Skip to main content

I'm continuing my reporting on the next installment from Conservative Estimate, the new website that is devoted to demolishing Conservatism. Today, Alfred George begins to show why the fear of scarcity, a fundamental motivation of conservative thinking, is misplaced.

Just traipse past the orange loopy curl . . .

Yesterday's installment introduced the seven Major Myths of Conservatism, the first of which was the Myth of Scarcity. Today, George questions whether scarcity is really anything that we need to fear.

The Myth of Scarcity goes something like this: We need to fear running out of resources, and we need to fear other people, who will harm or kill us in order to steal our resources.
After pointing out that this Myth actually treats two fears—fear of shortages and fear of others—George decides to leave the discussion of fearing other people for later, and to begin looking at the fear of shortages today.
If we look at the things that people most fear losing, it would seem that we don’t need to worry much about scarcity. Is there really a scarcity of food? Or a scarcity of water? Or a scarcity of land, energy, or money? Today, let’s just look at scarcity of food, water, and land.

Food is not scarce

There is no scarcity of food. The World Hunger Education Service reports that in 2011 the combined agricultural product of the planet created enough food to provide everyone on earth with 2720 calories per day—more than enough nutrition for the average adult. This per capita production is seventeen per cent greater now than it was in 1971, even though world population has increased seventy per cent in the intervening thirty years.⁠ (See these facts about food production.) The world is doing a fantastic job of keeping food production ahead of population growth.

What shortages there are do not stem from lack, but from poor distribution systems.
Water is not scarce

Water is not scarce. It is true, however, that the world is headed for a major water crisis if humans continue using and wasting water at current rates. But the two statements are not incompatible.

The World Resources Institute projects that by 2025, forty-eight percent of the world’s population will live in water-stressed river basins.⁠ (See the report “Will There Be Enough Water?”) Almost half of the world’s people will be having trouble getting enough water to support the normal activities of life.

But this projection assumes that the world will continue to treat water as carelessly as we do today. There is no necessity to stay on this path.

Obviously, there are things we can do to prevent water shortages. But that isn't all. It turns out that land is not in short supply either.
Land is not scarce

In 1974, the biologist Francis P. Felice showed that everyone on earth could be moved to roomy American houses in an area the size Texas, at a population density about that of most major cities. World population has increased since then, but recalculating for contemporary numbers shows that the entire world could still live in an area the size of Texas: each family could easily inhabit a home of approximately 1500 square feet.⁠ (See Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 45.)

George then points out that land, like water, only appears to be a dwindling resource because of the mindlessly wasteful ways we use it.

So Conservatism, which has a very basic fear of short resources, is wrong to worry about scarcities of food, water, or land.

George promises to tackle scarcity of energy and money in Monday's installment.

Take a look at the whole post.

I'll be reporting back each day as a new installment appears. The next installment will be this coming Monday. (Mr. George apparently takes the weekend off.)

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Did you purposely skip Money? (0+ / 0-)

    Money is not scarce.It's being hoarded.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 03:59:29 AM PST

  •  bucky fuller said (0+ / 0-)

    IIRC - "hoarding is not the result of scarcity, scarcity is the result of hoarding" from, I think his "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth". Three percent of the copper ever mined is still in use (also from BF) But we keep mining.

    We need closed systems. Economies based on growth of populations and resource extraction from finite sources are unsustainable. They will collapse; we just don't know when. Productivity improvements are the only sustainable economic growth factor.

    We could probably get to a comfortable sustainable model with the information we already have. The primary obstacle is human greed - the need to acquire and hoard wealth. Mud people, I call them. They're still in the evolutionary mud arguing and fighting about stuff.

    •  Who controls the infinite supply of money (0+ / 0-)

      is more important than who is hoarding more than their fair share.  Though that's also important.

      But it's those who actually control the supply that allows for such hoarding.

      We need to be addressing the source of dollars:  The US of Fed Gov -- or We the People.  We need to take back our monetary rights.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site