a control system or a feedback loop, but instead a goal for humans to pursue once we scientifically plan the economy. This is why I am optimistic for the future.
What points did I not address? I agree that I’m more optimistic than you were, but I don’t believe that’s without base. I could describe you as overly pessimistic.
I would receive such a description with nothing but respect and appreciation!
I really don’t mean to insist on splitting hairs or further complicate matters. Others are getting involved and I seem to have perturbed more than a few with what I’ve already said. I admit, I am absolutely an insensitive brute that really must learn to do better, tho I hope I’m still allowed to ask for help and clarity. Any feedback that isn’t too degrading is most welcome.
I’m obviously not great at expressing things, so I did wish to try an answer to your question(sry for delays; am hardstuck at long workdays) for my own development on top of what I hope is an obvious respect for you and your contributions/work.
The main missing point for me was why/how specifically does the removal of the ‘profit drive’ alone stop the ‘need drive’ from expanding in its place? If a socialist state is trying to meet the advancing needs of its substantial population, the material requirement constantly grows. What is the specific mechanism that forces a socialist planner to say, “No, we cannot provide this new advancement to everyone because the mining required would cross our ecological limits”? It seems like whatever forces the planner to restrict consumption to stay within physical boundaries is, by definition, an act of degrowth, no?
When the state decides that green infrastructure is a pressing need, what forces the planner to say “No, we must limit this specific project because the physical cost to the local watershed is too high”? Without that limiting principle, it seems like the planner just approves the massive extraction anyway, just with better intentions than a capitalist. I don’t mean to make this only about scaling back green infra tho. Just providing a baseline standard for many largely populated regions/areas would already exceed the carrying capacity.
Again, I feel I am merely questioning your optimism further, but the answers I don’t have might be the only reason I stick to my moderately conservative preference. I do strongly hope my pessimism is most wrong. I guess you could say I do ultimately wish to be converted. Politics is more religious than religion itself some times lol
PS: Apologies for my previous comment which seems to be removed. I don’t remember what I said, but I am sorry for any grievances caused—Please advise if there is anything I can do to reconcile/be forgiven
I think the big disconnect is in understanding of the “need drive.” The profit motive systemically selects for the maximum production and consumption possible, as it searches for the highest circulation of commodities and the fastest rate of returns. It’s a control system with consumption as the driving factor. The “need drive” isn’t the same control system, all it means is that humans will actually begin to consciously plan production and distribution. This means it is human decisions that can scientifically advance non-profitable or costly measures that seek ecological improvements and minimizing useless and non-productive sectors.
You have to dissect the actual profit motive itself to see why consumption has skyrocketed. Comsumption is the driving factor of profit. “Satisfying needs” isn’t a control system or a feedback loop, but instead a goal for humans to pursue once we scientifically plan the economy. This is why I am optimistic for the future.