Below is a table that points out how long it takes for something to double, triple, etc. in size, when it increases at rates of 3%, 4%, 5% and 6% per year. For the last 15 years, the global economy has been growing at an average of about 4% per year. Note that at 4% growth the economy doubles every 19 years, and grows 10 times its size in a mere 59 years.
The second problem stems from the fact that in order to sustain 4% annual economic growth, global debt must increase at about 10% annually. Because it is annual growth, this means it is exponential rather than mathematical growth. The difference between the two is shown below.
The Global Economy is on course to collapse well before 2030 due to a looming global inability to repay annual interest. The reason why debt outpaces economic growth stems from a fault in global money supply. This fault is described in the article Money - Deadlier Than Plutonium, available from www.eveoftheapoc.com.au.[6]
Moreover, people collectively can't keep taking and taking ever more
resources from the natural world and expecting that they can keep
raising ever higher the human population and the standard of living for
all. It just won't work because the world is largely limited. At the
same time, it should be absolutely clear that our current economic
programs for the most part do not work either. Anyone who asserts
otherwise perhaps needs to be reminded that nearly half of the world
comprising of over three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day.
How could this possibly seem like any sort of a success, especially
when others, parasitically siphoning the wealth towards themselves off
the backs of underpaid laborers and through ravage of the natural
world, individually make a financial killing in the millions and
billions of dollars at the same time?
It's a killing, all right. The signs of the social and ecological costs are all around us to see.
In
truth, an expectation for relentless growth comes with a very high
price tag as is well explained at "Interconnectedness of World
Problems, a Conceptual Map by Fritjof Capra based on Plan B 3.0, by
Lester Brown" -- a vision that goes well beyond a simple, barely
accurate, linear model. Likewise, the evaluation of Joel Kovel's "The
Enemy of Nature" is a well thought out, comparable assessment, as are
Bill Mckibben's "A Timely Reminder of the Real Limits to Growth" and
David Model's analysis at "The Elephant in the Room. Ignoring
Unsustainable Growth". [7]
Real limits in mind, this excerpt from Wikipedia's coverage of the Carter Doctrine is particularly dicey. Simultaneously, it shows a fallacious (arrogant?) sense that the U.S.A. can enact any course of action that it pleases, is completely invincible and is impervious to any internal or external influences, whether social or environmental in nature, that would undercut its kingpin position in the world.
The Carter Doctrine:
Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
This last, key sentence of the Carter Doctrine, was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser. Brzezinski modeled the wording of the Carter Doctrine on the Truman Doctrine,[1] and insisted that the sentence be included in the speech "to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf.[2]
In The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, author Daniel Yergin notes that the Carter Doctrine "bore striking similarities" to a 1903 British declaration, in which British Foreign Secretary Lord Landsdowne warned Russia and Germany that the British would 'regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal.'[3] [8]
All the same, Mamoun Fandy of the Center for Contemporary Arab
Studies at Georgetown University identifies, in "U.S. Oil Policy in the
Middle East", that the U.S. faces some key problems in its quest for
oil dominance. These difficulties include:
- Controlling oil access is a cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy.
- U.S. reliance on imported oil is very high.
- Oil from the Persian Gulf accounts for 10% of the oil used in the U.S.
- Dual containment of Iran and Iraq, along with a broader military engagement policy, is key to U.S. strategy in assuring the flow of oil.
There are many ways that humanity can move forward to create "the good life" as long as a plan is sound. In 1970, Henry Kissinger claimed, "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." However, one group's domination of oil and food stocks, while denying the needs of other groups, is reckless, unethical and expensive.
Frankly, we've had enough of resource wars. More to the point, conflicts can only get worse as fossil fuel reserves increasingly dwindle and the perception of the diminishment merely strengthens that we have to have the dregs regardless of the grave social and environmental consequences.
