Crash Course: Chapter 5 – Growth vs. Prosperity by Chris Martenson



الآن سوف أقدم المفهوم الرئيسي الثاني، و هو بعيد عن الإعلام العام لدرجة انني بحاجة الى بعض الدعم من أحد فلاسفة القرن التاسع عشر ها هو الاقتباس "كل حقيقة تعبر عبر ثلاث مراحل أولاً، يستهزئ بها ثانياً، تقاوم بعنف ثالثاً، تقبل و تصبح بديهية." هذا الاقتباس هو من ذاك الرجل السعيد هناك في الركن، آرثر شوبنهاور يوما ما خلال العشرين سنة القادمة ، هذا المفهوم الذي سأقدمه سيصبح أمرا بديهياً لكن الآن، ربما من الآمن أن نفترض أنه مفهوم يتعرض للسخرية من قبل العديد من الناس و هو يدور حول النمو النمو أمر حسن ، أليس كذلك؟ كلنا يريد اقتصادا نامياً، على ما اظن؟ لماذا؟ حسناً، لأن النمو الاقتصادي يعني أننا متجهون نحو الازدهار النمو يوفر الفرص، و كلنا يؤيد الفرص على الأقل أنا أؤيدها. و هذه قصتنا الرئيسية لهذا اليوم إذن، الكثير من الناس يقول أن النمو يساوي الازدهار لكن هل هذا بالفعل حقيقة؟ و ماذا لو لم تكن؟ النمو في الحقيقة من تبعات الفائض، لو تفكرت به مثلاً، أجسادنا تنمو فقط عند وجود فائض من الطعام. في حال تطابق السعرات الحرارية المستهلكة بتلك المأكولة، فالجسد لا يخسر وزنا و لا يضيف بِركة الماء تكبر فقط اذا تدفق اليها ماء أكثر من الماء المتدفق خروجاً لذا، يمكننا القول أن النمو في الحقيقة يعتمد على الفائض و بالمثل، الازدهار يعتمد على الفائض. هذا مثال آخر تخيل أنكم عائلة مكونة من أربعة أفراد و دخلكم السنوي هو 40000 دولار و في نهاية السنة لا يبقى أي مال من هذا الدخل، هناك صفر من الفائض في نهاية السنة لكن جاءتكم زيادة بمقدار 10 % و هي تساوي 4000 دولار و عائلتك هنا بإمكانها أن تقرر إما أن تنجبوا طفلا جديدا أو أن تتمتعوا بمزيد من الازدهار عن طريق التمتع بشيء من الفائض و صرفه على كل فرد من الأسرة فلا تستطيعون كأسرة أن تعملوا كلا الخيارين! هناك ما يكفي من الفائض، في هذا المثال، فقط لعمل شيء واحد لذا عليك الاختيار هل هو النمو أو الازدهار الاضافي؟ و ما هو صحيح ينطبق على العائلة المكونة من أربع كذلك ينطبق بالتساوي على المدينة و الولاية و الدولة.. و نعم ينطبق على العالم أجمع عبر هذا المثال باستطاعتنا استخراج مبدأ بسيط لكنه أساسي للغاية النمو لا يساوي الازدهار خلال بضعة مئات من السنين الفائتة تمت هدهدتنا شيئا فشيئا الى ربط المبدئين معاً لأنه كان دائماً ما يكفي من الفائض مما يمكن من الحصول على النمو و الازدهار معاً و في تعبير آخر : لم نضطر يوماً الى الاختيار الصعب بينهما الاقتصادي "مالكولم سليسر" من مؤسسة (استخدام الموارد) في أدنبرة-اسكوتلندا قد حسب أنه أكثر من نصف الطاقة في العالم تستخدم الآن بكل بساطة من أجل النمو إذن ها هنا سؤال: ماذا سيحدث لو أن 100% من فائض أموالنا أو طاقتنا تستخدم ببساطة فقط للنمو؟ النتيجة ستكون ازدهار راكد و ماذا سيحدث لو لم يكن هناك حتى ما يكفي من الفائض لتمويل النمو فقط؟ حسناً، حينما يأتي هذا اليوم، سوف نعاني من ترادف لنمو و ازدهار سلبيان- و هذا ليس ما أتطلع إليه بالضبط من نوعية المستقبل هذا إذن، هو أضخم تحدٍ لنا في هذا العصر- أن نميز كما ينبغي : أين نريد أن نضع ما تبقى لنا من فائض و أن نصدح بهذه القصة أنا على سبيل المثال، أرغب برؤية المزيد من التقدم في مجال كفاءة الطاقة، تكنلوجيا الطب و كل شيء آخر من الممكن أن يقدمه المجتمع الحديث. هذا بالضبط ما نضعه في خطر إذا سمحنا لأنفسنا أن نعمل ما هو سهل أي أن نأخذ المسار الأقل مقاومة و نستمر بالنمو- – بدلاً من أن نعمل الصحيح، ألا و هو توجيه الفائض نحو مستقبل أكثر ازدهاراً. إذن ها هو : المفهوم الرئيسي رقم 2 : النمو لا يساوي الازدهار الآن و قد حصلت على مفهومين أساسيين بيدك، باستطاعتنا أن نستكشف ذاك الشيء الذي ندعوه "النقود"

37 thoughts on “Crash Course: Chapter 5 – Growth vs. Prosperity by Chris Martenson

  • Yes you are right, but only if lowering the growth rate actually result in more money you can spend. If you lower the growth because sustaining what already exists cost more and more and you don't have any surplus left even if you lower growth, you are in a situation where both general growth and prosperity decrease. So it depends. Obviously, one have to be very carefull.

  • Because it is assumed that general growth and prosperity depends on surplus spending: if you don't have anything to spend nothing grows. You must keep in mind that in order for both general growth and prosperity to enter a negative growth, you need to have completely depleted your spending capacity, that means zero surplus. Before that, it is free to you to adjust your surplus spending on general growth or prosperity as you wish, as long as you got surplus.

  • But isn't a new family member a future investment, since that family member will be able to do work for the family in some time?

  • If people adopt more children than that would really help the population, as long as people dont have children of their own.

  • 5.3 billion people depend on 900 million cars to be replaced in 35 years. That's 5 people getting poor every second, 130 times faster than people dying in the holocaust, 2.7 faster than people dying on earth.

  • awww wheres the point that 'you cant have infinite growth on a finite planet' because eventually you run out of resources and space… even a 1% growth will eventually doom us (because we can't yet live on other planets)
    maybe you mention this further into the course… i'll keep watching 😉 excellent so far!

  • This is unclear. Surplus leads to greater prosperity, measured as either Growth or "Prosperity", which he defines as higher quality goods and services. But greater Prosperity is still Growth. So I believe he is saying that "growth" is population growth, and "prosperity" is more or higher quality goods and services for the people.

  • @Cettywise yes and that is kissingers elites plan. wouldnt hurt that ol goat to go without a few meals himself.
    im working on this with my creativity; I believe we can use derision to laff his plan back to the stoneage from whence it come.
    signed
    the pieman

  • Negative growth? That sounds contradictory to me…Could growht possibly be negative? If it is negative, than it cannot be growth, or am I wrong?

  • @ExquisiteDoom @thefish103 I personally think it is obvious he is limiting this to tangible prosperity i.e. things we can measure objectively as opposed to immeasurable subjective feelings (which are v. important too, of course).

    What that means is, included in the definition are things such as the availability and quality of food/water, the number of vaccines & medicines we can produce, the number of MRI machines a hospital can buy, the value of a currency, the availability of living space etc

  • in this video he refers to growth as the human population of a country, or the world. i believe when most economists speak about growth they are not talking about population. it is obvious that the more the population grows, the lower the quality of life will be. the resources on earth do not increase every year yet our population using the resources is growing exponentially. in an extreme example, if people were crammied in shoulder to shoulder on earth there wouldnt be enough oxygen on earth

  • I disagree w/ the definition of prosperity. For some enjoying healthy, happy family relationships = prosperity, and there are plenty of wealthy individuals that have abundant resources that may live very unproductive, unhappy lives.

  • @10speech110 I know your comment was made a month ago, but I'm trying to better understand. Let's say a family farm has a surplus of food. They can choose to have another child or work less. The child could help farm more food, but that child would take more resources over their lifetime. At the global scale, choosing to growth over prosperity would require an ever increasing surplus to sustain itself. However all material resources on the earth are finite. What are your thoughts?

  • growth does not equal more wealth, because the physical limit of resources can not cover the ever growing population.
    more wealth in this system equals the increase in resource usage.

  • Uh… no. A pint of yogurt is a few hundred calories – a few megajoules. A tiny atom bomb puts out over 10 terajoules… that's a factor of over one million.

  • Reality check 1: Money is man made as a measuring tool not unlike inches, pounds and gallons. No one has ever run out of inches, pounds or gallons. Running out of money is an intentional man-made problem.

    Reality check 2: Energy is not scarce. The amount of energy in a pint of yogurt if released is equivalent to 500 atomic bombs detonated.

  • You are on to something here, surplus needs to be the objective, not growth or prosperity. Just as private industry must create a profit to grow and prosper, municipal or govts must create a surplus, otherwise enter a state of decline in growth and/or prosperity. We face this challenge in the US today.

  • "Man can produce both of these resources in short time"
    Really?!?
    I can't wait to know how.
    Please, enlighten us!

  • It is known but not disclosed, that crude oil does not require dinosaurs & millions of years to produce. Neither does coal. Man can produce both of these resources in short time. Despite what the Gaia worshiping, Al Gore may lie to you, coal is not causing global warming. They ignore the possibility that a gigantically huge ball of fire in the sky, called the sun, can be what's causing warming. Instead they say that the man caused, less than 1% of all CO2 is what's doing it.

  • Have you ever flown over remote parts of the United States, let alone other parts of our planet? We are not even close to overpopulating planet Earth, nor are we close to using the resources it provides for us. Stop believing the hype, for goodness sake. Believe me, my family and I will continue to have large families, regardless of your dooms day theories. Now go get your wife pregnant, populate mother Earth, enjoy your family and stop worrying. Go get'em big fella.

  • I really don't think that most people across the globe make a decision between another child and more stuff. Maybe some families in the US but definitely not everywhere.

  • Here we go. Population control. One more child, or more 'stuff' for the existing members of the family? Greed says more 'stuff' for the existing. Our families DO prosper when we grow! Do I value 'stuff' more than my family members? Of course not.

  • PanzerDivisionBOM:

    Hypothetically, that may be true, but what happens when Earth runs out of natural resources? Does population growth start to become a problem then in your perfect world?

  • The idea here is not so much that the resources of the earth are shrinking, but that they are shrinking relative to the growth of the demand. Even then, the earth isn't expanding; it is constant. The resources are finite. Water is finite. Land suface is finite. The NWO is a fable. Problems are caused by automated systems operating on their own. Consequenses of chains of events are so far removed from the operators that they continue to fill the bilge, unaware the ship is sinking.

  • Oh, and one point is: Well, we grow until we fill the planet. Which means: Until the same amount of people die from missing resources (eg starving) and death, as there are people born. Or until we find a way to optimize our resources, find new sources, a large group of people dies, or something like that.
    Then we will really see, who is best at survival and domination. (Hint: Me. And you possibly.) ^^

  • Sorry, but the Growth=Prosperity thing is a false dichotomy. An error in logic. What I mean is, that you can have *some* growth *and* *some* prosperity. You do not have to invest *only* in one.

    The child is a bad example. Because, say you get not 4000, but 10000 more. Than, according to him, you could have 2.5 more children. But obviously, you could also have 1 more child, and 1.5 more prosperity (whatever that is measured in ^^).

    You see where I'm going…

  • If only all my friends would come to the same conclusion. If i listen to them, i'm a nutjob for saying that the Economy will not survive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *