Comments on: The Golden Age http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/228 Ian Lance Taylor Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:44:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on The Golden Age by: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/228#comment-14662 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:04:31 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/228#comment-14662 bartv: Capitalism doesn't have any limits. You could use a ratio to measure success, but I don't see why that is any more appropriate. You're right that measuring benefits, somehow, would be better. And you're right about the cars of yesteryear in terms of safety and features, of course. rwild: I think capitalism inherently favors over-exploiting resources. Under exploiting them is leaving money on the table. The costs borne by future generations are externalities--the only way to measure them in a pure capitalist society is through some sort of regulatory regime. This is to some extent a caricature, but I think it is the logical consequence of a fairly popular belief system. I agree that recycling and conservation can be regarded as progress. When I said a common system of progress, I really just meant the notion that things get better over time. Not all societies believe that. bartv: Capitalism doesn’t have any limits. You could use a ratio to measure success, but I don’t see why that is any more appropriate. You’re right that measuring benefits, somehow, would be better. And you’re right about the cars of yesteryear in terms of safety and features, of course.

rwild: I think capitalism inherently favors over-exploiting resources. Under exploiting them is leaving money on the table. The costs borne by future generations are externalities–the only way to measure them in a pure capitalist society is through some sort of regulatory regime. This is to some extent a caricature, but I think it is the logical consequence of a fairly popular belief system.

I agree that recycling and conservation can be regarded as progress. When I said a common system of progress, I really just meant the notion that things get better over time. Not all societies believe that.

]]> Comment on The Golden Age by: rwild http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/228#comment-14648 Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:37:38 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/228#comment-14648 > One measure of the wealth of a society is what it can afford to discard. By that > measure we are not as wealthy as we used to be Well that is a measure that explicitly favors over-exploiting resources, thus ignores costs put off to the future. Do you consider yourself wealthier if your benefit comes at the cost of depriving your offspring (or yourself at some later point) from similar chances? > Our society has a common notion of progress. Is that really true? Would you consider it progress if you could have roughly the same amount of benefits using less resource consumption? In other words, is there a chance that you could consider recycling and conservation as progress, at least in some cases? I think I do; but I live in a society that may differ with yours on that point, as much as they otherwise have in common (or, really are the same society). > One measure of the wealth of a society is what it can afford to discard. By that
> measure we are not as wealthy as we used to be

Well that is a measure that explicitly favors over-exploiting resources, thus ignores costs put off to the future. Do you consider yourself wealthier if your benefit comes at the cost of depriving your offspring (or yourself at some later point) from similar chances?

> Our society has a common notion of progress.

Is that really true? Would you consider it progress if you could have roughly the same amount of benefits using less resource consumption? In other words, is there a chance that you could consider recycling and conservation as progress, at least in some cases?

I think I do; but I live in a society that may differ with yours on that point, as much as they otherwise have in common (or, really are the same society).

]]> Comment on The Golden Age by: bartv http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/228#comment-14644 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:18:40 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/228#comment-14644 I would not define success as material consumption per se. That would be onesided. A better measure for success to me seems benefits gained per unit material consumed. Regarding the story of your grandfather : keep in mind that a car then is not the same as a car now. It probably didn't have airconditioning, gps, airbags, electric windows, mp3 sound system, a reliable low-maintenance engine and much more. In fact, featurewise your grandfathers car might even have a hard time competing with the Tata Motors car which is on sale for 2500$. At that price most people are able to change cars twice a year if they felt like it. But they would certainly trade all that in for a more comfortable car every 3 years... I would not define success as material consumption per se. That would be onesided. A better measure for success to me seems benefits gained per unit material consumed.

Regarding the story of your grandfather : keep in mind that a car then is not the same as a car now. It probably didn’t have airconditioning, gps, airbags, electric windows, mp3 sound system, a reliable low-maintenance engine and much more. In fact, featurewise your grandfathers car might even have a hard time competing with the Tata Motors car which is on sale for 2500$. At that price most people are able to change cars twice a year if they felt like it. But they would certainly trade all that in for a more comfortable car every 3 years…

]]>