1. No category

[THE FOLLOWING IS A GENERAL, CRUDE TRANSCRIPT. SOME WORDS OR
PHRASING MANY BE SLIGHLY DIFFERENT]
Hello,
I’m Peter Joseph and welcome to: “3 Questions - What do you propose?” This
thought exercise is intended for both the average person, concerned about global
problems – along with those who are still confused about - or perhaps even in
opposition to The Zeitgeist Movement.
I am going to pose three questions here, each of which involve a major societal
issue, focusing on how each links directly to the very foundation of our social
system – the market economy itself.
If you disagree with the answers I provide, or perhaps even the premise of the
questions themselves - I encourage you to respond - with an alternative solution
or counter argument. If you choose to do this, just make sure you have reviewed
the sources here - and keep focus. Again – this is about the 3 questions, only.
Now, before I begin - the term “market economy” will be used here throughout.
And since people are quick to get lost semantically about what “capitalism”, or a
free-market supposedly is or isn’t, I am going to define my context now,
bypassing any semantic confusion.
When I use the term market economy, I am simply referring to the core attributes
shared by every market system variation in the world today. And only 3, shared
characteristics are needed here.
The 1st is “labor for income”. Obviously, the whole global economy is based
employment, as this is how people gain money to survive and spend back into
the system, keeping it going.
The 2nd is that all resources, goods and services - retain property value
transferred by means of monetary exchange. Obvious enough. Everything is
bought and sold through the use of money, mediated by the market itself.
And 3rd, the overall incentive strategy is based upon competition for demand,
whether person to person or institution to institution -all oriented around the
interest to (a) save money on production and (b) maximize profits upon final
sales. Again, this is the most basic, gaming logic present in the market.
That’s it. Very simple and again these characteristics are universal to all
economies in the world today.
Question one:
Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain
demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is
there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the
global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for
improved ecological sustainability in the world today?
The most basic mechanism of the market is the movement of money.
And like the gas pedal on a car, if monetary circulation slows, it means demand
and turnover slows, and the average effect is a loss of jobs, loss of income and a
loss of economic growth. Therefore, consumption is the fuel of the market system
and the more we consume - the better the “health” of the overall economy.
Yet, this necessity for constant, cyclical consumption – is in complete contraction
to what is needed for basic, long-term species sustainability… as we are seeing
the need for, all across the world today.
Wouldn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that a goal of any viable economy is not
only to meet the needs of the population, but to do so in the most strategic,
efficient and conservative manner possible. Yet, the market incentivizes the
exact opposite behavior, due to this need for constant turnover.
In fact, the entire basis of market economics, can be summarized by one
paradox: “The market justifies its existence by the recognition of scarcity - but,
due to its structural mechanics – actually promotes and rewards - infinite
consumption."
If this confuses you, it might be because this contradiction remained rather
hidden in the past as far as effects.
200 years ago, our technical means were primitive and the idea of being able to
produce as rapidly as we do now, accessing major resources virtually at will was a pipe dream. We simply didn’t have the technological efficiency back then.
For example, 300 years ago a shoe-maker could produce maybe a few pairs of
high quality shoes a day. Today a common, automated shoe factory can produce
a pair every 30 seconds or over 4000 a day.1
So, the level of production efficiency has increased so dramatically, that we no
longer have a problem overcoming any ‘scarcity of means’ -- the problem now is
keeping people consuming.
1 http://www.ecouterre.com/keen-­‐opens-­‐shoe-­‐factory-­‐less-­‐than-­‐5-­‐miles-­‐from-­‐
And btw, if you are wondering why, in the wake of this great productivity, there
are still billions of people who lack the most basic goods – that is the result of a
different market mechanism, which will touched upon in question 3- the
inevitability of market generated poverty and inequity.
So, back on point, the modern economy is no longer scarcity-based on this level.
It is consumption based- as it needs high level of turnover to keep people
employed and growth going. And obvious side effect today is ever-accelerating
resource depletion, biodiversity loss and destabilizing pollution.
There are now countless corroborating studies that confirm how the world is
increasing in its deficiency to meet the needs of future populations. Some
estimates find that humanity will need 27 more earths by 2050 to meet demand2 3
4 5 6
The rampant, severe biodiversity loss is not only disrupting basic biosphere
functions, it is now a fact that virtually all life support systems are in decline7, with
50% of all wildlife having been destroyed in the past 40 years alone.8
As far as pollution, these issue are nothing but accelerating –in the both air,
water and atmosphere - creating tremendous destabilization and ongoing
environmental damage and negative public health outcomes.
And keep in mind, as explained at length in TZM’s materials, these problem are
not immutable - they can be fixed - if an economic and industrial reorientation
away from market economics was achieved. However, those specifics are not
the subject of this essay. For more - please read our free online book: The
Zeitgeist Movement Defined.
Now, as a final point of evidence, a cursory review of all recent historical
attempts to stop overconsumption, slow biodiversity loss and reduce pollution,
have been virtually stonewalled by the business community. There is no mystery
to this phenomenon – because the fact is: acting in a conservative, truly efficient
2 http://www.techtimes.com/articles/4471/20140318/nasa-­‐funded-­‐doomsday-­‐
study-­‐warns-­‐of-­‐irreversible-­‐collapse.htm 3 http://www.livescience.com/16251-­‐earth-­‐overshoot-­‐day-­‐2011.html 4 http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/Publications/MoraPress1.pdf 5 http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6646/20140417/food-­‐shortages-­‐
could-­‐become-­‐critical-­‐by-­‐2050-­‐study-­‐says.htm 6 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/lack-­‐of-­‐fresh-­‐water-­‐could-­‐hit-­‐half-­‐
the-­‐worlds-­‐population-­‐by-­‐2050-­‐8631613.html 7 http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/07/data-­‐shows-­‐all-­‐of-­‐earths-­‐systems-­‐in-­‐rapid-­‐
decline/ 8 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-­‐lost-­‐50-­‐wildlife-­‐
in-­‐40-­‐years-­‐wwf and sustainable manner is literally the opposite of what the market requires to
function in the long term, keeping the profit machine going.
For example, America’s “Environmental Protection Agency” has constantly been
attacked by interests worried about a loss of income and growth. Just last month
the Wall St Journal ran the headline “The EPA's Latest Threat to Economic
Growth” attacking the EPA for its interest to improve air quality standards.9
And they are right. If the EPA does push forward, many jobs and billions of
dollars will be lost. That is simply what happens when waste-reducing technical
efficiency and conservation is applied.
If you need a more visceral example, look at what the developing nations are
doing - as they struggling to gain economic growth and raise their standard of
living. It is all being done at the long term expense of the environment.
China’s push for massive industrialization and growth has been enabled by
keeping low environmental standards – and now it has 16 of the world’s most
polluted cities.10
And again - if you look closely, all developing nations are doing the same. They
simply can’t afford, more “green” industrial methods.
As far as resource overshoot and biodiversity loss, perhaps the most clear
description of this clash was made in the 2010 Convention of Biological Diversity
report. In 2002, 192 countries got together can agreed to work to slow
biodiversity loss…only to come back 8 years later - completely defeated - stating:
“None of the twenty-one sub-targets accompanying the overall target of
significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 can be said definitively
to have been achieved globally...Actions to promote...biodiversity receive a tiny
fraction of 'funding' compared to…infrastructure and industrial developments…
Moreover, biodiversity considerations are often ignored when such developments
are designed...Most future scenarios project continuing high levels of extinctions
and loss of habitats throughout this century.”11
And, of course, why would any of this be a surprise? Our economy literally has
no structural incentive to adjust – there is no direct market reward - to preserve
resources, habitats or reduce consumption in general. All it knows is that people
need to keep buying stuff and the more they buy, the better everything should be.
9 http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-­‐epas-­‐latest-­‐threat-­‐to-­‐economic-­‐growth-­‐
1407970689 10 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-­‐most-­‐polluted-­‐places-­‐on-­‐earth/ 11 http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/gbo/gbo3-­‐final-­‐en.pdf So I ask again:
Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain
demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed, is
there a structural incentive to reduce resource use, biodiversity loss, the
global pollution footprint and hence assist the ever-increasing need for
improved ecological sustainability in the world today?
The answer is no. There is only the external incentive – meaning the frustrated
outcry of concerned citizens, demanding this or that change – which, in truth,
simply wont do anything in the long run – Why? because it goes against the most
basic premise of the market functionality itself.
The only true solution is to overcome the structural flaw – not by fighting it with
legislation – but by changing the system. To do that, we must replace the current
economic model with one that structurally incentivizes and rewards conservation,
true technical efficiency and overall sustainability.
And as a final note, right now it is safe to project that due to this habitat
destruction, diversity loss, resource over-shoot and CO2 pollution – we very well
could be entering the period of the Sixth Great Extinction on earth – and unless
thing change rapidly, the next generation will be one of great suffering and
disorder.
Question Two:
In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production
costs (“cost efficiency”) in order to maximize profits and remain
competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to
keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological
condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and
effectively by machine automation?
The long standing defense of those who claim there is no problem with machines
replacing human jobs - is that overall technological innovation will simply balance
everything out by eventually creating new human occupations, absorbing anyone
who is displaced.
And while this perspective may have seemed viable during early periods of slow
technological change, the ever-exponential advancement of automation potential
is now far outpacing the creation of new, human-exclusive labor roles. And, as
trends show, it is simply a matter of time before it becomes more cost effective,
reliable and productive, in all major economic fields.
First, let’s consider the potential. Today, there are numerous corroborating
studies showing the capacity of automation, including the conclusion that right
now - over half of the world’s jobs can be mechanized.12 13
Second, we need to consider (a) the trends of employment shifts by industry
sector, (b) the staggering rise in productivity related – and (c) how automation
costs are undercutting human labor costs.
I’ll be using United States statistics as a proxy here, for if it applies to the US,
given its advanced technological state, then it applies to the rest of the world in
the context of trends and potential.
Sectors Shifts.
There are three core economic sectors. Agriculture, Industrial and Service.
In 1870, about 75% of Americans worked in agriculture, while today it is around
2%.14
Why? Well, there certainly hasn’t been a loss of agricultural demand.15 And while
food imports in the US have grown to about 17%16, that obviously doesn’t
balance the near 98% drop in its related employment sector since 187017, and
neither do increases in textile fiber imports. This drop is almost entirely a result of
machine automation.
Where did the jobs go? The Industrial sector and the Service sector.
US Industrial labor reached its peak around 1950, dropping from almost 40% to
about 20%18. Why? Well, the common assumption is that globalization and labor
outsourcing in manufacturing is the cause. And while that may have a short term
and regional relevance -- On the global scale; in the long term - it is completely
irrelevant... As virtually all nations, especially the developed nations, are
12 http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employm
ent.pdf 13 http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-­‐technology-­‐is-­‐
destroying-­‐jobs/ 14 http://www.farmersedge.ca/blog/2013/07/04/neat-­‐facts-­‐about-­‐united-­‐states-­‐
agriculture 15 http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e06.htm 16 http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-­‐markets-­‐trade/us-­‐agricultural-­‐
trade/import-­‐share-­‐of-­‐consumption.aspx#.VD3uq9TF9BI 17 98% of 75% (75%-­‐2%=73%] is 73.5% 18 http://www.minnpost.com/macro-­‐micro-­‐minnesota/2012/02/history-­‐lessons-­‐
understanding-­‐decline-­‐manufacturing witnessing the same trends.19
The reason is the same, as with agriculture -technological application displacing
human labor.20
As far as the service sector, Today over 80% of jobs exist here.21 It has been the
safe zone, given this kind of work is less physical and more it about mental focus
and thought. And up until the late 20th century the idea of “thinking machines”
and advanced machine that could replace such variant labor, was often deemed
science fiction.
Yet, this sector is now quickly being threatened due to the exponential
advancement in programmable intelligence and robotics.22 23 Bank machines,
automated phone systems, point of sale kiosks, processing programs, restaurant
automation, automated transport…If you can think of it, someone is working to
automate it.
And just like the agricultural and industrial sectors, this use of automation is also
ensuring (a) higher productivity and (b) lower costs for the business. Trend
statistics prove this without a doubt.
(a) As far as productivity, human employment is now actually inverse to
productivity in most cases - meaning in all instances of automation, itnot only
removes jobs, it increases output efficiency. Here is a classic charted example
from manufacturing. The blue line is the increase in production and the red line is
human employment.
19 http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/robert-­‐reich-­‐manufacturing-­‐business-­‐
economy.html 20 http://www.controldesign.com/articles/2008/131/ 21 http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm 22 http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/automation-­‐replacing-­‐service-­‐
white-­‐collar-­‐workers/nWdns/ 23 The follow short film gives a good overview of current automation capacity: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/humans-­‐need-­‐not-­‐apply (b)As far as cost reduction, what needs to be understood is that all technological
innovation is now becoming what’s called “information-based”. Whether it is
literally the digital programming, such as a program running a machine, or the
very process of creation of a physical machine itself
And what is the developmental trend of information-based technology in the 21st
century? Exponential. And this not only relates to the advancement of the
technology itself, making things smaller, stronger and more powerful, it also
reduces resource needs… and the cost of emerging technology inevitably
becomes cheaper.
As a classical example, this is why the chip in a common cell phone is thousands
of times more powerful and less expensive - than the super computer of the
1970s.
And, hence, it is simply a matter of time before a great many of currently out of
reach automation tools, such as thinking, cybernated robotics that can perform
virtually any basic human role – become so affordable, to not automate becomes
a detrimental business decision.
And BTW- if you are one of those techno-capitalist apologists that says this price
decrease in cost will simply make consumer goods that much cheaper as well,
and therefore compensate for the loss of income generated by the use of
automation, you are overlooking one critical function of the market economy: The
market needs scarcity to function.
Abundance has no role in market mechanics. And the profit structure itself does
not view reducing costs as means to simply increase affordability of the end
product in and or itself – it does it, first and foremost, to increase profits. The only
reason you see the price reductions is because of the competition occurring in
the industry, as each company works to one up each other’s cost-efficiency
basis, via similar methods.
Point being: regardless of how cheap things become – at some point the
consumption deficiency resulting, by the number of people unemployed by
automation, will override - whatever degree of affordability is being generated by
the lower cost products created. It is inevitable.
And keep in mind, all it takes is a 20-30% rate of human unemployment to
destabilized society into disorder and outrage. That’s it. So, the question isn’t will
we automate everything – the real question – is at what point will the cost
efficiency of applied automation, produce just ‘enough’ unemployment, to cause
social destabilization - and a debilitating loss of economic growth.
SO I ask again:
In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production
costs (cost efficiency) in order to both maximize profits and remain
competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to
keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological
condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and
effectively by machine automation?
The answer - is that there isn’t such an incentive – at least not structurally. Some
kind of general incentive may exist given the common sense awareness that
people do need jobs for the market economy to function – but that recognition
implies that employers should bypass such cost saving, efficiency and safety
increasing technology just so people have jobs.
The reality is that if a business has the choice between a human and machine,
and that machine is more productive and affordable – they will choose the
machine, as per market logic, every time. It they didn’t, they would lose a
competitive edge - as one of their more ruthless competitors certainly will make
that move.
Therefore, the only true, logical and responsible solution in this scenario - is to
remove the labor for income system itself – hence removing the market - and
evolving to a new kind of economic interaction.
Question 3:
In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and
overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a
phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million
a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral,
emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an
effect?
Many today talk about the horror of unnecessary death and suffering. From
dramatic accidents - to psychopathic behavioral violence - to historical
genocides…wars…and other atrocities. In this, we might notice a kind of moral
relativism in what society prioritizes as most condemnable… most often
highlighting visceral, human vs. human behavioral violence, rather than taking a
more objective view - of the relevant and preventable threats to our lives and well
being .
Statistically, if we really wish to be comprehensive in locating the most
prominent, ubiquitous, and unnecessary causes of death and suffering in the
world, we would discover one main catalyst:
Class inequality and low socioeconomic status. Class inequality and low
socioeconomic status trump every other form of violence and public threat –
hands down. The leading cause of death on the planet earth is relative and
absolute poverty. Period.
Every single year, the near equivalent of 2 holocausts – nearly 20 million
people24 25 - are killed by the inefficiency inherent to the market economy and its
24 The 1976 source is 18 million but due to population increase and a rise in poverty and inequality respectively, the number has been conservatively increased here by 2 million. Source: An Empirical Table of Structural Violence, Gernot Kohler and Norman Alcock, 1976 25 Dr. James Gilligan, former professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence, states: “The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closes to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the “structural violence” to which the citizens of all the mathematical inevitability to create large class divisions and resulting human
deprivation.
In this, there are two types of deprivation to note: Absolute and Relative.
Absolute deprivation is what the billion people currently not getting their basic
nutritional needs, are experiencing. This kind of deprivation is about basic
physical needs not being met and hence the manifestation of sickness and
premature mortality due to a lack of resources and options.
Relative Deprivation - has to do with the mental, emotional and physical
disorders that result, from the stress of simply existing in the lower tiers of a
wealth imbalanced society.
For example, numerous studies that compare public health outcomes from one
country to another, based on the level of inequality in that country, have found
that those with the least amount of behavior violence, the least amount of general
crime, infant deaths, drug addictions, heart disease, many cancers, obesity, high
blood pressure, low life expectancy, depression, general mental illness and many
other - reduced problems – also have lower wealth inequality by comparison.26
Put together, these two forms of deprivation – constitute what is called “Structural
Violence”27 – which is a systemic form of violence, that is typically not what many
think of when we consider the idea of “violence” in general.
I’ll put it this way:
If I put a gun to your head and kill you, we would all agree it is a direct act of
mortality producing violence.
If I run a company that decides to save money by covertly dumping toxic waste
into your town’s water supply - and then three years later a group of you in town
get cancer and die from that pollution - I think we would all agree, that it is also
other nations were being subjected. [Source: ‘96, Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes, p. 196] 26 The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, Penguin, March 2009, p.65 27 The term “structural violence” is commonly ascribed to Johan Galtung, which he introduced in the article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" ( Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1969, pp. 167-­‐191) It refers to a form of violence where some social structure or social institution harms people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. It was expanded upon by other researchers, such as criminal psychiatrist Dr. James Gilligan, who makes the following distinction between “behavioral” and “structural” violence: “The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides...wars and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a time.” (Violence, James Gilligan, G.P. Putnam, 1996, p192) an act of mortality producing violence, but more indirect and less obvious in
intent.
Likewise, it is now well established that people with low socioeconomic status are
much more likely to die of heart disease those in upper classes28 29 30. It is a
known fact that the toxic condition of simply being poor, due to both absolute and
relative influences, manifests this disease, amongst many others.
And yet, when people do die as such, rarely does someone bring up the idea of
indirect violence or, more accurately - “structure violence”.
Why? -because the outcome can only be measures by statistics across a
population - and not deduced from any singular case. So, it is counterintuitive to
our education.
But yet, there is no principled difference between being killed by a gun shot to the
head; being poisoned by a companies pollution…or dying of heart disease
because of the causal chain reaction set in motion by the economic system – A
system that artificially generates economic inequality and poverty - inevitably
forcing some people to exist in the toxic condition of low socio economic status.
And you will notice I said “Artificial” - because this poverty is not inevitable or
some immutable natural law of the human society – just as shooting you with a
gun is not inevitable - and just as polluting your water supply is not inevitable.
The class system we endure today is a product of the market system and it CAN
be removed, along with the 2 holocausts occurring every year because of it. This
may not have been true in the past – but it is true today, given modern
technological capacity to create an abundance.
The fact is, low socio economic status is the leading cause of death on planet
earth.
And what does that mean by extension? - if economic inequality and the
inevitable poverty inherent is actually technically unnecessary and merely a
28 Whitehall Study I & II, (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/whitehallII/) Also see: Epidemiology of socioeconomic status and health, M. Marmot (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10681885) 29 Heart Disease Tied to Poverty, New York Times, 1985 (http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/24/us/heart-­‐disease-­‐tied-­‐to-­‐
poverty.html) 30 Life-­‐Course Socioeconomic Position and Incidence of Coronary Heart Disease, American Journal of Epidemiology, April 1, 2009. (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/01/29/aje.kwn403) structural outcome of the market economy itself… then it means the market
system - is the leading cause of unnecessary death on the planet today.
So back to the question:
In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and
overall inequity, how can the effects of “Structural Violence” - a
phenomenon noted by public health researchers to kill well over 18 million
a year, generating a vast range of systemic detriments such as behavioral,
emotional and physical disorders – be minimized or even removed as an
effect?
The answer, of course, is it can’t be removed. It’s built in and as long as we have
the market, the 2 holocausts occurring a year will likely only turn into 3 - 4 and so
on, as population increases, along with the rise in extreme economic inequality
we are seeking every year, which shows no sign of slowing.
As far as it being minimized, as many in the world today are trying to assist, this
could occur with wealth reallocation - say though taxation or the like…but even if
this was done, its effect would be minimal as it still does nothing to address the
true, structural source of the problem. It would be a mere patch.
Not to mention, that the odds of this occurring at all is deeply improbable. As any
such direct action would inherently be working against the very nature of freemarket theory, which assumes market action itself is self-regulating…and any
legal or state imposition is considered wrong.
And btw, if you are one of those people who says we don’t have a free-market
today - that we have state coercion and crony capitalism – please watch my
lecture “Origins and Adaptations Part II” from the University of Toronto from
2014, along with my Berlin Lecture “Economic Calculation in a NLRBE at the– as
I counter the nonsense that what we have today is anything but a pure freemarket - in the most exact sense of those terms – meaning the freedom to
restrict the freedom of others.
Now, I am going to stop here.
These three questions are my challenge to you.
Each question poses a challenge to the very basis of the market system itself
and if any of you out there can answer these questions and explain long term
resolutions - without the removal of the market economy - I certainly want to hear
it. Simply make a video response, post it, and send it to the link below.
And please, everyone - share this video everywhere. These are the questions
every news show and socially conscious media outlet, activist personality or the
like should be addressing. Again, If you support TZM, please take time to post
via social networks, forums, blogs, email lists -whatever. I especially would like to
hear from the anti-zeitgeist movement community as well. “What do you
propose?”
One way or another, until these questions are answered and the problems
resolved – the world is on pace to increasing disorder and breakdown.
Thank you for your time.
Oct 2014