Critique of TSW Part 27a The Myth of Exceptionalism

Blog 20150225

Bill uses his indeterministic assumption of absolutism to claim that animals other than humans are not sapient.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Myth of Exceptionalism (Part 1 of 4)

TSW: "Exceptionalism is the notion that humanity, although perhaps once subject to evolution, is no longer completely subject."

BW: This is a strange sentence, because the first provision is equivalent to the second, although they're characterized as contradictory.

[GB: Duh? How can “once subject to evolution” be equivalent to “no longer completely subject”? These two contradictory statements form the basis for exceptionalism. As you will see in many quotes in this chapter, even neo-Darwinists are not sure whether certain biological features have evolved. The Pope, now supposedly a believer in evolution, relies on exceptionalism in imagining that humans were once subject to natural evolution, but that they now have supernatural free will and souls that allow them to escape the nasty grip of nature. The contradiction is obliterated by univironmental determinism (UD), the philosophy and universal mechanism of evolution stating that what happens to a portion of the universe is equally dependent on the infinite matter in motion within and without.]

BW: If we take the assertion as referring to *biological* evolution, then I doubt that any scientist asserts that humans aren't or can't evolve. If it is referring to *intellectual* evolution, I think everyone agrees that new information is constantly modifying accepted ideas. If it is referring to *technologic* evolution, there's no doubt that almost.

[GB: Glad to see that you found some examples of UD. Nonetheless, your compartmentalization shows that you are leaning toward exceptionalism, instead. Try to memorize the definition of UD above, as it is the main thesis of "The Scientific Worldview”. By the way, your statement that “everything is being improved by innovation” is subjective, not scientific. Many folks would disagree. Evolution is motion. It produces just as much destruction (divergence) as construction (convergence) per the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things).]

BW: There's a case to be made that humans are less subject to biological evolution, simply because we are capable of adapting our environments to our needs, rather than being mere "victims" of natural selection. As discussed earlier, scientific and intellectual advances no longer require prolific reproduction in order to maintain the species. Undoubtedly, our children will live longer, be healthier, and produce more viable offspring. So, to that degree, we have "overcome" the demands of biological evolution.

[GB: Again, this paragraph shows that you are still to understand UD. Univironmental determinism involves every thing during every microsecond of its existence. For us biological microcosms, there is no chance that we could ever be “less subject to biological evolution”, just as there is no chance for any microcosm to be “less subject to evolution”.]   

BW: The statement is also a poor definition. In a universe of inanimate objects, plants are an exception. Although there may be many planets in the "Goldilocks Zone" of stars - which make carbon-based life possible - the circumstance is rare and an exception to the norm of star and planetary systems.

In the context of living things, animals are an exception to the proliferation of plants. Humans are an exception to the proliferation of animals. None of those things are contrary to evolution in the most generic sense: all things change. In the biological sense, humans are not merely animals; animals are not merely plants; and plants are not merely chemical compounds. Exceptionalism just means rare or above the average of a set.

[GB: Those are nice examples of various types of microcosms. Per the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). In a universe in which no two microcosms are identical, each dissimilarity makes each microcosm exceptional. In other words, because no two snow flakes are identical, each is exceptional. That, of course, is not what is meant by the Myth of Exceptionalism, which I can restate so that it clearly appears in opposition to UD.

I doubt that indeterminists who subscribe to the Myth consider themselves “microcosms,” xyz portions of the universe subject to all the laws of chemistry and physics. They despise any theoretical analysis that suggests that, like all microcosms, they are completely subject to chemical and physical interactions with the macrocosm. They like to imagine that they have “free will” and “souls” capable of “rising above” earthly existence. The exceptionalism they assume is not some chemical or physical dissimilarity, but an exception to materialism itself.]

TSW:  "Just because we, the Social Microcosm, have consciousness, and thereby appear to be a favored species ..."

BW: You persistently identify consciousness as a unique identifying characteristic of humans, which it isn't. Every vertebrate is conscious: aware of its own actions within an environment. There are 62,305 known vertebrate species, all of them conscious. The distinguishing characteristic of humans is *sapience*, which is why we are called the Homo Sapien species. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sapient

[GB: Sorry, but many of those vertebrates also are sapient. Per the definition, they have “wisdom, understanding…good taste, good sense, discernment, intelligence”. Some of our pets have a lot more sapience than some members of our species.]

TSW:  "The overall picture began with determinism, the belief that all effects have causes, and it must end with determinism. The defeat of exceptionalism is one of the last steps in this program."

BW: Granted, the mystical idea that humans are "favored by God" with sapience is an immaterialist proposition, but it isn't strictly indeterminism: the cause is just supernatural. However, the idea that humans are an "exception" among 62,304 other species of vertebrates is not the least bit indeterministic. The cause is biological evolution.

[GB: Getting closer… But, unfortunately I see no difference between mysticism, immaterialism, indeterminism, and the belief in supernatural causes. Sorry, but your absolutist idea that “humans are an "exception" among 62,304 other species of vertebrates” is straight out of the indeterminist’s handbook. As I just implied, sapience is not an all or nothing characteristic common only to Homo sapiens. Evolution involves the gradual transformation of one microcosm into another. The sapient characteristics of many vertebrates are as obvious as are the vestigial organs left behind during the evolution of many biological microcosms.]

TSW:  Engels: "Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over nature, his own master - free."

BW: One of the few Engels ideas with which you disagree ... and I agree. At least, in the sense that humans are capable of modifying their environment, so are mostly "free" of natural threats to their survival. We don't need to hide in caves from the ravages of weather: we build homes. We don't need to eat the plants we find or the animals we catch: we breed our own varieties and even modify their DNA at our pleasure. So, far from being "detestable", sapience gives us power over our environment. Of course, that isn't to say the "without" (environment) is irrelevant to the "within" (mind), nor the inverse: there will always be forces (matter in motion) well beyond our "absolute command", though probably not beyond our comprehension.

[GB: Egads! As mentioned before, it would be silly to deny that “humans are capable of modifying their environment.” But that is not what is meant by Engels. He is merely repeating the old free will argument in which we are supposed to rise above our earthly strictures to become “lord over nature,” our “own master”, and be “free” from matter at last. How is this any different from the phantasmagorical thoughts of gods, heaven, and living after dying?]

Next: The Myth of Exceptionalism (Part 2 of 4)

cotsw 065

The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism

Blog 20150218

The expansion of the Social Microcosm (Homo sapiens) went hand in hand with the Industrial Revolution and the capitalist economy that fed on that expansion. Up until 1989, the Social Microcosm grew exponentially along with the surpluses generated. It was as if there was no macrocosm at all—resources seemed to be infinite. But that never really was true, as seen from time to time in various places. Globally, the lower fruit has already been picked. The effort and energy required for continued expansion of the Social Microcosm increases daily. Capitalism requires continual growth to produce the surplus that results in profits. This essay may be short and simplistic, but I promise that it will provide you with a valuable fundamental approach to understanding economics free from the politics normally embodied within the subject.

Capitalism on an Island

The essential contradiction for capitalism is the production-consumption gap or, as I call it, the “P-C Gap”. The P-C Gap results when worker’s salaries are not enough to purchase the products they produce. That is why capitalism does not work on an island. The math is simple and obvious. As a capitalist, I might get my workers to produce $1000 worth of food, shelter, and clothing (FSC). If I pay them $800 and keep the difference as profit, the P-C Gap immediately arises. How can I sell my $1000 worth of FSC to workers/consumers who only have $800? On this isolated island, about the only thing I can do is to give my workers a loan for $200 (a temporary giveback of capital). This closes the P-C Gap and I can sell my $1000 worth of FSC. The only problem is that my workers would never be able to repay my loan. My profit will never be realized. Of course, island economies did not operate that way during prehistoric times. Hunter/gatherers might produce $1000 worth of FSC, with all family/tribe members sharing it more or less equally. There wasn’t a need for loans to close a non-existent P-C Gap and no need to work extra hard to produce a surplus that few wanted anyway. Similarly, the prospects for economic growth were limited—that is why population growth was miniscule, life expectancy was about 40 years, and workdays were only four hours. In particular, a stagnant population would consume the same amount of food each year. Surpluses would only go to waste.

Capitalism and Trade

During the early evolution of capitalism, there was a way to handle the P-C Gap: Trade. Any surpluses that my workers produced could be exported to other islands and other countries in exchange for cheap raw materials. Maybe I could not get dollars, but I could get iron ore and coal in exchange for the surplus autos that my workers could produce. With a few more loans, I could sell everything on what was becoming an international market. The greater the sales, the more I would produce. Of course, things did not always go so smoothly. There tended to be snags in the pipeline from production to consumption. Finding markets for surplus production is not that easy. Whenever I produced too much, the law of supply and demand caused prices to fall and products to stay on the shelves. Without the wherewithal to buy them, workers abstain. As the P-C Gap widened, the inevitable recession occurred. Recessions make socialism inevitable. The P-C Gap must be closed, or at least, diminished. Otherwise, there will be no buyers for the great surpluses that capitalism inspires.

Closing the P-C Gap

Capitalists have devised innumerable ways of closing the P-C Gap. As mentioned, there is always the possibility of loans, either directly to consumers or indirectly to their governments. These are preferable to higher taxes, which are government confiscations promising no return of capital. I will even lower interest rates—just promise to pay it back. With more money in their pockets, consumers return to the shelves, stimulating the economy back to production. These cycles would continue forever except for one thing: Globalization is slowly making the entire Earth into an island. No amount of free will can stop the globalization and return the economy to its glory days of rapid growth. Each developing country has experienced three basic phenomena: 1) economic growth rates approaching 10%, 2) population growth rates approaching 3%, and 3) urbanization signifying the degree to which it has completed its portion of the global industrial revolution. Subsequently, economic and population growth rates decline, eventually approaching 0%. In the coming decades you will be hearing a lot about “sustainability,” “steady state economy,” “no-growth economy,” “saving the planet,” and other buzz words for the univironmental equilibrium that we are gradually approaching.

Again, the irreversible transition to socialism is the result of capitalism’s tremendous productive capacity. With each business cycle, overproduction of goods results in a temporary widening of the P-C Gap. Products pile up, but consumers, not having been paid the full value of the products they produced, cannot afford them. Prices tend to fall according to the law of supply and demand, making goods more affordable, but that is never enough to close the P-C Gap entirely. Thus, governments have devised numerous ways to decrease the P-C Gap and thereby keep the system working. Like falling prices, each of these amounts to a giveback of capital and further development of the welfare state. These include increases in taxation of unearned income (capital) and decreases in taxation of earned income (wages). The taxes collected are handed out to consumers in various ways: government jobs, including those in the military and its associated suppliers, welfare checks, unemployment benefits, the unearned portion of social security, free or subsidized medical and educational benefits, free food (food stamps and tax deductions for food banks), free housing (government “projects” or private, government required “affordable housing”), free clothing (tax deductions for donated items), and the “creation of jobs” that provide a meal ticket, preferably without exasperating overproduction.

Capitalism and Robotification

Nevertheless, “exasperating overproduction” is the name of the game for capitalism. It behooves each individual capitalist to find ways to increase production while decreasing labor costs. These include increasing work hours, decreasing benefits, breaking up labor unions, moving operations overseas, importing parts made in cheap labor markets, and mechanizing the assembly process. Mechanization, of course, is the essence of the Industrial Revolution. The technologies developed in support of mechanization serve to replace the labor owned by the worker with the labor of robots owned by the capitalist. The ideal result of the Technological Revolution is the tendency to produce all things with robots, eliminating salaries entirely. Production would be cheap and plentiful. Unfortunately, there would be no consumers able to purchase it. This stark example shows why even the most capitalistic governments are forced to adopt redistributive policies that attempt to close the P-C Gap. Anything that gets cash into the hands of potential consumers enables them to buy goods overproduced by robots. Otherwise, the economy would come to an ideal screeching halt, as it tends to do slightly from time-to-time during recessions.

Of course, all this confiscation and redistribution of the wealth of robots is done with the utmost reluctance. Heated debates for and against the socialist remedies ensue, with each recession inevitably awaiting an outcome involving the next stage in redistribution. None of this has anything to do with choices involving “free will” or with whether capitalism or socialism is the better economic system. None of this is reversible, even though reactionaries occasionally succeed in eliminating some of the socialistic remedies in their attempts to go back to “the good old days” of less technology and less regulation of capitalism. These only serve to precipitate the next recession that much sooner. The political yin-yang vacillates from left to right, sometimes being stuck for decades with a dictatorship of one or the other. The upshot is that capitalism needs ever-increasing numbers of consumers, but it cannot get them without giving up some of its capital. The question of how much should be given up and which capitalists are to be so generous is the subject of ongoing political struggle normally won by the most powerful. To maintain that it need not be done at all is to flirt with revolution.

So where does this all end up? Do we eventually end up owning the robots, having them produce our necessities with little effort on our part? With their help, do we become both producers and consumers equally, eliminating the P-C Gap entirely? Does the Technological/Industrial Revolution eventually run its course, completing its mission in parallel with the global demographic transition? As seen for other species, the 1989 decline in the rate of growth of the Social Microcosm was an inevitable result of the limitations of the macrocosm. Over time, raw materials become increasingly more difficult to obtain. The easily mined ore and the shallow oil fields become ever more depleted, making such raw materials increasingly more expensive to access. Mechanization can accelerate the extraction, but only serves to widen the P-C Gap. Similarly, cheap labor produced by overpopulation becomes increasingly less useful in the face of increasing robotification. During the first half of the demographic transition, the folks who fled the increasingly industrialized agricultural areas might be assured jobs in the urban areas. Now, they are increasingly unemployed or underemployed, awaiting their share of a dream that is unlikely to be realized without a dramatic change in the system.

Next: The Myth of Exceptionalism

cotsw 064

Critique of TSW Part 25g The Social Microcosm

Blog 20150211

Bill doubts the correlation between economic growth and population growth and once again mixes scientific analysis with politics to ill effect.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Social Microcosm (Part 7 of 7)
 
TSW:  "It has long been obvious that economic expansion both stimulates and requires population growth."

BW: Actually, the inverse effect is true. The more economic development, the lower the risks of childhood death, the higher the availably of birth control, and the lower the reproduction rate. It's not the case that economic growth is directly related to population growth, nor vice-versa. Generally speaking, greater economic wealth results in a lower rate of fertility.

[GB: The statement is correct as confirmed by the numerous statistics included in Piketty’s book. You are referring to the latter half of the curve. During the first half, overpopulation in the countryside drives people to the cities in search of work. Cheap labor then stimulates industrial production, economic expansion, and a great increase in wealth that enables research in medicine that decreases childhood deaths and enables birth control. The result is, as you prematurely suggest, a decrease in fertility rates. Then, as population growth declines, there is a corresponding decrease in the demand for goods, causing a slowdown in economic growth. So get it in the proper order.] 

TSW:  "If there is a 1:1 relationship between increases in population and food production, then the relationship with industrial production is even more pronounced."

BW: It is true that food production is correlated with population (necessarily), but farming is not the primary economic activity of any economy. You accurately note that the increase in manufactured goods is three times the increase in population, but overlook a similar increase in services. The critical factor is not an increase in the value of economic activity (distorted by inflation) in any economic sector, but whether the average individual is leading a more happy, healthy, and productive life. For example, the median net wealth per household in the U.S. is $52,752, versus Canada at $89,014 ... but I haven't been able to find a historic chart of growth rates, nor a correlation of median wealth to total population.
http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html

[GB: Glad we agree. Instead of the production of food, shelter, and clothing, the economy is now based upon much more specious production mostly involving the substitution of one secondary need for another. That is why growth in the US economy, in particular, is now shifting to services, which in reality, don’t produce anything. They just amount to each of us helping each other out, with much of it spent doing what we could be doing ourselves.]

TSW:  "At that point we will have reached a steady state economy with a political system suited to the task."

BW: It may be the case that economic activity will approach some "steady state", but the *turnover* in dollars is not necessarily the same as wealth, which is the primary measure of each individual's opportunity to achieve material comfort and pursue happiness.

[GB: Right. That is why I am dubious about counting services as a measure of economic expansion. Food, shelter, clothing, on the other hand, could make certain neglected folks feel wealthy.]

TSW:  "The Industrial Revolution has produced a vast global migration from individualistic, rural existence to collectivistic, urban existence."

BW: I don't think it's correct to correlate individualism=rural and collectivism=urban. There is just as much individualism today as there was 200 years ago, maybe far more. The key factor is information technology, which allows every individual (via Facebook or other media) to express their individual uniqueness to the world. There was just as much collectivism in the Middle Ages as today, it was just more centered on religion than politics.

[GB: Remember the number one question that fits all political and economic systems: “Should we do it together or apart?” The welfare states of today tend to spend a large portion of their wealth on collective activities. That is because those states are highly urban, with immense infrastructures (and high taxes) necessary for their existence. Living in a log cabin or on a small farm great distances from other people most of the time does not prepare one for life in New York City; life in New York City does not prepare one for a solitary existence where there are few services and you must fix everything yourself. It seems that you have a different definition of the individualism-collectivism continuum. My discussion was not focused on uniqueness, but on economics—what people do to survive. Being a “character” with contrary habits and opinions might be interesting, but it is not always conducive to survival.]

TSW:  "The winners of this competition survive low prices by exploiting economies of scale in production and distribution."

BW: To some degree, this is true. However, there are also "diseconomies of scale", particularly in the centralization of economic sectors. It's not quite a Bell Curve, but size impedes adaptation to evolving consumer demands and innovations in technology. For example, in media, the major newspaper chains are dying, because the number of people who want news on printed paper has fallen steadily ... no matter how efficiently they put ink on paper. The largest, most concentrated markets tend to die out in competition. General Motors was the only option for decades and arguably increased their market share by "economies of scale", but eventually lost out (went bankrupt) because better products produced by smaller and more innovative producers attracted customers. Contrary to your assertion, the "evolutionary process" toward larger collective enterprises is not "irreversible".

[GB: The quote is correct, although I agree that adaptation in a changing environment is not a strong suit of megacorporations. Quickness normally is an inverse function of size and mass (football anyone?). The activity that leads to the formation of a large microcosm may lead to its downfall when the macrocosm changes. Your examples are excellent, although the dissolution of megacorporations is not really reversible. The factors that led to their assembly are very different from the factors that might lead to their dissolution. GM did not break up into the 100 different automakers it started with. BTW: Some of this discussion is appropriate in understanding the eventual demise of scientific paradigms such as the Big Bang Theory. Proponents are slow to realize the significance of fatal contradictions (like the elderly galaxies at the edge of the observed universe: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2009/09/elderly-galaxy-disproves-big-bang.html). Like GM and its combustion engine, one can always do a patch job to keep it working—for a while.]

TSW:  "By the time the Industrial Revolution is over, independent production will be obsolete for all but the most trivial items."

BW: This is a rather myopic view. The industrial revolution is not merely the transition from physical human labor to mechanized production. There are "revolutions" in the means of production every year. Nobody anticipated the "Green Revolution" that totally transformed food production. The computing industry was totally mechanized decades ago, with few people anticipating the proliferation of personal micro-computers. The same with printing, which is almost an ancient art, given personal laser and inkjet printers. The newest revolution is 3D printers, which are able to manufacture custom products, on demand, in the home. The trend has been consistently toward *more* independent production, rather than less.

[GB: The general evolution has not changed. Any product that substitutes for another at a cheaper cost normally will have increasing sales, stimulating increased production and imitation. As the innovation tempo for that product levels off, mergers occur, with resulting economies of scale, making it extremely difficult for independent producers to succeed by producing that product.]    

TSW:  "... hundreds of millions suffered and millions died as the 'invisible hand of capital' transformed the planet."

BW: That's a gross exaggeration, because many millions more enjoyed a better life. It wasn't capital formation that killed millions, but rather political power. The number of people who died from "economic exploitation" is miniscule in comparison to the number killed for political ends. Review the Cambodian and Chinese massacres.

[GB: Sorry, but I can’t seem to tell the difference between “political ends” and “economic exploitation.”]

TSW:  "But one thing is clear: an increase in population density always results in an increase in socialization."

BW: That depends on what you mean by "socialization". For example, Singapore has one of the highest population densities on Earth, but among the least socialized economies. India is probably the highest density country on earth, but their economy is quickly transforming into a free-market environment, because it works better than a politically managed economy. Is there more social interaction? Sure, but that's as much a characteristic of the voluntary free-market as it is of a coercive socialist economy.

[GB: Socialization is the answer to the perpetual political question “Should we do it together or apart?” when population densities increase (e.g., increased public spending as in modern welfare states and their complicated infrastructures). Desocialization is the answer when population densities decrease (e.g., ghost towns, struggling farm communities, and other cities abandoned by a major employer). In general, both processes are “coercive,” in that the choices are limited and always the result of a push rather than a pull. Many folks have found the voluntary free-market and socialism to be anything but “free” and “voluntary”.]

TSW:  "Despite all the indeterministic naysayers, the rise of civilization, industrialization, urbanization, and socialization is progressive - an irreversible process."

BW: Civilization "progresses", but the "progression" of more expansive (socialist) government is a hindrance, not a benefit, to the progress of mankind. The more coercive constraints on individual achievement, the less economic, intellectual, and innovative progress from individual, voluntary cooperation. Oddly, Marx and Engels believed that "capitalism" was a necessary precursor to "socialism". Arguably, the inverse has been true for Russia and China, which have progressed from socialism to capitalism, from communal property to private property. However, as long as socialists consider the transition inevitable and irreversible, they weaken their own position in the advance of economic and intellectual evolution of the world. It's a dying philosophy.

[GB: Your indeterministic analysis is true to form, illustrating why the Progressive Science Institute eschews religion, politics, and systems philosophy. Univironmental determinism attempts to present a balanced analysis in which we consider both the microcosm and the macrocosm to be equally important. While you have avoided overt religious solipsism, your belief in free will forces you to overemphasize the microcosm. The result tends to produce “microcosmic mistakes” like those committed by systems philosophers who consider the observed universe to be finite, with nothing outside of it.]

Next: The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism

cotsw 063

Critique of TSW Part 25f The Social Microcosm

Blog 20150204

Bill learns about social movements and the relation between the global demographic transition and the Industrial Revolution.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Social Microcosm (Part 6 of 7)

TSW:  "The advent of cheap oceanic travel for the masses presented people with a choice: socialize or leave. As a consequence, social movements in Europe were devastated."

BW: It's hard to tell whether you're talking about civility, population, or political "social movements". I have no idea what "devastation" you're talking about, but the various wars were hardly a consequence of over-population (the subsequent population grown didn't produce wars or any notable "devastation").

[GB: The failed revolution of 1848 was an attempt to overthrow the aristocracy in Germany. Democratic government had to wait until World War I for that to happen. The Paris Commune of 1871 was another instance in which a densely packed civilization (the large cities) attempted to overthrow the government in favor of radical republican policies. If you had been a member of any of these social movements, you certainly would have felt some “devastation”—probably death.] 

TSW:  "As mechanization developed ... it became more and more obvious that there was no turning back."

BW: Why would people turn back from the obvious benefits of industrial development? For that matter, why would they EVER willing reverse any intellectual, artistic, or trade achievements that produced prosperity? Of course there's a "direction of history", for as long as people have sought comfort and convenience. When was that ever NOT the case?

"The fear of 'overpopulation' is the logical conclusion of the free-will argument taken on the grand scale."

I agree that Malthusian fears were simple hysteria, but it was the individual "free will" of scientists and the political liberty to pursue market innovations (particularly in agriculture) that provided the solutions to those problems.

I suppose you could imagine that the "free will" to fornicate and reproduce without limits is a problem, but the fact is that the more advanced and industrialized the country, the more likely it is that people will freely choose NOT to have large families. There are many reasons, but the primary one is that infant mortality drops enormously and it isn't necessary to birth a dozen children in the hopes that two will survive to adulthood.

You're arbitrarily taking pot-shots at "free will" without discussing (philosophically or biologically) what free will entails or why it produces effects distinct from those of non-sapient animals who act purely on instinct.

[GB: Sorry, but the free will hypothesis is yours, not mine. Your surmise about “non-sapient animals who act purely on instinct” is essentially my point in all this population stuff. Population growth and stabilization is simply a univironmental interaction in which the growth of the microcosm (Homo sapiens in this case) is dependent on the interaction between microcosm and macrocosm. As resources become increasingly hard to obtain, the rate of growth declines until it reaches equilibrium with those resources. Free will has nothing to do with it, since free will does not exist in any case. That is why Catholics in urban areas disregard the Pope’s obsolete commands to procreate. As you mentioned, they don’t need no more kids to replace the dead ones (or to milk the cows).

In this regard, I sometimes get folks in the audience who look at the current global population curve I show (Fig. 12-3) and suggest that folks might use their free will to suddenly start to reproduce at greater than the 2.11/woman sustainable rate. Some even think that folks might use their free will to suddenly reproduce at a rate less than that, causing our species to disappear. The current carrying capacity of 10 billion no doubt will change over time. For instance, the next glaciation will cover the northern latitudes, including major northern cities with up to a mile of ice, like it did the last time about 22,000 years ago.]

TSW:  "As each country entered the early stages of industrialization, the rate of population growth increased; in the later stages the rate decreased."

BW: You're trying to fabricate boogeymen. Review the evidence above, indicating that population in Europe and the US had little if anything to do with industrialization, or the rise and fall of "civilizations". I don't know what you consider early or later stages, but population growth rates have been consistent for centuries.

[GB: The centuries you are referring to were pre-industrial, when growth rates were miniscule and technological advances nearly nonexistent. The Industrial Revolution in Europe started about a century before the period we have been discussing with regard to migration. For instance, the Industrial Revolution in England occurred between 1750 and 1850 (Deane, Phyllis, 1969, The first industrial revolution: New York, Cambridge University Press, 295 p.). As capitalism spread, each country experienced the growing pains of the revolution along with its own demographic transition, which is the point at which the rate of population growth begins to slow. Among the growing pains was the mass migration of people to the cities, where they found jobs in the industrial economy. One can roughly trace the progress of the revolution simply by comparing the percentage of the population working in cities with those working on farms. Of course, none of these demographic transitions were all clear, since migrations, plagues, and famines tended to interfere and capitalist penetration also occurred at widely varying rates. That is why the 1989 inflection point for global population is so exciting and so important for our species. Migration from Earth is not possible, so the social microcosm now behaves as a closed system. BTW: Since 1984, I have been emphasizing that economic growth and population growth are correlative. That is why I was especially happy to see the publication of Piketty’s best seller (Piketty, Thomas, 2014, Capital in the twenty-first century: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 685 p.), which says essentially the same thing and has Wall Street and mainstream economists in a conniption fit. The upshot, of course, is that the slowdown in population growth rate means that there will be a corresponding slowdown in economic growth—which appears to be here already, what with the US stock market averages hardly keeping up with inflation since the year 2000.]

BW: World population growth rates only started falling after 1960, when developed countries had substantially reduced infant mortality due to advances in medical science and inventors had given women more "free will" about whether to become pregnant. Neither of those things had anything to do with "stages" of industrialization.

[GB: Sorry, but without industrialization and its associated technology, none of those advances could have occurred. Remember, “industrialization” includes all the advances in science and medicine. It is not simply assembly line work in a dirty old factory. It is all interactive. The increased productivity of the factory resulted in the increased wealth that was used to produce those advances. It costs billions to produce life-saving vaccines and technologies. They don’t just pop up out of nowhere like your free will.] 

BW: Your sigmoidal curve analysis totally misses all the relevant facts. It has nothing to do with the "carrying capacity" of Earth. ALL the people in the world could live in the land area of Texas at a density far below that of most major cities, while the rest of the world could be used for food production. The US and 90% of the rest of the world land mass has less than 50 people per square kilometer.

[GB: I have heard this silly idea before, but I guess ALL the people have not gotten the memo. The sigmoidal curve is telling us what ALL the people think of your idea. That curve has been seen in numerous species. It is telling us that we are no different and that your vaunted free will does not exist. What does occur, is the univironmental interaction between the social microcosm and its macrocosm. In a way, it is almost the perfect test of univironmental determinism. Mainstream demographers must have missed all of your so-called “relevant facts” too, because their mid-range estimates are similar to those of Fig. 12-3:

Fig. 12-3. Sigmoidal growth curve for global population assuming perfect symmetry about the 1989 Inflection Point. Sources: Historical estimates and 1950–1989 data from the U.S. Census Bureau (“The Scientific Worldview,” p. 290).]

BW: Yes, Malthus compared urban populations to arable land and predicted disaster. His calculations were mostly correct, but he had no idea that science and industrialization would multiply agricultural production by a factor of 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

[GB: Yes, we have never been short of food. Each 1% increase in population has resulted in a 1% increase in food production. Unfortunately, there are still on the order of a billion of us without adequate food. Looks like the Green Revolution did not do so well on distribution.]
 

TSW:  "Where is the 'free will?' Can't we have as many children as we want? Could it be that we want as many as we have?"

BW: In many areas of the world, it isn't a question of having as many as you "want", since birth control is not readily available. Free will doesn't mean fornication is free of consequences (children), but that people are able to make wise decisions about the risks of pregnancy.

[GB: Who is arguing that people are not able to make decisions? Wise or unwise decisions are all the result of cause and effect. According to the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes), those decisions do not just pop out of thin air at the behest of some imagined free will. Each decision is the result of a long chain of events. Thus, if birth control is not available or unimaginable, it may not be part of that causal chain.]

Next: The Social Microcosm (Part 7 of 7)

cotsw 062