Ah, yes, the dialectics: unity of opposites, internal contradictions, the universality of contradiction. This is what these silly triumphalists (any kind of triumphalism, really) are missing. I guess they never studied the great works of comrade Mao, poor bastards.

Economics defines itself in terms of the efficient allocation of resources. That focus on economic organization as a matter of allocative efficiency, to the exclusion of consideration of the details of technical or managerial organization, leads economists into deliberate ignorance about much of what constitutes the modern, highly organized economy.

The great advances of the industrial revolution were not primarily a matter of more efficient allocation of resources—of eliminating subsidies or tariffs or managing the supply of money well enough to avoid deflation, that is, the kind of things economists concern themselves with.

It has been about advances in science and technology, applied to the organization of production and distribution of goods and services.

If you consult an economic textbook, looking for a theory of production, you will find a rather odd presentation, asserting that (maximum) product output is a function of factor inputs. No where in this theory of production will you see featured the two, most prominent features of the industrial revolution: the application of energy (e.g. fossil fuels) and the advances in control of production processes. Even Adam Smith’s specialization, observed in his famous pin factory seems curiously remote, from the economic theory of production.

This economic theory of production consigns the sources of economic growth—the energy devoted to production/distribution activities and the improvements in control of production/distribution processes—to an unexamined area beyond their analysis. And, with that curious consignment, the economist loses all perspective.

Energy use in economic activity is a source of huge increases in productivity, and it is also, necessarily, the reason all production is polluting. It is simply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in action. But, the necessary connection between production and pollution is unrecognized by fundamental economic theory, even though “externalities” are recognized, elsewhere.

Control of production/distribution activities is the second great source of productivity improvement. Embodied in machines it is a source of great power and even delight. But, it is also a source of rigidity in our society. Most people in advanced societies are working in vast bureaucracies, the better to control our economic production/distribution processes. Coordination of work has become a paramount imperative, which is always threatening our individual autonomy. And, such simple questions as how much time in our life is leisure or whether we will have time to raise our children have become questions of national political policy.

The Tyler Cowans of the world seem to be unable to fully grasp either these two capital facts of the modern economy: energy and pollution, control and error. Economics, with its defective theory of production, allows them to ignore them.

So, we get Tyler making linear projections concerning the future products of a magical technology, while praising the “freedom” attendant on a “market” economy, completely dominated by giant corporations and government. It is unreal.

We cannot simply multiply the amount of energy devoted to production. We are running out fossil fuels, we are running out of clean air and water, we are running out of places to put the junk. We need to get realistic about how much energy we can divert into production processes, and about the implications for the total number of humans the earth can support in a style, we would all like to be accustomed to.

And, we ought to be realistic about creating and preserving individual autonomy in an ever more organized and controlled society. The means of control—monitoring and communication and modeling and calculation—are cheap and getting cheaper very fast, for the first time in human history. “Free markets” is a long-outdated 18th century slogan. Libertarian sentiment needs to make itself a good deal better informed.

Control of human behavior is one of the foundation stones of the huge increases in productivity, which underlie the prosperity of the developed world. That prosperity and organized control has made individuals more powerful, and the high degree of organization has made government as well as private corporations more powerful, as well. It has also made society more fragile and complex.

Medical advances to cure diseases are all very well and good to anticipate, but it would be nice if someone were to notice the implications of guys with box cutters flying airplanes into tall buildings—and I mean implications other than an opportunity for morons to try to establish a fascist state. To wit, has anyone noticed that is now possible to “design” a lethal flu virus?

Well, that was a nice rant. I seem to have run out of steam, before I reached an climactic peroration, for which I am truly sorry. I’ll work on that.

Stop pretending you don’t love this! Do aversion to force and coercion, and the observation of rapid technological change, really bespeak a fundamentalist bias, even when its only expression is forensic pseudoblogging?

CB,

Isn’t GDP growth simply a measure of increased possibilities, that can be rejected moralistically, as with the Amish?

I, dunno John. Is the Living Theater your thing? if so that’s cool.
But this feels like arguing with fundamentalists. And fundamentalism is, fundamentally, opposed to language, or any other mediation.

Does “participation” here mean “performance” or “methexis”: where, if anywhere, does one take one’s stand? Adolescent minds want to know…

Philosophers [and scientists] want to “know,” and they despise systems that allow them only to participate. A lawyer may not be a philosopher in the courtroom any more than an actor may be one on the stage. Those conversations begin after the workday is done.

Most western Europeans prefer to be in Western Europe as opposed to the US and the reverse is true for people in the US. What does that say about what the “people” want? Go pick up a NYRB and read this