THE UNSUSTAINABILITY and ORIGINS of SOCIOECONOMIC INCREASE by MARK S. MERITT a Master's Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Facul
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE UNSUSTAINABILITY AND ORIGINS OF SOCIOECONOMIC INCREASE BY MARK S. MERITT A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2001 ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. ________________________________________ __________________________ Thesis Adviser Date Approved ________________________________________ __________________________ Executive Officer Date THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It would have been impossible for me to write this paper, and the expanded work to which it will hopefully lead, without the contributions of the following people: Daniel Quinn, who has influenced my thinking and given me more knowledge, wisdom and inspiration than any other individual. His work crystallizes the ideas and findings of so many others even as it breaks ground and points to a new path for generations to come. I hope my work here proves a worthwhile contribution to the body of thought and action that is his legacy. Allan and Doris Meritt, my parents, who supported all my choices in higher education, from my decision to move into the very unpractical undergraduate major of Theatre Arts to my graduate work at the intersection of the hard and soft sciences. What these contrasting pursuits have in common is that I was interested in them for their own sake, not because they were guaranteed to provide a career path. I can only hope that more parents will come to act as they have, empowering their children to create their own priorities rather than adopt those of others. Jennifer Norris, my wife, who has been nothing but understanding and encouraging while I spent so much time on my graduate work that could have otherwise been spent with her. I hope I will have the opportunity to return the favor as she discovers new pursuits for herself. Rachel Brownstein and Katherine Koutsis, executive officer and executive assistant respectively of the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies program at the City University of New York Graduate Center, who help realize the interdisciplinary pursuits of people like me, even when we stop living in New York City. Joseph Dauben, Rosamond Rhodes, Gregory Johnson, Sharon Zukin, Robert Rockwell, John Oppenheimer, Timothy Alborn, Marshall Berman, Michael Blim and William Kornblum, professors of the various courses that made up my Liberal Studies curriculum, whose varied insights and guidance all helped shape my work. Thanks especially to Professors Johnson, Rockwell, Alborn, Blim and Kornblum, all of whom fostered work that led directly to this paper. Added thanks to William Kornblum, who agreed to serve as thesis adviser for a project that he felt was ambitious but feasible and valuable. His excitement, input and steering have been beneficial so far, and I hope they will continue to be as I elaborate this work. Mark S. Meritt Red Hook, NY January, 2001 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: A PARADIGM IN SEARCH OF A SHIFT The Bubble Burst .....................................................1 Sustainability, Paradigm and Vision .......................................3 The Ecological Perspective ..............................................5 Thesis ..............................................................9 THE UNSUSTAINABILITY OF GROWTH A Matter of Vision, A Vision of Matter ....................................12 Thermodynamic Irreversibility ...........................................14 Tap, Sink and Biodiversity .............................................16 Population: A Very Special Case of Economic Growth .........................21 Growth and Complexity ................................................28 THE EVOLUTION OF UNSUSTAINABILITY Human Expansion and the Theory of r-K Selection ...........................40 A Biased Path to Civilization ............................................42 Biology, Culture and Evolution ..........................................49 Cultural Evolution and the Evitability of Complexity ..........................56 Coevolution and the Temporary Success of Maladaptive Memes .................61 Deconstructing the False Dichotomy of Nature vs. Culture, Part I: Heredity/Environment ............................................................67 Deconstructing the False Dichotomy of Nature vs. Culture, Part II: Man/Nature .....73 Man, Nature and Runaway Increase ......................................77 CONCLUSION: TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY Leaving the Tunnel ...................................................88 The Material Dynamic Hallmarks: Equilibria and Cycles .......................91 The Structural Hallmark and the Non-Material Dynamic Hallmark: Egalitarianism and Fulfillment ...................................................97 The Operational Hallmark: Bottom-Up ...................................101 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................113 1 INTRODUCTION: A PARADIGM IN SEARCH OF A SHIFT The Bubble Burst In December 1919, with capital of just $150, Charles Ponzi opened the Security Exchange Company in Boston, Massachusetts. Through this venture, he hoped to capitalize on the international trade of postal reply coupons. Several countries accepted these coupons, issued by the International Postal Union, in exchange for postage stamps, allowing people to spare a correspondent the cost of return postage. Ponzi figured he could purchase the coupons cheaply from countries with weak economies and redeem them in the United States for a profit. Unfortunately for Ponzi, his “Great Idea,” essentially a form of speculation in currency markets, lost steam — making any substantial profit would require the redemption of huge quantities of coupons. His profit would be eaten up between red tape among postal organizations and his own expenses in hiring people to handle the material (Knutson, 1996; Walsh, 1998: 2). Whenever he mentioned his plan to others, though, they became very interested and eager to participate. With potential investors lining up at his door, “he stopped buying international postal coupons and dealing with endless bureaucracy — and focused instead on bringing in investors” (Walsh, 1998: 2). Ponzi issued negotiable notes of various denominations, promising a 50% return on investment after 90 days had lapsed. To make good, Ponzi used the money brought in by later investors to pay off earlier ones. As he paid off the matured notes, word quickly spread about the fantastic profits being earned. More and more investors came in, and he even decreased the pay- off period to 45 days. With so many transactions to handle, the bureaucracy he wanted to avoid returned, and he had to strike up a relationship with a bank. Even with the administrative hassles, in less than a year Ponzi had collected $9,500,000 from over 10,000 investors (Knutson, 1996; Walsh, 1998: 3). 2 As it had to, the venture came to an end. Funds simply switched hands from one contributor to another, with no actual investment being made to achieve profits. Money paid out, described as income, was actually distribution of capital. Though this was by no means the first such swindle in history, and though his arrest did not stop Charles Ponzi from continuing to pursue a life of financial crime, the Security Exchange Company left a legacy, with such scams coming to be known as Ponzi schemes (Knutson, 1996; Walsh, 1998: 7). A close cousin of the Ponzi scheme is the pyramid scheme. In the Ponzi scheme, money is handed over to a central organizer to be invested, but the organizer simply uses new funds to pay old debts. In pyramid schemes, with or without an administrator, money is handed over for a right to do something, usually to open some sort of franchise or to solicit members. Each new member is placed in a hierarchy and pays those above them, expecting to eventually collect money from a far greater number of people who join later and are thus placed below. After a certain number of levels below have completed their commitments to the higher-up, his or her membership comes to a close (Walsh, 1998: 8; Blaylock, 2000). With the promise of great profits, members must enroll others underneath them to keep the plan going. While it may be awful enough to fraudulently profit from strangers, doing so through friends and family makes the pyramid scheme potentially more insidious than a mere Ponzi scheme. Pyramid and Ponzi schemes share several key features. First and foremost is the misidentification of fresh capital as income. Also obvious is the exploitation — intended or not, direct or not — of newer members by older ones. In the case of pyramid schemes, this also takes the form of lower members exploited by higher ones. Either way, no new wealth is ever created. Instead, wealth gained by one participant is wealth lost by another. As the schemes’ communities grow, the divergence between the wealthiest and the poorest increases. The rich get richer, but the poor have an ever more difficult time succeeding because there is a limited number of possible participants right from the start. The more join, the more difficult it is to find another to join. 3 When the sources of new recruits dry up, the structure collapses. In a truly systematic way, these schemes can only work well for a few participants and must fail the vast majority. Once known as bubbles (Knutson, 1996), these kinds of schemes have an inherent flaw which makes