4 Comments
author

Reading this now many days later, I realized I did not make my thinking especially clear in this brief article. And part of the reason for this is that my thinking here was not fully developed--more incipient than developed.

Then, and now, I had/have a problem with the very notion of affluence as some sort of simple calculation ... and technology as something readily quantified or characterized. That is, I'm looking at these two from within an eco-cultural ethos. I'm capable of looking at these the way an economist or a systems scientist without such an ethos would understand these. But there is an ethic, an ethics, in my lens on these topics. I'm trying here to reveal a perspective in which technology is not a set and established entity -- and nor is affluence. And these two are bound together complexly, as concepts.

Affluence is related to prosperity, as a concept. And it is my view is that the 'normal' way of thinking of economists and systems scientists not working within an eco-cultural ethical framework (ethos) appears highly distorted to those attempting to make sense from within such an ethos.

Even the idea of wealth looks very differently from within an informed eco-cultural ethos. You see, there's nothing at all wrong or errant about pursuing genuine prosperity and wealth within nature's own pattern. It's a good thing! And once we understand this in our hearts, so to speak, the mechanical and formulaic calculations are seen in a very different light. From the perspective of the eco-cultural ethos I speak from within, negative externalities are a violation of sound sense so severe, so totally irrational, that knowing this must be the light in which we look at the IPAT formula. The IPAT formula lacks an ethos at its heart, because it really doesn't understand either affluence or technology. It reduces these to simple conceptual objects. They are not.

Expand full comment
author

"As Dr. Daly put it, economists should “care about what counts, not about what is merely countable.”

From -

Herman Daly, professor who introduced ecology to economics, dies at 84

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/herman-daly-professor-who-introduced-ecology-to-economics-dies-at-84/ar-AA13KLjt

Yes! By asking "What counts?" we begin to radically reframe what wealth really amounts to, and thus what prosperity and even -- ultimately -- "affluence". Affluence is not a simple matter you can plug into a formula without distortion.

Expand full comment

I've never liked IPAT because I didn't see the point of naming affluence and technology as factors in per capita impact. It seems to me it IS appropriate to say that the impact of humanity and the economy is population X per capita impact--and per capita impact is influenced by affluence level and technology, among other things. The other problem is that you can come up with an average per capita impact but it varies greatly, with some having thousands of times the impact of others.

On externalizing, I think it's wrong that internalizing costs would reduce the profitability of business. I think in most or maybe all cases it would completely eliminate any profit. Wasn't there a study that said so?

Expand full comment
author

"On externalizing, I think it's wrong that internalizing costs would reduce the profitability of business. I think in most or maybe all cases it would completely eliminate any profit. Wasn't there a study that said so?"

There may have been such a study, I don't know. Let me know if you find one/it.

My view on the profitability question, sans externalizations, is that internalizing all externalizations would swiftly put an end to the luxury-dependent economy of the 'global north' (rich world), resulting in a needs based economy. This has a lot to do with one particular ratio: labor in proportion to units of production. Capitalism's history is largely the history of the replacement of human labor, measured in hours, with machines -- which are generally more efficient if measured in the hours/units of production way. The more machines replaced human labor, the more access to livelihood depended upon the provision of luxury goods and services so that folks would have a means of livelihood in the form of paid work (as contrasted with self-provisioning, whether within community or as a family or individual). Self provisioning, of course, requires access to productive land, which of course the poor no longer have, as a generality. So livelihood generally means working for money / employment.

If you think this all through carefully you'll understand that access to our most basic needs in a luxury economy depends upon an economy which can provide access to livelihood through the sale of luxury goods and services. A post growth / shrinking economy (materials and energy) would result in a vast reduction of 'demand' for luxury goods and services, simply because very few would have the financial resources to afford these. Thus access to livelihood would drop off dramatically, since livelihood mainly means money / employment these days.

This is why cities will empty out with any major shift toward a needs based economy, which is essential to 'degrowth' / low carbon economy. In rural settings, self-provisioning (as communities and individuals) is far more possible than it will be in cities. At least until that point in which cities become self-provisioning places -- meaning much less population dense and with improved soil and plenty of edible plants (especially perennials) around.

Expand full comment