1. The convertability of wealth into power, and the power back into more wealth, is indeed a key feature of our world.
2. One element of externalizing doesn't get enough press. I'm thinking specifically of fossil fuels. There is much talk about the greenhouse gas externality and some talk about the damage to the environment and health of those living close to where coal and tar sands are mined and refined, where gas and oil are drilled, and where any of them is burned. But only a rare mention of the enormous cost of cleaning up the atrocity in Alberta (probably a good $100 billion. Who's gonna pay it? Or will it ever get done?) the capping of oil and gas wells (there are many thousands of old gas wells left uncapped in WV alone--the conventional ones from before hydraulic fracking, never mind all the new ones), and the reclamation of coal mines--and other mines. These businesses would not be profitable without externalizing these enormous costs onto taxpayers or the environment, so regulators turn a blind eye and let them put up as bond a tiny fraction of the actual costs, then declare bankruptcy and duck out the back as soon as they lose profitability. And nuclear power plants and weapons facilities! These are all going to be hazardous sites future generations will need to avoid, along with all the other problems we're saddling them with.
3. To the last bit: My sister died of cancer a year ago, as did my mother so I found a book on cancer in the local library and learned a couple of interesting facts: cancers can redirect veins toward themselves to feed their growth, and they can evolve resistance so that a cancer drug that once shrank a cancer, no longer does. Consider these things in relation to the cancer metaphor of the Machine, capitalism, the corporate-government-media complex, the Establishment, the US empire, whatever you want to call it. Does it redirect resources toward itself? Sure does, that's what colonialism and neocolonialism are all about. Does it learn to resist limits on its growth? Yes, as in SCOTUS decisions that equate money with speech, or the subversion of the UN from a body originally intended to stop warmaking. And one more: a successful cancer keeps growing, at the expense of its host, until it kills its host--and thus itself dies. It can't avoid this end because it isn't intelligent, it's just a program. So. Will the Machine grow until it kills its host--humanity, or really, the Earth?
Of course, so far, we've not begun to unpack how currency power (economic, monetary), which rather easily converts into political power, relates to military power, and how these three are related.
And the topic is quite complex!
Take, for example, the current war in Ukraine, with Russia. I don't think a single observer would believe this war would have been possible were it not for Russia / Putin's ability to threaten Nato and the broader world with nuclear war. So Russia / Putin is here using military might which came with political and economic (geopolitical) might which was stacked up before the fall of the USSR.
In my opinion, Russia's invasion of Ukraine would already have been ended by NATO / Europe were it not for Putin's threat of nuclear retaliation for "interference".
Whew! I have three different comments:
1. The convertability of wealth into power, and the power back into more wealth, is indeed a key feature of our world.
2. One element of externalizing doesn't get enough press. I'm thinking specifically of fossil fuels. There is much talk about the greenhouse gas externality and some talk about the damage to the environment and health of those living close to where coal and tar sands are mined and refined, where gas and oil are drilled, and where any of them is burned. But only a rare mention of the enormous cost of cleaning up the atrocity in Alberta (probably a good $100 billion. Who's gonna pay it? Or will it ever get done?) the capping of oil and gas wells (there are many thousands of old gas wells left uncapped in WV alone--the conventional ones from before hydraulic fracking, never mind all the new ones), and the reclamation of coal mines--and other mines. These businesses would not be profitable without externalizing these enormous costs onto taxpayers or the environment, so regulators turn a blind eye and let them put up as bond a tiny fraction of the actual costs, then declare bankruptcy and duck out the back as soon as they lose profitability. And nuclear power plants and weapons facilities! These are all going to be hazardous sites future generations will need to avoid, along with all the other problems we're saddling them with.
3. To the last bit: My sister died of cancer a year ago, as did my mother so I found a book on cancer in the local library and learned a couple of interesting facts: cancers can redirect veins toward themselves to feed their growth, and they can evolve resistance so that a cancer drug that once shrank a cancer, no longer does. Consider these things in relation to the cancer metaphor of the Machine, capitalism, the corporate-government-media complex, the Establishment, the US empire, whatever you want to call it. Does it redirect resources toward itself? Sure does, that's what colonialism and neocolonialism are all about. Does it learn to resist limits on its growth? Yes, as in SCOTUS decisions that equate money with speech, or the subversion of the UN from a body originally intended to stop warmaking. And one more: a successful cancer keeps growing, at the expense of its host, until it kills its host--and thus itself dies. It can't avoid this end because it isn't intelligent, it's just a program. So. Will the Machine grow until it kills its host--humanity, or really, the Earth?
Excellent response, Mary!
I think you really get it!
"So. Will the Machine grow until it kills its host--humanity, or really, the Earth?"
It will if we do not replace it. We can't kill it. We can't eat it. We can't legislate it away. But we can--I hope--replace it.
May I copy and paste your response in the comments following this same essay at Deep Transformation Network? I love what you say here!
Of course.
Thanks Mary. It's done.
Your contribution here is, I think, quite right on and rather brilliant.
Of course, so far, we've not begun to unpack how currency power (economic, monetary), which rather easily converts into political power, relates to military power, and how these three are related.
And the topic is quite complex!
Take, for example, the current war in Ukraine, with Russia. I don't think a single observer would believe this war would have been possible were it not for Russia / Putin's ability to threaten Nato and the broader world with nuclear war. So Russia / Putin is here using military might which came with political and economic (geopolitical) might which was stacked up before the fall of the USSR.
In my opinion, Russia's invasion of Ukraine would already have been ended by NATO / Europe were it not for Putin's threat of nuclear retaliation for "interference".
So, yeah, rather complicated.