--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Tom Wayburn <twayburn@...>
wrote:
>
> Jay Hanson wrote:
> Only three tactics can mitigate this ongoing process:
> 1.  Take energy resources by military force.  We did this in Iraq.
> 2.  Gradually move away from a political system which encourages
> the depletion of natural resources and toward something like
> Hubbert's or my vision for a sustainable society.  The first step
> would be to guarantee every citizen the right to live without
> working.
> 3.  Reduce population at least as fast as available energy
> resources fall.
>
> Jay has produced a beautiful popularization of the principal
> ideas he has gotten from my papers on dematerialism,
> especially "Energy in a Natural Economy", which is linked to
> http://dematerialism.net/ .  Rather than graciously acknowledge
> the source of these ideas he has banned me from his Yahoo
> groups so as to avoid any competition in the intellectual
> sphere.  That isn't very nice and I don't know a nice way to
> say it.

Look on the bright side, Tom. At least he is plagiarizing
things that are worth plagiarizing.

Alan




 
> Jay has grasped the principal result of the social reforms
recommended by me, but he has failed to understand the logical
ramifications.  Let us assume, for a moment, that we reject the idea
of conquest and depredation to meet our energy needs.  While striving
by any and every means to reduce our population, what must we do to
guarantee every citizen the right to live without working, which is
necessary because of the energy consequences of all economic activity
as discussed in the papers written by me with which Jay and everyone
else on this forum are familiar?   In a world of shrinking energy
supplies or alternative energy technologies the output of which
cannot be increased beyond a fixed or slowly growing maximum, the
amount of livelihood available to the population at whatever level it
has reached is decidedly finite.  Therefore, to guarantee every
citizen enough to live, it is necessary that no citizen consume much
more than the minimum
> necessary to live decently plus whatever he needs to do the work
that he has had the good fortune to be able to do because it is
necessary to the well-being of the community.  We have a name for
this type of wealth sharing in a planned economy.  This is a name
that Jay Hanson has been taught to detest; and, although he is the
last one I would suspect of becoming a product of the "manufacture of
consent" in the United States, he has been thoroughly brainwashed,
which accounts for this clear case of doublethink.
> In a paper that I wrote for the Can Do Better website, I discussed
the contradictions in war socialism as envisioned by Jay as well as
its obvious similarity to Dematerialism as envisioned by me.   I
copied the following from the What's New section of my homepage:
> See the extended journal entry for July 27th on "Communism and Some
Idle Thoughts on the Excesses of Capitalism".  This and the entries
of June 9th and June 16th have been pulled together in a discussion
of the differences between War Socialism and the Natural Economy at
http://dematerialism.net/hanson.htm.  Thanks to James Sinnamon, this
is available at http://candobetter.org/blog/18, my new blog on
candobetter.org.
> Alternatively, if time is short, see
http://dematerialism.net/warsocial.htm in which I explain why war
socialism is either a point on the path toward a natural economy and
therefore a form of dematerialism or it is nothing but a huge
mistake.  I regret that I satisfy myself principally in a written
piece like this.  Hopefully, the intelligent reader will be able to
grasp the main points in the proof.  If not, please ask me to
elucidate.
> Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
> twayburn@...
> http://www.dematerialism.net/
> http://dematerialism.blogspot.com/
> http://dematerialism.wikispaces.com/
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>