Globalization, Standard of Living and the Environment

[Oregone]

Here is a random thought I reached in another thread which I won't spend much time upon:

A seemingly large liberal argument for globalization is to uplift the standard of living in 3rd world countries (and theoretically, this is supposed to be done without necessarily lowering ours--a premise that some may reject outright). Through globalization, the working class of 3rd world countries can be lifted out of virtual slavery by finally having access to higher paying jobs provided by multinational corporations (this also makes them into a consumer class and increases demand for production elsewhere).

Now, I'm sure people who embrace Globalization could explain the arguments far better than I could, but that is not what I am trying to focus on here.

What I would like to ask, more or less...what is the environmental toll of putting an LCD TV in every home in China? What is the cost of putting two cars in every driveway in India? What does our world feel by allotting each family 2000 SQFT homes in Vietnam? How about putting enough beef in the stainless steel plated refrigerator in every home in Thailand?

The resource consumption by the USA to sustain our standard of living is clearly disproportional to the rest of the world. If this way of life were to spread, isn't it possible that the world's finite resources literally could not sustain it? Can the world sustain the current levels of production and consumption? What happens if you pave over half of Africa through the process of globalization? At what point will the world forever break from too high of an aggregate global standard of living? With this many people, and limited resources, is it safe to say the sustainable average global standard of living is much, much lower than that of the typical American?

Isn't this argument for globalization really impossible, being that you can actually never achieve the result without killing off the globe (unless technology infinitely grew to lower global consumption, without demanding massive consumption to establish that very technology)? So isn't this argument actually invalid?

Now, I'm not sitting here trying to say that I have a moral right to tell people in Sudan that they aren't allowed to have a McDonalds at every street corner. Rather, I'm trying to say that doing so there (and elsewhere) is impossible (in the context of sustaining life). Bringing "America", in its current form, across the globe will break the globe.

So what does that leave us? An unfair world with global disparity by necessity. The only solution to globalized equalization is a race to the bottom, rather than lifting everyone out of poverty. America must go down hill and meet everyone at the foot of the mountain, rather than bring everyone up, correct? Of course, the rich who can profit for that are for that, but are the working class of nations with elevated standards of living? How much will they go down that mountain peacefully?

I wonder how much technology will really change the equation, or if technology in itself will just continue to increase consumption. It all really creates a confusing moral dilemma

[NoNothing]

1. Technology does tend to lower consumption per unit of utility

Because resources are expensive, when it become technologically possible to use less of them while achieving roughly the same benefit, then it is usually done. For example, rather than waste precious copper and trees stringing their countries with telephone lines, many developing countries are just going straight to cellular phones - because it's cheaper. More technology, less resource usage, higher standard of living. There is a lot of room for such gains.

[Oregone]

2. Maybe

Maybe each technological innovation requires consumption to implement and produces junk when the old infrastructure is replaced. Repeat this enough, and you just have perpetually consumption.

The idea of sticking with an existing efficient technology and ceasing further production would lead to job loss, which would lead to poor people, and a drop in standard of living (suggesting the standard of living would not be sustainable). To sustain a standard of living, people must always be consuming, and always be producing. The average global level at which people do this must not exceed earth can bear. We may already be over that average, and thats why increasing it may simply not work.

That said...even presuming technology can eventually lower required consumption for this standard of living, can it do it enough to spread this standard globally in a sustainable manner? Can the earth afford to allow every family on earth to own (and power) their own electric car?

[NoNothing]

5. Can the earth afford to allow every family on earth to own (and power) their own electric car?

Yes, quite easily. Even without fossil fuel generation, the amount of solar and wind power that could be harnessed is really staggering. And nuclear, while unpopular, is definitely capable of generating massive amounts of carbon-free electricity. It might make energy more expensive, and causes us to be more frugal about our energy expenditures, but if we are willing to pay for the effort it is certainly feasible.

[Oregone]

7. "Yes, quite easily"

Do you not understand this takes factories to build them, and metal to create them out of. The batteries will not come out of thin air. It implies a vast road system being built.

This goes far beyond energy, which may be virtually infinite with renewables. You need power lines for that energy though. You still need a grid, even if everyone has panels on their homes.

The amount of precious metals required would be enormous.

And people must continue to do this, and innovate, or they will lose jobs. So once one is built, it isn't forever in the system. Standard of living requires perpetual production.

I'm just not convinced

[kelly1mm]

13. Don't make me think beyond the 4 second sound bite. It will make my

head hurt!:sarcasm:

Good points to ponder. Another is can the planet sustain a "full recovery" of the US/Western economies back to the 2004-2007 levels of growth? I don't think so. That is why I have mixed feelings about the call for JOBS JOBS JOBS! In some ways, is it not a good thing that we have less money to waste on ChinaMart crap? For those loosing it all it is a very sad situation. For the planet - not so much.

[kelly1mm]

14. Dupe - self delete. nt

[pscot]

3. Tipping point

It feels like one is close. We'll hate it.

[Oregone]

4. "We'll hate it"

If history is any guide...Mankind will spread the pain disproportionally to the poorest, so youll be fine. That said, it makes this whole notion of Globalization to benefit everyone silly.

[pscot]

8. We've already spread so much pain

on the critters below us and the planet around us. Now it's down to us. I can only guess what we'll start doing to one another. Pretty much everybody is heavily armed.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I partially agree with you, that's why sustainable, green energy must be a requisite.

I believe there is one environmental mega-trend in our favor regarding the development of undeveloped nations and that is a leveling off of population increase.

"Third world nations" are more apt to have large families because more direct human energy is needed to work rural areas, lack of education/opportunity, lack of birth control measures, and because of higher mortality rates.

The trick is bringing the undeveloped nations up to developed status, but far more efficiently than we ever did, while also making our selves more environmentally sound.

This also one of severals reasons as to why I believe we have little or no choice but to master the ability to branch out in to space.

Thanks for the thread, Oregone.

[Oregone]

9. Presuming energy is near infinite....

Metals are not. Land is also not. And to capture the materials necessary to produce such goods (scour the land), it may be more than the earth can bear.

"The trick is bringing the undeveloped nations up to developed status, but far more efficiently than we ever did, while also making our selves more environmentally sound."

Yes, it will require this type of change. And doing this without going vegetarian would also be difficult. You lift people out of poverty, and they will want to eat better (so much of the world is malnourished). They will want to put meat in their new fridge. We will need land to raise that meat on (global warming will increase in that regard). We will need to transport that meat (and keep it cold and packaged).

So I honestly believe going green and eating vegetarian (and local) will vastly help, but there is still the material problem. As well, there is the demand for perpetual consumption. How would you organize an economy to constantly produce goods to sustain a high standard of living (and ensure high employment). Planned obsolescence is the only answer.

Anyway though...what we are sort of discussing isn't really spreading the "American Dream" elsewhere. A green sustainable lifestyle is a different type of standard of living (better for some of us, and shit to others who like waste). I can barely conceptualize what a global society living like this would be like. I don't think everything would be built up and fancy like a sci-fi movie, nor would people be living in caves with solar panels either. It would be markedly different, and its likely mankind is incapable of achieving this as a whole.


"This also one of severals reasons as to why I believe we have little or no choice but to master the ability to branch out in to space."

Honestly, as silly as it sounds to people, its the only answer (but then you hit a wall too eventually wherever you go, requiring more growth). But...something about it bothers me. Sometimes it seems humans are viruses with shoes. Does the universe deserve humanity to spread across it? Wouldn't it be better infinitely for the life out there if humans just over consumed and died, like locusts? Isn't "better" just a human construct, so its irrelevant anyway. :)

[Uncle Joe]

12. That's true

"Presuming energy is near infinite....

"Metals are not. Land is also not. And to capture the materials necessary to produce such goods (scour the land), it may be more than the earth can bear."

But if we can stabilize and reduce the Earth's population, the demand for so much land may subside, as for metals, perhaps a two fold approach of technological innovation/replacement and space mining as we become more proficient in space travel.

As for the "human virus" part, if it isn't us it will be something else and if anything is going to fuck up the universe, it might as well be us.:)

But seriously I believe we will continue to evolve/morph in to something else anyway, particularly as we're exposed to the varied conditions of space travel, low gravity and who knows what else.

[NoNothing]

20. However unlike energy

Metals are not *consumed*. Copper, once used, does not cease to be copper. Steel does not degrade into carbon. If it needs to be refined, re-alloyed - that all requires consumption of *energy*. Ultimately, it all comes back around to energy.

[Oregone]

21. dupe

[Oregone]

22. True, but they are mined, requiring the scavenging of earth

Do enough precious metals exist though to always:

1) provide each and every family on the globe the level of goods necessary according to the global standard

2) provide enough raw materials to factories perpetually replace obsolete goods (which can eventually be produced from recycled obsolete goods)

If so, at what point will the number of people jeopardize this?

Even if there are enough, will obtaining them damage the earth's environment beyond repair? Will mining such materials, many of such are toxic (like lead, mercury, cadmium), at these levels pollute the world's water sources enough to kill of all life? Producing 6 billion iPads (along with all other goods) may be less challenging than living after mining that amount of toxic metals

[OHdem10]

10. There is a reason we have a globalization crisis. In the introduction

you indicated that people in 3rd World should be lifted
from poverty. In theory this was true.

However in reality here is what happened over and over again.
When Nafta was passed, many factories were relocated to Mexico.
This was supposed to begin to raise standard of living in Mexico.
I believe that the wages were about 6-7 dollars per hour. Yes,
much less than say an automobile worker would make in US, but
much improved for Mexicans. So far so good, BUT: Suddenly
China was singing a siren song that the Transtionals could not
resist --much much cheaper labor. Swoosh, all those factories
just picked up and went to China--LEAVING MEXICO POORER and in a
Depression. This sort of thing went on all around the world.
Transtionals seeking the cheapest source of labor--thus higher
and higher profits. The great Liberal IDEAL of bring the 3rd
World out of poverty is a joke and we have now put Americans
into Poverty.(Outsourcing America).

We are now in a downward spiral (standard of living) and this
has mightily contributed to the current job losses. This is
why we are having jobless recoveries. Companies have adjusted
their work force to meet the needs of a down-sized America.
Taxcuts will not form new jobs in these circumstances.

[Oregone]

11. "a premise that some may reject outright"

Myself included. :)

It seems like little more than a talking point to appeal to the liberals. Money is the talking point that appeals to the big business advocates.

But even to accept it for argument's sake, as I was trying to ponder, it leaves you with a bleak look at a future earth that may die from exploitation in order to deliver iPads to every family in Sri Lanka. But really...I don't believe that increasing the average pay in Sri Lanka a few peanuts will really lead their population to be able to afford iPads.

[OHdem10]

15. I do not believe I said I agreed. I verhemently opposed Nafta because

those of us who fought Nafta predicted thie very outcome.

However, I can see the argument that it could work. The problem
is how do you control "Unregulated Capitalism"? Unregulated Capitalism
will end up exploiting every time.

Exploitation has come home to roost in the form of a
Declining Economy.

I am sorry if I gave the impression I approved of exploitation.

I did always wonder what would have happened if Mexico
had been able to keep those jobs and develop.

I alwys wonder what would have happened if we had had
more oversight of Trade Policy and had limits on outsourcing.

This way we would have known if the Liberal Ideal could have
worked. Now, because of greed the whole thing looks like an
abysmal failure.

[LiberalLoner]

16. Peak Oil. Kunstler has some interesting writing on this... n/t

[Oregone]

18. And imagine peak everything. Peak food, oil, metals, etc...

All so people can continually, around the world, buy the latest and greatest phone or TV (which provides jobs for people to earn money to do so).

If a standard of living is to be spread globally, America's is most certainly a model that will lead to global environmental death (or war).

[tranche]

17. Best thing about being an American? Being 50 pounds overweight and telling the third world...

that, no.. you REALLY don't want this lifestyle. Trust me, it's tough. :eyes:

[Oregone]

19. Thats not my point, and I touched on that slightly with my Sudan comment

Of course, most everyone wants the highest standard of living possible. My main point is that to accomplish and sustain that globally could be environmentally devastating and impossible, despite what technology hands us.

It isn't that its moral to keep people down, or right, but that it isn't possible to raise everyone up and keep them there without really killing everything. If we are going to spread a global standard of living, it most certainly cannot be the American one (and that implies Americans must also lower theirs to do this fairly).

Life is currently very unfair with this model, here and abroad. But achieving fairness and promoting rights of those abroad isn't as simple as the Globalization argument wants you to believe.

[blindpig]

23. Our 'lifestyle' is artifact of capitalism

We have what they can make the most money on, not what is most useful, environmentally sound, well made, or anything else. Put suburbia on the top of the list of bullshit, wasteful capitalist follies along with military spending.

The consumption of a rational economy will look very different, even when everyone gets what they need.

[Oregone]

25. But humans are not rational

How can they have a rational economy?

[blindpig]

27. Naw, people are rational

It is the rational self interest of the capitalists to do what they do, it is our rational self interest to kill capitalism.

If our species is hopelessly irrational then we might as well hang it up. Hell I'm rational and by no means the pick of the litter.

[Oregone]

28. Im not

I talk a good talk. You cut me a check for a few million and Ill go sell cartons of cigarettes to children waiting for the bus.

Yeah. Id cry. But Id still do it.

[blindpig]

29. Wouldn't be so rational if every time you tried that ...

you got your ass beat by a bunch of pissed off parents. In capitalism you get police protection, without capitalism mebbe not so rational.

[BrentWil]

24. The best means to handle this would be a carbon tax that creates an economic rational to develop an

alternative. It will hurt the poor the most, but I see no other choice.

[Oregone]

26. And a mercury tax, and a cadmium tax, and a lead tax, and a cattle tax, and a.....

Damn, you'll be taxing so much potential threats to the environment to reduce them that you really aren't spreading the American standard of living anywhere. Hell, with all those taxes, an iPad will cost thousands of dollars and people in first world countries will be back to pen and paper (not that thats the worst thing in the world). Your globalized free market will resemble a planned economy due to centralized fiscal constraints on necessary pollutants. Its a brave new world.

[BrentWil]

30. Did I say a tax on all of that?

Right now, Carbon may kill us. That is the big problem and the one we need to change the demand curve on. The others can be handled with regulations.

[Oregone]

31. Regulations and taxes will raise the cost of production and make upward equalization impossible

You are talking about creating a new world that has a perpetual, sustained 1000+% increase in global consumption from day to day. The run up to establish that new world would take astronomical amount of consumption increases well beyond that just to get there. These taxes and regulations aren't going to mesh so well with accomplishing that. Its just downright fantasy (and no, Im not arguing against taxes and regulations, but rather, that they alone could control environmental fallout and allow our world to be habitable after this massive increase in consumption of resources)

That aside...

You are talking about this on a global scale...but what about locally. Do you think it is possible to equalize wealth upwards to the richest American? Can every America eat like the rich, possess the cars the richest do, and live in a mansion with 10 acres of land around it? Should they? Why or why not? You are defining the global standard based on the average in America, but why is that the proper standard? How about looking at the standard here, and define it by what the average rich person has. Could the environment survive any such effort to equalize wealth in America alone to some upper standard?

Could the environment even sustain each American having their own leer jet, 10,000 SQFT McMansion, 500K gallon swimming pools, 10 LCDs TVs, etc, etc.

Probably not. To do any equalization, Id suggest that we have to recognize we are already approaching our current tipping point, and we would have to downgrade most of the rich to a standard that is environmentally sustainable when spread to everyone. And in a large context, this notion applies globally.