The Merchant Exchange?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The difference of course being the story back drop. That planet is semi sentient and recognizes unconsciously the pain inflicted in acute areas and sends its white blood cells out to respond accordingly.

Good post SC.

[Jamski]

Its the difference between pressing with the palm of your hand and a 140lb pressure, or with a needle and a 2lb pressure. What hurts the most?

-Jam

[smacksim]

Call me an commie if you like, but I do take issue with the notion that FM economies are 'greener' than planned ones (historically it's not so clear-cut ). If you look at examples like China and Russia, well, yes, I admit, it doesn't look good for environmental effects.

However, in principle, only planned economies/governments can be truly directed away from damaging effects. A planned policy could say: "Sustain X poplulation, harvest in Y manner, study all impacts to Z thoroughness before exploiting new resources" Free Markets must always be regulated away from damage, for it is our very nature (as you point out Santi) to consume every damn thing in sight in a growth-type economy. There is no Free Market without the witless consumer, homo sapiens, who would eat 1,000,000 hamburgers and chase them down with 1,000,000 barrels of oil, if he could.

Your points about local effects vs. global on Alpha Centauri are quite good. A whole new kind of 'Green' would be adopted. I imagine the idea of Transcendent merging with Planetmind would eliminate the whole concept 'protecting the environment', as it would be yourself (which brings it back to 'primitive' people's understanding of the world...how interesting).

I don't really grasp what you were saying that time GeoModder. And it's the Police penalty for Free Market that I don't jive with very well.

As anyone at Halliburtan could tell you, war is GOOD for free marketeers. The thrashing of competetors and sudden blooming of new monopolies is every FM's best dream. So that narrows it to police. Unless you are running 'Political System: Anarchy', you need police. People are inconsistently consumer-drones. I would suggest that in free-market systems there is less need for active policing than in systems less designed with human greed in mind.

So what should be the penalty of a Free Market system? Some say it should not be planet damage. I wholy disagree. Free Markets are like hungry baby dinosaurs. They will eat anything in sight and grow logistically, given the chance. I dare anyone to design an ecology in which the explosive and consumptive growth of one species is good for bio-diversity or any other way of measuring 'Green'

In the context of Smac, the penalties to FM work quite well. It's the best and the worst of social engineering choices. In the context of the story, real history, or human potential, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

-Smack

[RoadRash]

"However, in principle, only planned economies/governments can be truly directed away from damaging effects."
-- Indeed the argument sounds plausible. Why do you suppose it works the exact opposite in reality?

"There is no Free Market without the witless consumer, homo sapiens, who would eat 1,000,000 hamburgers and chase them down with 1,000,000 barrels of oil, if he could."
-- A planned economy simply replaces the witless consumer with the witless government agency. Bureacracies are notorious for blindly engulfing everything in sight, while pursuing policies that waste resources and despoil the landscape. In the US for example, the biggest polluter by far is the federal government. No greed-ridden corporation even comes close.


"As anyone at Halliburtan could tell you, war is GOOD for free marketeers. "
-- I disagree. War benefits only giant corporate conglomerates with political leverage. War centralizes the economy, destroys trade, and replaces open competition with a corruption-prone system of government contracts.

"I dare anyone to design an ecology in which the explosive and consumptive growth of one species is good for bio-diversity or any other way of measuring 'Green'"
-- I agree that population growth can/should be correlated to ecodamage. Interestingly, there is no game mechanism for correlating population size to planetary damage. Furthermore, FM does not even GIVE growth bonuses. The FM planet penalty is a separate and distinct penalty not associated with population growth or energy output.
-- Furthermore, there is much evidence to suggest that (on Earth), FM results in REDUCED long-term population growth, thereby creating less ecodamage. And ironically (on Earth), Green economic policies are a luxury inherent to the FM model, since such policies cannot be afforded by primitive or planned economies.

[Santiago_Claus]

Free markets protect the environment where their side-effect is widespread local ownership of private property. A few people can afford to strip-mine their land then buy some more, but most people protect their territory like rabid pit bulls.

Protecting one's territory is as much a part of human nature as the tragedy of the commons, and explains why free markets are better for the environment than planned economies.

[smacksim]

Well, I have to say that I agree with you both, to a certain historical degree. I will somewhat stubbornly stick to the notion that Free Market systems are inherently anti-environment in that they are : 1. Growth dependent. 2. Promote greed and exploitation of resources for competition. 3. Are inherently less directed in the marketplace. Thus, if it sells, it SELLS.

The idea that privatization of land promotes it's protection is a convenient one. I'd really love to read some papers on that . I do not doubt that there is an indirect correllation: Land with private holdings is also land that is less damaged. However, I think both that it would be hard to prove the direct correllation and that it is shortsighted, even if generally true.

The 'tragedy of the commons', or greed, is only one aspect of our inability to maintain stable, sustainable, non-growth, non-exploitative practices in a Free Market system. We are animals in the end. Our genes want to reproduce themselves and do what is necessary, in spite of ourselves and our 'rational' knowledge that certain behaviours are indeed bad for our genes in the very long run. What I'm trying to say is that privitazation of land is a weak substitute for law, culture, or other ethos, where 'taking care of the land' is concerned.

That people jealously guard their 'private' land is no doubt true. These same people will use their own land willy-nilly according to their traditions, practices, need, greed, or rarely in our culture, thoughts of their future generations.

Take for example, Tuscon, Arizona, USA. Tuscon is located in the great Sonoran desert (the one with the famous cartoonish giant Saguaro cactuses). Tuscon ran out of groundwater early in it's development. It channels in water from the Colorado river some 100-200 miles in an open aquaduct. This is expensive. At first, for several generations, many people in Tuscon attempted to grow green grass lawns, as is done for some reason, all over the US. Recently (20 years or so), it has become a fad to leave one's property as a desert, and people compete to see who has the biggest or most handsome Saguaro cactus in their front yard. Why do you think that is? This fad might never have happened without the expense of watering the lawns. If there were competing water distributors, perhaps the price would have remained low enough that the 'fad' would never have gotten enough momentum to keep people away from their misplaced 'green lawn and a picket fence' ideas.

Free Market systems are accidentally designed to exploit markets and their resources to their ultimate ends. Incidentally, Saguaro cacti sell for 10,000 or more dollars in the U.S., often illegally. Those fortunate to have 2+ on their property do often sell them, not because they are great jealous guardians of their land, but because there is a market and little restriction.

As the quote for the Planetary Transit System so aptly states: 'We will become like a vapor, expanding to fill every available space. And as a gas, will be difficult to contain'. Yes, people value land they 'own' quite highly. This is of little environmental value when either the value of exploiting the land becomes convenient to the owner, or where the owner's practices of maintaining the land are contextually misplaced (ie: green lawns in the desert). But this second notion carries much further. The modern context of land use is overpopulation and imperialist exploitation. How should a land owner maintain his/her 40 acres when it is clear that there will be at least double the number of land-users in the next generation? Even local stability in land use is not a viable plan when pressures from neighbors can damage or destroy the otherwise sustained local ecosystem. No, a Plan is necessary if ecodamage is to be curtailed.

I say it's convenient to adhere to notions of land-ownership being linked with good land use because while this might have been superficially true last century, it is not true anymore.

An aside: While those of us in industrialized countries realized Zero Population Growth and the birth of industrial regulation, we sent our armies to ravage the naked lands in other hemispheres. Did you know that the U.S. only recently stopped exporting DDT to third world countries, including Mexico? Duh. There's a profit there.

Land ownership suits human nature. It's true. People like to be in control of their environment. We demand it. We at least need to be in control of providing food and shelter for our children, and owning a piece of land helps satisfy this animal need. In the very distant past, this was probably not the case. There was so much land that a whole group could 'own' it, and no one's needs were ever missed for a lack of space. Yet territorialism is also part of our nature. As is greed. It's not a 'tragedy of the commons', it is a damnation of every successful species. Given food and space, we expand. No mere economic model will change that. However, it would probably be in our own interests to grow up from a Free Market system PDQ.

Grow up? The most 'mature' countries run some form of Free Market! True for now. But it's an infantile system. It's our baby step towards something more meaningful, something more survivable! Free Markets have promoted our rapid expansion and technological advancements. Now it is time to set them aside. Now we are at saturation, beyond saturation. We must have a Plan that still promotes our 'advancement', while stabilizing our expansion and impact, if not lessening them. True, with heavy regulation, FM could carry us a bit further without teetering over the brink. But it's time to grow up.

Free Markets are naive, from a green perspective. The very comfort in our growth and greed that they promote is short sighted. Perhaps one can take the perspective that the market will adapt as we become locusts on the whole planet, that the market will find ways to keep us expanding, even into space itself. Perhaps we can have economic growth without either population growth or ecodamage growth. No, it's not really the fault of the short-sighted economic model of Free Market. It's the reality of saturation. The reality that absolute human success in the short term might be our undoing in the long term. The reality that it might be a bad idea to increase the rates of extinction 100-fold or more. But it's not the fault of Free Market economics. Rather, it's the lack of a larger plan.

Look, who really wants to have our species judged by the inter-galactic history books as merely a quasi-intelligent but naive form of planetary locust? We must move beyond our biology. We must check our nature to be so damnably successful. Free Markets are infantile because they merely extend our biological natures into economics. Grow/expand/compete/evolve. While this has served biodiversity quite well, it serves Wealth quite well too. But it IS biology. It is animal. It is not rational. We find the laws of free markets compatible with our natures. Yeah. This doesn't mean they are good for our future.

Free Market + Planned sustainability = fine with me, but not going to happen.

Competition and marketeering is for the now, for the gold, for the me me me. It will be a challenge for humanity to see if we can reach beyond ourselves, beyond our animal natures, into some unknown future economic model. We must take responsibility for our explosion. But perhaps that's beyond our general natures.

Personally, I think Socialism is a decent first step, even with all it's problems. For one thing, it will generate a culture that is at least more acclimitized to government controls, if not more understanding of those controls. Secondly, it is somewhat compatible with Free Markets, so a good transitional step. Thirdly, though it's failures to do so are easy to point out, Socialism is protective of the whole population. This is a healthier long-term perpective than 'let the best man win (and the loser die in poverty)' competition. It is somewhat against our nature, but also somewhat a part of our nature, to value our neighbors, our clan, as family. This perspective is closer to 'How will my actions affect all future generations?' than 'How can I make enough money to send my kid to college so he can afford to send me to comfortable retirement in Tuscon?'

O.k. I've rambled quite long enough. Heh. It's still the Police requirement of FM in Smac that I don't get. But I guess we wandered off into something a bit more relevant.

-Smack

[Impaler[WrG]]

Nice Tryate Smacksim, you simply MUST go join the Gaian team in the Next ACDG!

To coment on the points brought up so far.

1 - I have adressed all of your consernes with FM in my still in progress MOD of SMACX, FreeMarket gets a +1 Growth added to it, its Police penalty is replaced with -3 Support (logic is that your military costs more because Halaburton overcharges you for Gas ). The Police Penalty gets moved to Democracy to replace its support penalty.

2 - As I see it human activites the affect our environment create several differnt problems of varying degrees of importance.

A - Climate Change, aka global warming, causes disruption in our lives and can harm our food production, sea levels inundate out coastal cities, ultimatly not something that can make us extinct but a Major thing to avoid because of the disruption, But because the Earths Atmphere is a "Commons" into which anyone can dumb free of charge this will be very hard to adrress, I think our best chance is to have a goverment funded program to add particulates (dust) to the uper atmosphere that will incresse the earths albido enough to counteract the incressed CO2 level. Along with reduction in other greenhouse gasses like Methane we can control the problem without giving up fossil fuels (which isn't realy a practical option anyways)

B - Loss of Biodiversity, aka extinction, obviously no threat to oursevles the species being lost are not in the "club" of animals or plants we are symbiotic with (cows, wheat, pigs). Further more all species are going to go extinct some day (average 5 million years for mammals) and most species that are being lost now are rare indiginous things that are esentialy evolutionary dead ends (like all thouse flightless tropical birds, they cant live on anything but a rapidly eroding volcanic Island, all we did was speed up a process that would have ended in a few million years). These species exist as a renewable resorce and its best to manage them as such, they already have a provent entertainment value.

C - Build up of toxic compunds in the Biosphere. Things such as lead and mercury and DDT tend to come back to the people who use them rather quickly as were at the top of the food chain. Thus we have had some realy good progress in eliminating these polutants, its interesting to note that the shorter the "raining" distance of the polutant (how quickly the stuff out of the smoke stack comes down and spoils the area) the better the respones. Not only is the culprit poluter more easily identified their a better chance the poluter and the polutee are in the same legal jurisdiction and thus complaining to local leaders will actualy result in something happening.


3 - Its interesting to note that in the Industrialized world the population is starting to achice zero population growth. These are also the most poluted and densely populated areas as well (Mexico City excluded). People in these areas are also the most economicaly productive primarily because they work longer harder hours and go through more years of education. And ofcorse they are the least happy because of all this. Not suprisingly when any animal is crowded, stressed, under polution and overworked it will experience a big drop in fertility. Thus I am more inclined to interprit low western population growth as a byproduct of our "success" rather then some inate cultural thing. When the globe as a whole is considered population is expected to peak and begin to decline WITHIN OUR LIFE TIMES, which will only be the 3rd or 4th time in all of human history (Bubonic Plauge, Ice Age, WWII). In essense we have passed the carrying Capacity of the Earth and growth rates are declining. The total population will form a Sinosidal wave of amplitude ~4 Billion and Wavelength ~200-400 years with a max of 9 billion and around 1 billion as a low. This is adsactly the pattern taken by ANY ANIMAL. Why should we be so different?

[smacksim]

Because we can be different.

Why have mass starvation/ death by poverty anywhere? That's exactly what countries trying to climb onto the industrialized FM model go through.

Is there joy in a fluctuating population?

If we fluctuate our population, I'd posit that truly considerate levels would be around 100 mil -> 1 billion worldwide. There's no inherent value in reaching or exceeding our carrying capacity. Yes, it drives us to find creative ways to make more food and space, but these side effects are quantitatively trivial compared with the productivity of a world in which no one people has to starve to create new food markets.

I say it's childish for our proud species to follow biological population patterns because its simply convenient to our politico-economic model. We need to grow up and become caretakers rather than ravagers. We were a baby crying for more food, more food. Now we overflow the crib and think we are still a baby? No. There is simply no point to growing to bursting, but there are many points to make at keeping a low human population.

1. All those you listed.

2. Species that go extinct may or may not play a role thousands of years hence, if we give them a chance. We pretty much have no philosophy on biodiversity culturally, so the sane thing is to maintain biodiversity until such time as we can reach conclusions about it's role in our future, and our fellow species future.

3. I agree, species go extinct all the time. It is something to cry about, but it's life and death, ie, perfectly natural. But we have some control over this process, and are likely to gain more control (cloning, better land use, etc.). Why limit our future just to be able to say: "Yeah man, but I'm free to do as I want, it's my land, my food, my tree, my whatever". Who knows who's species or individuals these are? Like before, when in doubt, don't break it.

4. Why use up non-renewable resources at the maximum rate if we don't have to? It's not rational. Keep a low global population. ZPG is fine, but we can do even better.


-Smack

[RoadRash]

"The idea that privatization of land promotes it's protection is a convenient one. "
-- It’s historically demonstrable.

"...privitazation of land is a weak substitute for law, culture, or other ethos, where 'taking care of the land' is concerned."
-- It's not a substitute. It's an adjunct. A free market is not a cultural choice, it’s a political one. It’s about maintaining a coersion-free marketplace. That doesn’t mean it’s unregulated. Economic behavior under a free market is still subject to the law. A free market economy doesn’t legitimize murder contracts, or fraud. Nor does it legitimize improper disposal of toxic waste.

"These same people will use their own land willy-nilly according to their traditions, practices, need, greed, or rarely in our culture, thoughts of their future generations. "
-- Very true. But centralizing land management will have zero impact on human nature. Centralized economies have the same greed and ignorance, but practised on a colossal scale. And they are stunningly inefficient.

”Free Market systems are accidentally designed to exploit markets and their resources to their ultimate ends.”
-- Consider the problem of ivory poaching in Africa. It turns out that elephants thrive if they are “owned” by villages. The villagers jealously guard their “cash cows” from poaching. This is in stark contrast to most places where such animals are considered international treasures, meaning no individual has a vital economic interest in protecting them.

“How should a land owner maintain his/her 40 acres when it is clear that there will be at least double the number of land-users in the next generation?”
-- It is NOT clear that world population will double, unless we follow your suggestion and adopt centrally managed economies. As you mentioned, birth rates have been falling in every country that even vaguely resembles a free market.

”I say it's convenient to adhere to notions of land-ownership being linked with good land use because while this might have been superficially true last century, it is not true anymore.”
-- We should throw away the lessons of the 20th century based on a socially draconian theory that’s been repeatedly disproven??

”Did you know that the U.S. only recently stopped exporting DDT to third world countries, including Mexico?”
-- And did YOU know that DDT saves millions of lives a year in 3rd world countries but poses virtually no impact to the environment? The only reason it was banned was that hysterical Chicken Littles painted such a grim portrait of it that it everbody “knew” it was evil. Just like everybody once “knew” the world was flat. Banning DDT wasn’t science, it was a social experiment. Like the hungry lawyers who raped Dow Corning for everything it had, on the wildly imaginative pretext that silicone is somehow poisonous. This wasn’t a free market at work, it was the blind hand of... government. Even ivory towers can fall victim to internet rumors, urban legends, and well crafted smear campaigns.

”Free Markets are naive, from a green perspective.”
-- And centralized economic control is naive, from any perspective. It brings gradual economic strangulation, followed by horrendous environmental devastation.

”Personally, I think Socialism is a decent first step, even with all it's problems. For one thing, it will generate a culture that is at least more acclimitized to government controls, if not more understanding of those controls.”
-- Oher models are even MORE conducive to acclimating people to government controls. In the southern US, one such model was abandonded in 1865.

“Thirdly, though it's failures to do so are easy to point out, Socialism is protective of the whole population. This is a healthier long-term perpective than 'let the best man win (and the loser die in poverty)' competition.”
-- You would remove incentive for excellence? You would punish efficiency and reward sloth? A 4 year old could predict where such policies would lead....

[Whoha]

Population growth is linked to pollution. You get pop growth from improved land(terraforming damage), which is then worked(eco damage).

[smacksim]

Excellent retorts Roadrash. [Edit: I do find your last comment unneccesarily insulting]. It's good to spar on these issues. I'd reply in kind, but I've go to go play more Smac. I will say that I am not necessarily promoting centralized economies in the traditional sense, but rather some as-yet-unknown long-sighted approach.

You are quite right to point out that this is politics rather than merely economics.

It irks me no end that the historical 'greenness' of free markets keep being brought up, whether in land ownership, or government pollution, or whatever. I agree with this, AND, I don't think it's a wise or sustainable solution. Free Market is biology, and we are too biologically sucessful. Why in the heavens should we exploit and expand 'naturally' when it is so impactful and unsustainable? Free Market is not a plan. Perhaps, if you are religious, you might say it's not for us to plan or judge, it's for God. We should follow the urging of our collective genes to reproduce and consume wherever possible. Perhaps we are so animal that no 'plan' could save us from our natures anyways (history suggests this). Perhaps the benefits of Free Market are better than any other attainable solution. But I suggest there are other solutions, possibly even attainable ones. No, I don't like Free Market systems. It's just me. I am a community type person. I think we all have it in our natures to value the group as well as ourselves. Free Market only addresses the latter half. I do like competition, but not to the death. What's the point in that?

I apologize for boring anyone who wades through this thread looking for more on the Merchant Exchange!

Going out to play...

-Smack

....well, let me temporize a bit more. Look, I do understand and appreciate the benefits of a FM system. Heck, I'm using a computer, aren't I? It's just that this is not a very thoughtful system. Evidence is mounting that we need to be more thoughtful, that our system has provided wealth, and it has provided truly rapid expansion. Vanilla 'Free Market' is the basic human system anyways. 'I have two clubs, you have two apples, we trade'. Adam Smith didn't have to invent FM. He had to justify it. And he did. http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jun/smith.html

On that last comment of yours Roadrash, the one that says that any 4 year old can see where the policies of Socialism will lead. Where will they lead in your opinion? I'm curious. I do realize you are on the winning team in this debate. There are more of you .

-S

Here's a green article. Even this is too short-sighted for me: http://www.greeninformation.com/http...s%20socialism.

Here's a source for Santiago_clause's 'commons' metaphor:
Hardin, Garrett, "The Tragedy of the Commons," in Dryzek and Schlosberg, eds., Debating the Earth, pp. 23-34

-S

[Impaler[WrG]]

I agree with Smakins interpritation that "capitalism, consumption, expantions" and everything that goes with it are purely are animalistic Drives expressed at the higher social levels. We are basicaly highly successfull weeds.

But rather then Socialsim being this first step to some kind of "transendent" state inwhich our rational minds superseed our bioligical drives and guide us to a harmonous future I see IT as yet another extention of Biology.

As our populations reach saturation and competition and stress incresse we naturaly produce coping mechanisms. Socialism is an expression of the stress our society is under. Its not so differnt then the state a bunch of rats put in a too-small cage will experience. Resorces are "policed", reproduction decreases, infanticide incresses. Thus it serves as a self correcting and self defeating state.

Consider another fact. Under both of your agruments the assumed "goal" is Presevation of the Species (and thus your own genes). This asumption is SOO basic no one is questioning it. Could it be that rather this is your goal not because of some well thought out rational argument but simply because its a biological drive. No one escapes their biological drives, self preservation is ALWAYS the goal (its THE defining charactersist of life).

All we are arguing over is how BEST to enshure self presevation. No matter how much the "Greens" talk about "compasion" for the planet the argument ultimatly stems from simple self-preservation (albee it at a "higher" species level). And what pray-tell is the differnce between Self Preservation and Greed? None I say, Greed is simply a label we aply to thouse who are more proactive in their self-preservation.

Lastly let me point out that given the fact we have totaly failed to "transend" our biological motivations means that we WILL be preseved. If we are a "super weed" on the earth, it screws everything else and we may experience population crashes but the species as a WHOLE will continue (even under total global thermo-nuclear war or a comet hitting the earth). For all practical purposes our species (or its progeny) is IMORTAL! Nothing short of the burning out of the SUN or Alien invasion would wipe us out. If we can colonize other planets then the species will survive even thouse events and last BILLIONS of years. Far from being done "despite" our base biological nature these things will be done because of and in service of that nature.

[Enigma_Nova]

Our destruction will come from our own ignorance.
Self-Preservation involves conserving energy, and intelligence needs brainpower.
Ignorance, Presumption et. all are parts of self-preservation.

They're self-destructive ATM but still motivated by self-preservation.
Unless we find some way to re-evaluate our biological drives, backwards results like that will cripple us.

We're not immortal as we are. We might have to change a bit to stay alive, but once we are changed, it is no longer us that is living.

Please note that I know bugger all about Free Market

[Impaler[WrG]]

How can it be that a group of individuals totaly bent on Self preservation at the individual level (and some even seeing a value in group preservation) would in their global output be totaly self destructive down to the last individual?

Its as if saying the sum of its parts is the oposite of the parts in question. This would be truely Ironic, too ironic infact to be belivable.

A group of individuals bent on individual self preservation are going to achive just that, preservation of a few individuals under anything but the most destructive event. No internal event could be that destructive, if is generated by the group as it destroys it would lessen in intensity untill such point as it becomes survivable by the few "superior" individuals (though admitedly their might be very few). Only a prolonged outside influence constantly pushing all individuals beyond their coping point could act to wipe them all out.

[Enigma_Nova]

I didn't mean total destruction.
It is self-preservatory in that it saves Energy,
but self-destructive in that said Energy is better off being used!

This would be truely Ironic, too ironic infact to be belivable.

Hey, it worked for the Uncertainty principle...

In the long term, Ignorance (as a group trait) will negatively affect the group.
I guess this means I arrived a few millennia too early.