It seems to me that besides social power, energy flows and information (whatever, it doesn't really exist) flows are really important to how powerful capital is at a given time. I read a bit of energy/sustainability economics stuff that someone linked here which was about analysing efficiency and energy use through the whole chain of production/usage from raw materials to end users. I also think that the internet actually gives a lot of power to capital and previously powerful organizations once they learned to use it, due to mobility of capital (create money electronically instantly, send money electronically very quickly) and networking vertical organizations with each other/improving information transmission within organizations.
Beyond that I'm interested in how oil and electricity generation work in large scale energy economics... I dunno anyone have sources/opinions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics
i guess my point is energy and material and information flows are really important so i would like to know more about how they work today.
its like saying productivity is important to capitalism. its kind of cool how much the economy depends on the productivity potential of oil. like if you think about how your car would grind to a halt without oil.thats a spicy meatball! makes you think.
NoFreeWill posted:transferring money around faster is not just about productivity, but about power. what does productivity even mean? productivity of what and for whom? yeah oil is really important is obvious and everyone knows it but it seems kind of essential to building a different future to know some details about how these things work.
its about power to the extent that access to it is limited.
how much faster is business done when money is funded instantly versus through a carrier pidgeon or on a horse courier over days.
not to be an ass but to ask what productivity means is like asking what water is. unless you live in your parents basement and have never had a job. living in a capitalist economy and understanding productivity is like breathing
NoFreeWill posted:i dunno anything about this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics
i guess my point is energy and material and information flows are really important so i would like to know more about how they work today.
I've rad some stuff on that but it was all by liberals, definitely not Rhizzone approved.
If you are interested in material flows Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things imagines a future industrial system mimicking natural chemical cycles, in which components may repeatedly change form, but never leave the system. The authors contrast their theory of "upcycling" with modern "down cycling," recycling, in which products might be reused, but only in a degraded form.
So one example of upcycling is the nitrogen cycle, in which nitrogen fixing bacteria convert N2 into NH3, which other bacteria turn into NO2-, then NO3-, and finally back into N2. Each organisms uses the waste of the previous step for a new productive end, but instead of waste it produces fuel for the next system.
An example of downcycling is the course of an aluminum can. Assuming it's not just thrown away, a recycled aluminum can cannot be profitably used to make a new aluminum can. This is because one can actually contains multiple alloys in the lid and sides, which are amalgamated into a less valuable form during recycling. The new alloy can be used for other purposes, say making park benches, but has lost value. the can was "downcycled," and will still ultimately wind up as garbage as it progressively loses value each time it is recycled.
The book had a lot of weaknesses but made an impact on me, probably because I haven't read much other serious stuff on environmental economics.
Squalid posted:NoFreeWill posted:i dunno anything about this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics
i guess my point is energy and material and information flows are really important so i would like to know more about how they work today.
I've rad some stuff on that but it was all by liberals, definitely not Rhizzone approved.
If you are interested in material flows Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things imagines a future industrial system mimicking natural chemical cycles, in which components may repeatedly change form, but never leave the system. The authors contrast their theory of "upcycling" with modern "down cycling," recycling, in which products might be reused, but only in a degraded form.
So one example of upcycling is the nitrogen cycle, in which nitrogen fixing bacteria convert N2 into NH3, which other bacteria turn into NO2-, then NO3-, and finally back into N2. Each organisms uses the waste of the previous step for a new productive end, but instead of waste it produces fuel for the next system.
An example of downcycling is the course of an aluminum can. Assuming it's not just thrown away, a recycled aluminum can cannot be profitably used to make a new aluminum can. This is because one can actually contains multiple alloys in the lid and sides, which are amalgamated into a less valuable form during recycling. The new alloy can be used for other purposes, say making park benches, but has lost value. the can was "downcycled," and will still ultimately wind up as garbage as it progressively loses value each time it is recycled.
The book had a lot of weaknesses but made an impact on me, probably because I haven't read much other serious stuff on environmental economics.
even in the nitrogen cycle you have "waste", you need energy from the sun for it to function. it would be possible to take soda cans and melt them down and separate the alloys to make new soda cans but i dont know how efficient that is. how is their idea of "upcycling" different from just putting more effort into recovering materials?
stegosaurus posted:what u know about metabolic rift
nothing but it seems cool as hell
NoFreeWill posted:yeah i gotta do vols. 2/3 i guess or is 3 the one he never finished?
Neither was finished but 2 is better organized and mostly complete. Volume 3 is important because it talks about the rate of profit falling which lets liberals claim that Marx didn't really mean it, it was Engels who was imposing himself on the text. Without that trots might not exist.
"Freedom, in this sphere...can consist only in this, that socialized man, the associated producers, govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their own collective control rather than being dominated by it as a blind power; accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature."
babyhueypnewton posted:Vol. 2 of Capital should tell you all you need to know about circulation of capital. David Harvey helps you get through it. I know LF hates David Harvey but I really like his stuff on circulation and geographic crisis
ive been halfheartedly going through 2, i need to make a serious commitment
NoFreeWill posted:Beyond that I'm interested in how oil and electricity generation work in large scale energy economics... I dunno anyone have sources/opinions?
the more oil you have and the cheaper it is the more you can use things that use oil like cars
energy intensive industries use a lot of energy while places with not much energy-production find it difficult to produce things.
scarface said it best: first you get the power, then you get the money, then you get the women
c_man posted:even in the nitrogen cycle you have "waste", you need energy from the sun for it to function. it would be possible to take soda cans and melt them down and separate the alloys to make new soda cans but i dont know how efficient that is. how is their idea of "upcycling" different from just putting more effort into recovering materials?
The process is not supposed to be free. The authors are arguing industrial processes should be designed from the beginning to be circular, so that reprocessing can always be efficient. So for example they recommend replacing traditional paper, which is usually recycled into lower value cardboard rather than back into writing paper, with a plastic substitute that can be infinitely reprocessed.
c_man posted:i feel like a large part of the issue is that people dont care that much and generally do a pretty bad job of recovering and reprocessing materials.
It definitely is, its a large part of the structural inefficiencies and waste built into capitalism, Such things are actively worked Against under the status quo and it is one of so many things that go unquestioned when people attempt to imagine alternatives to the current system. ideological blindness gets well meaning people to invoke problematic features of modern society as roadblocks to change when they are inherent only to capitalism