Herman Daly on the Economy & the Environment 

Put it this way, look at what is going on with China, South Korea, and Japan. Their population is decreasing because of birth control, and this guy advocates for reproductive licenses. He is an advocate for eugenics.

@@hunterslaptop2002 that's not as bad as it sounds. Various forms of birth control have been used forever by humans, in fact it's been normal to leave newborn babies to die during difficult times with lack of food/resources.

could u please mention which one

Where did you take the course?

Check Ludwig von mises or Murray Rothbard as well :) all the best

Twitter brought me here... I like that word “ilth”

It's a refreshing change to hear a person with a Southern accent who doesn't believe that science is witchcraft.

I agree that it was a highly interesting interview. I too am thankful for the upload. I have not read much of Herman Daly's work. Just a couple of academic papers really. I don't know about you but I am impressed by the person. Just out of interest, did you get to read anything of his? If so then I am interested to know what it was and any thoughts you wish to share. If not then not to worry - I know how life can get!

@@Tom.Livanos I read Beyond Growth, a very good and important (imo) read! I highly recommend🙂

@@frustratedatheist9885 Nice. 'Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development' (1996). The tussle, it seems, over what sustainable development means is my first gleaning of what the book is about. Okay, thank-you for getting back to me - and so promptly. As I said in my initial reply, life can be hectic... I guess that applies to me now (so just as well I said it). I cannot promise anything, but I do appreciate you getting back to me. Have a nice day!

It is a bit scary that in 2020, people are just now hearing about an alternative to the current disaster economics we are pursuing. Daly has been talking about this for over three decades.

@@gerrys6265 Yup. Meanwhile in 2018 William Nordhaus is given the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics Science ('Nobel' Prize in Economics) for saying that the 'optimal' level of global average temperature increase is 3 degrees C above pre-industrial. Neoclassical economics is nothing short of insane. (Though from my loose familiarity believe Daly combines standard neoclassical economics with some ecological context or nuance.)

@@EclecticSceptic Si, there is insanity at all levels, but it seems so obvious and failing to see concerted efforts in the works now, I believe we may have more of a deficit in intelligence (or is it just awareness?) among the general public than in morality.

@@gerrys6265 (Long comment) It's not that people are too stupid. We aren't. It's that most people are too busy to pay attention, and if they do they probably accept the prevailing ideology, or if they do pay attention and don't accept the prevailing ideology they are too busy to take action. If people weren't constantly brainwashed about economics and politics in behalf of huge vested interests (banks, mega corporations, certain political parties) and were actually presented the truth, and weren't so buried in debt etc. they were too busy or afraid to organise, then there would be mass upheaval immediately. We can't underestimate the resources which are directed toward maintaining things as they are. In our societies the information channels are run as for profit corporations or by states. They do not function correctly (Manufacturing Consent, etc) so we can't be surprised about the ignorance which pervades. Add onto that the hundreds of millions of dollars which have been spent specifically to create doubt about climate change, plus endlessly repetition on how capitalism is perfectly self correcting and can solve any problem by conjuring new technology. The ruling class benefit greatly when we say 'oh we masses are too stupid'. There's nothing natural about the lack of appropriate response to this crisis. It is contingent on the specific institutional configuration of this society (the system is stupid, not Homo sapiens).

@@EclecticSceptic Yes, I agree for the most part. The system is absolutely broken. But it is homo sapiens that have allowed this to happen to them by other homo sapiens. I have been around for quite a few decades (sounds like you have too) watching this and involved to some degree trying to change it - through education. This is a human made construct and humans allowed it to happen....that is not too smart. You are right that the system keeps us busy and worried about mortgages etc. but we still need to realize that we need to be aware of predators. It is not smart not to keep watch when all around you is screaming warnings (like being too busy paying mortgages to look up). That is the kind of stupid I am talking about...the kind that enslaves you. That stupid system was designed by and accepted by Homo sapiens - stupid comes in their somewhere I'm sure.

Agreed

Hi, Gerry, I am Sunny and now I am starting a research of Herman Daly and would you like to give me a favor of providing some other resources of him with me? Thanks a lot for you help and please email to me 13601021373@163.com if it's available for you. Muchas gracics!

In 100 years ecological economics and a partially computer-planned economy will be the only way of maintaining a basic standard of living for the population, because we will be so short of resources and face such a problem with pollution and an unreliable climate. Plus, having a successful military will be more important in such a scarce world because desperation brings force into vogue as a way of obtaining resources.

You are the third commenter I have read so far that was turned off by his referring to religion at the end. I have replied to the other two - perhaps you can read there? Basically I did/do not see him as some 'advocate for religion/people of religious faith'. Have you heard an expression like "s/he is religious when it comes to exercising". He was, as I interpreted it, using the term religion in this sense i.e. in terms of having a foundational inner conviction. Not a religion e.g. Christianity or what have you. Anyway you and I both have followed Herman Daly a long time. I think he is great. Agree that the world needs more like him - way wayyyyy more.

And nobel nominee for sustainable development, If only governments took these talks more seriously!

@@nv7287 I agree - whatever that may be worth in this crazy world!

Lol. I know (as you do it seems) that one RU-vid comment does not make for a change in global operations for all time. Still, one RU-vid commenter to another, I like your thinkin'. Thank-you.

All youtube comments aggregated in a scientific way would be a path to problem resolution. People qualified on the matter would be learning and using democracy as a tool to see what people know or don't know. Democracy hinges on conscience and knowledge understanding on whatever subject. People don't necessarily "vote", they just learn new things and ways and are able to show their work.@@Tom.Livanos

I think the problem here is that we assume we can continue with the capitalistic marketplace as the sole distributor of 'wealth'. If that is allowed, we will always have poor who suffer the most...even to the point of dying as is the case in many countries right now. It is this capitalistic mindset that has created the system we have, championed and lobbied for by the rich (who benefit most from it). Our feeble attempts to stifle that in any way through other distribution mechanisms is shouted down as 'socialism', 'communism' by people with either no understanding of what those things are or by people that are afraid of losing their position of privilege.

Well for the first, it is actually quite difficult to avoid it affecting the poorest the most in countries where the resources are absolutely necessary for the survival of the public. Take Gasoline for example, the locations such as Australia, Canada and the USA have basically dug themselves into a hole by making car centric suburbs. If petroleum resource taxes are implemented, there would literally be no other way to get food at the grocery store than to buy gasoline and so they would still buy it even if it is more expensive, it is inelastic demand which makes this very difficult. What you need to do in my view, is basically change the transport infrastructure so that people can easily access public transport services such as trains, and can cycle wherever they need to, places such as the Netherlands have shown that it is very possible. Except the problem is that it would literally require a complete overhaul and ripping up of a lot of existing infrastructure which would probably be too expensive to be accepted by the public. However, theoretically, if this is done, then the petroleum tax would be appropriate after implementation. If the resource demand is elastic, then it would be appropriate without the need for such change. For the second, if there was a land value tax or levy on land ownership, then there would still be a tax base, it is basically still a kind of income tax that does not create deadweight loss. Herman Daley is a Georgist, so he advocates for the use of LVT.

I pretty much agree with the first two replies you have received here. I add this (i.e. third) reply on the chance that it may clarify how it can be done. Q1. Here in Australia a carbon tax was proposed, and indeed implemented albeit for a short time in 2012 or so. The question of impacting those on low incomes/those who could least afford it was a big focus in the conversation being had. There were two things which were done: * The tax-free threshold for income increased from A$6000 to 18200 on 1 July 2012, and was scheduled to rise to A$19,400 from 1 July 2015.The changes meant those earning less than A$20,000 received a tax cut with those earning up to A$5,000 receiving the greatest tax reduction. * Other steps included direct payments into bank accounts beginning in May 2012. The payments, called the Clean Energy Advance, were targeted at low- and middle-income households. - Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia#Compensation --- and specifically footnotes 95, 96, 97, 98, 99. Q2. Australia, to continue with the country I live in and am therefore most familiar with, taxes various entities and activities. The government would begin to receive revenue for issuing permits for carbon dioxide emissions. These permits would be up to a set limit (i.e. the cap). The key point regarding your question is that this was all new. On that basis, if carbon dioxide emissions were reduced to zero then all that would happen is that the additional government revenue would return to zero. Note: the preceding is a very common response (i.e. answer) to each of your two questions. My educational background and former career is in/around economics and the economy. I have somewhat deeper views than what I express above. Still I thought it'd be better to keep it simple. Hope this helps!

Yes

Yeah, the mainstream is using the language of growth (note: Herman Daly certainly isn't). Yes you are spot on. I liked Herman Daly's distinction between globalisation and internationalisation in this interview. It is such a moderate view. He has my kudos on it. The parrallel between two employees of different corporations undercutting their corporation to make a deal --> likely landing them in jail was a fine analogy. I add that, perhaps like you, I have a soft spot for localisation. Locals always have been, are and always shall be best placed to observe a locality. It is axiomatic. I am not somehow "opposed" to the existence of a wider society but, yeah, the axiom also needs to be acknowledged.

+Mr.E I was going to write something similar: agreed with it until about the 45 min. mark but then he starts talking utter nonsense, devaluating what he said before. His description from 45:29 to 45:50 is exactly how I think about it, but I don't see how that would make me not care about our future. If he was right religious people would be much more concerned about these issues, but in reality there's no such correlation at all.

@Mr.E I underscore every word of your statement. „Religion“ means a random collection of thoughts that mainly stem from pre-enlightenment eras. It may even further enhance capitalist destructive systems, see for instance Max Webers work on „Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism“. The corner stones of ecological economy should be integrated natural sciences and humanities, universal human rights and a deep respect and humility towards the unbelievable complexity and beauty of nature.

so embrace the parts you like and ignore the other parts.

I agree with many of your comments but I don't think it undermines the rest of what he said. Clearly his analysis at the end, about considering the Earth as a created gift or as the result of 'random' natural processes, is wrong. He makes a classic error in conflating 'materialism', as in the excessive preoccupation with accumulating material wealth, and 'materialism', as in the view that the universe is entirely natural. The two do not necessarily entail each other. Indeed, many wealth materialists are supernaturalists, and many naturalists are anti-wealth materialism. That being said, he made a good point about only being left with 'matter in motion' if we adopt a crude scientistic (as in, scientism) attitude which has no room for ethics and values. However, I think a much better answer to the question would have pointed out that our models of social organisation are highly alienating, by which I mean two things here: 1) that they seem to almost take on a life of their own, and 2) that a small minority make the key decisions, which the vast majority are merely subject to. As for (1), I refer to the fact that our societies at present are somewhat like a train charging towards a precipice. The train needs to be stopped, but no one seems to be able to stop it. Government can't stop it because corporations rule nations and the globe. Corporations can't stop it because they strictly follow the profit motive. Individuals can't stop it because they are too busy trying to make the rent, and when they do have time and energy, there is little outlet because democratic institutions pretty much don't exist. Hence the train continues on its course, while we look around and wonder how it keeps going. This is not a necessary state of affairs, it is an artifact of the social system. I think this type of answer captures a lot more than a critique of secularism. Indeed the latest IPCC report contains research that those who believe that God is looking after the planet are less likely to be concerned about climate change.

I think it was unfortunate he used the word "religious". I understand what he said not in terms of any particular religion but spirituality, belief, morality and ethical thinking that should be included into the discourse that at the moment is so detached that it only takes into account numbers, growth and resources rather than moral obligations and intrinsic value of the environment that we are ought to be custodians of. It is just about care and humane approach.

It seems to me that people are awfully touchy/triggered/whatever when it comes to mention of the word religion. He did not mention any actual religion e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism... he was talking about that which is 'religious'. It was, as I understood/understand it, a reference to/synonym for inner conviction. Not "followers of a religious faith have to stand up/are the ones to have a say". He is talking about the need to have a conversation around values and the metaphysical. That it is a more difficult conversation to have than any conversation about the physical. Humanity... and the economics profession in particular (i.e. in this context)... has placed the more difficult metaphysical dialogue in the metaphorical "too hard basket". Yes, it is difficult. At the same time, just disregarding it is doing us (i.e. humanity) a disservice.