Comments on: Thomas Homer-Dixon in Brisbane

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:40:21 +0000

And Mancur Olson wrote a book in the 80s that posited that wars, revolutions and other crises fostered efficiency and innovation by destroying power elites that used their power to gather rents. In the aftermath of such destruction you could get rich faster by building things than by appropriating things.

Well except for perhaps post-soviet Russia.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:11:53 +0000

You did well, Paul. Thankyou. The problem of population can be seen starkly in this graph. In a longer perspective the recent growth looks quite startling. Al Gore has one of a similar shape in a double spread in his book of the film. The ideas of equality, democracy and authoritarianism are interesting. Ronald Wright says that civilisations often fail because the powerful elites can distance themselves from the effects of environmental degradation and the suffering of the poor for a time. So the spread of democracy may be an important factor in finding a favourable pathway. In the light of this I'm not sure how important the trend to inequality within societies is going to be. Nic Gruen had some interesting comments on this recently.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:38:01 +0000

Grrr - I knew as soon as a post or comment mentioned the word “revolution” someone would make yet another irrelevant denunciation of Bolshevism. professor rat I don’t think you’ll find any Leninists on this blog - please go elsewhere if you want to indulge in such deceased equine flagellation.

By: philiptravers

philiptravers — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:30:58 +0000

Pure Egghead these overviews! The little people wether lead by revolutionaries or these type authors..have problems that surmount day by day,and across a larger measure of time.Society isnt a fixed measurable thing that is able to accumulate distinct variables of the 360 degrees of prospect globally.A earthquake here a mudslide there,people waking up in the middle of the night claiming our leader is the dumbist that has ever been! Could be key agreeing points with the subject in the book. I dare say,a spectra of possible dooms is plainly too linear,all springing from the discourse of horizonal verdict,but not the territory into that which appears. If the individual be an accident of circumstances, then the circumstances of Accidentia,a place inescapeable from in the future,mirrors the participants of Accidentia. The living could know beforehand, new evolutions of failure make their lives predictable,but, only where the limits of pronounced convention of doing and being are as before the presence of Accidentia. Aboriginal designers in the past built buildings out of corrugated iron,whilst living next to tips.If these buildings served a purpose in their lives,it also allowed them to see the limitations of the immediate past and the conditional future.The non-conditional future, isnt a direct function of the landscape as is or was or could be.More the future is a thoughtfulness,even if the tangible side of that doesnt eventuate.The future invariably will not be dependent on those who may not make the circumstances of being there.Is that clear! ?Good! I cannot afford the book,obviously.

By: professor rat

professor rat — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:55:50 +0000

1917 and all that - Bakunin did warn us of the worlds worst tyranny.
The Bolshevics or red fascists gained power in 1917 by posing as anarchists - all power to the Soviets was an anarchist slogan. In late 1917 they created the Cheka but the real violence only began in 1918.
First with random terror shootings in the streets, then the abolishing of the constituent assembly that elected Victor Chernov of the SR’s as leader of Russia and finally with the attacks on the anarchs in April ( Petrograd) and May ( Moscow)
All serious Libertarian and democratic socialists must know these facts if dreadful history is not to be repeated by these liars and fascist authoritarian and nationalist and Imperialist and capitalistic ’socialists’ called Marxists.

By: tim

tim — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:37:58 +0000

Thanks, Paul, for the interesting post. I look forward to reading the book.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:37:07 +0000

And Mancur Olson wrote a book in the 80s that posited that wars, revolutions and other crises fostered efficiency and innovation by destroying power elites that used their power to gather rents. In the aftermath of such destruction you could get rich faster by building things than by appropriating things.

Not so different from Heraclitus really - “war is the mother of all things”.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:56:49 +0000

systemic societal crises can, if members of those societies respond intelligently and catastrophe is avoided, be a source of renewal, innovation and progress.

Its funny how people can market common sense as an amazing new epiphany. But it sounds like an interesting book, nonetheless. Didn’t Schumpeter describe something similar (albeit on a smaller, non-systemic scale) with his concept of “creative destruction”?