– The philosopher’s puzzle of whether a tree that falls in the woods makes a sound, posits that someone walking in the woods discovers a fallen tree, and wonders whether it had made “a sound” when it fell.  It presents it as a general question about unanswerable questions.

Endless discussions on subjects like that still consume philosophical discussions.  What they seem to miss is whether it matters, whether what we can conclude about a lack of information makes any difference.  It can, but it might also be only a difference in what we know, and in how we observe it.

That’s the “two realities” problem, that what nature does and what we make of it ourselves are very different. Continue reading Did a fallen tree grow in the woods?? →

Phil, Do you think it helps to distinguish between modest returns (which could be part of a flow of money) and big accumulations of wealth (which seem to take money out of circulation and to often redirect flows of money destructively)? I wonder whether a slight tweaking of the language here and there could make the writing more engaging and less bleak.

For example the harvesting of renewable resources such as solar is low only because we don’t bother and it is maybe not limited to being steady if we expand nature? You must be thinking of ways forward, as well as how growth as usual is ending?

Diminishing returns and complexity make an excellent introduction. Have you tried wiserearth as a community for posting and discussing ideas and solutions? I’ve been surprised at how well it functions and the sense of being among supporters. See for example the comments on the Dubai talk (linked below).  Of course if you have criticisms please feel free to add those too!

Hang in there Best wishes, James

James,

The difference is that allowing “modest” returns really needs to mean “responsive” instead, since returns are measured in %’s.

Even a 1% return if reinvested for continual growth is still exponential and will exceed any limit and be “immodest”.

It’s not that 1% is “big”, it’s that the right thing to regulate is not growth rate but the response, to growth accumulation, at whatever rate.   So, the real issue is “when” to say a relative change in scale has become an absolute change in kind.    Continue reading Growth Friendly? – natural v. compulsive growth →

Phil,
I call it Capitalism Plus. The old rules don’t work anymore. Many of multiple persuasions are in denial about the lack of utlility for business as usual. Given the load on the planet and the desire for many to improve their standard of living we have to change how we do things. Change won’t be easy, since those that have made out well by the old rules will fight change. The problem becomes even more difficult because the new rules will be written as we go (pleasant or not).

Are we going through the beginning of birthing pains or death pains. I hope and will work for birthing. Pain there will be.
….

When organisms switch from immature growth to maturing their strengths and finding roles in new environments.

Wolfgang,

Yes, I agree.  But would you go for “Capitalism Plus Plus” maybe??

The natural systems physics points clearly to “birthing pains” as a time when new beginnings emerge, as “the main event” at the end of compound growth.  IF people were to recognize that the end of compound growth is always *the beginning* of what we’d call adult “life” some interest might develop.   Continue reading Capitalism Plus Plus? →