There are three premises to this argument and a conclusion.
By standard methods there are three parts to an argument:
- Premise
- Claim
- Evidence
Evidence in this case is wholly
lacking.
Furthermore, the claim must
be supported by this evidence. The
premises must also be accepted
as true.
Furthermore, it is helpful for the argument to show where counter
arguments (such as the one that I will make) are flawed. This is
often done as evidence because that is one of the two things the
counter arguments can attack (the other is the form)
- A capitalist economy must expand in order to remain healthy
- Expansion requires resources
- Resources are finite within the universe
- Therefore, capitalism is doomed to eventual failure and collapse
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~compose/student/ac_paper/logic.html
is an excellent source for reading on logic and arguments and includes
a large number of fallacies.
Hasty Generalization: A generalization based on too little evidence, or
on evidence that is biased. Example: All men are testosterone-driven
idiots. Or: After being in New York for a week, I can tell you: all
New Yorkers are rude.
There is both too little evidence and that which is there is heavily
biased.
- A capitalist economy must expand in order to remain healthy
- First off, just to make sure that everyone is talking about
the same thing - let me define capitalism for the duration
of this argument. It is unfortunate that this hasn't been done prior
to my critique. Capitalism is an economic system which is characterized
by private ownership of capital goods, investments by private decision,
and prices, production, and distribution of goods are determined by
competition in a free market. Thank you Merriam-Webster.
Now that that is defined, the statement that 'a capitalist economy
must expand to remain healthy' can be looked at. Unfortunately,
I cannot find any papers written about exactly what constitutes a
healthy economy - but then I'm not an economist. Still, the question
remains "is it possible for a system as described above to be healthy
without expanding?" Can a capitalist system maintain a status-quo?
A status quo with respect to what? Here, we look at the second premise,
and see that this is referring to resources. Capitalism itself will
never hold a status quo for long with respect to ideas - some
disruptive idea comes along and throws the economy upside down for awhile
until things settle out. This is natural and good in the long run. It is
even possible for the long run to reduce the consumption of resources
as we see with the emerging ultra-light cars that are either electric
or fuel cell powered. These cars take less energy to move around, and
do so more efficiently. Why? Because someone can make money selling
them. Thats capitalism for you. But yet, there is no evidence that
a capitalist economy requires constantly more resources.
- Expansion requires resources
- There is that resource again. What does it really mean? A source
of supply or support, a natural source of wealth or revenue, a source
of information or expertise.
First off realize, that everything requires resources of of sort or
another. It would be interesting to see what sort of economy exists
with the heat death of the universe - if there is anything it will
be the hoarding of what little energy can be found.
I've previously attempted to show that expansion of market does not
require more physical resources. If anything, in economies where
resources are important, there is an increased demand for more efficient
use of these resources - higher gas millage, better recycling processes.
Look at Japan, a very resource poor nation, and we see extremely efficient
use and recycling of these resources. And yet, they continue to expand
with better and more effective products.
The resources that are required more of are not the physical type, but
rather the human type - ideas. But then, this is not about the
resources of the mind. Knowledge is power.
- Resources are finite within the universe
- There are a finite number of particles in the universe. Yes.
Its a really big number. As humans, we haven't even reached
Type I civilization on the Kardaschev scale. It is difficult to
extrapolate the resources (physical and energy) available to a society
that is Type I, much less Type II or Type III (or the hypothetical
type IV that can control and use all available energy in the universe),
much less the economy that such a civilization would have.
The question of wise use of resources is one of the foresight of the
people looking at long term investments. This is not unique to
one system over another, but rather the availability of the resources
and the forethought of management. I have yet to see research into
the infrastructure of energy consumption in communist countries. The
wind mill power arrays in the American southwest, the solar power farms.
Are there examples of this forethought in Cuba or the old Soviet Union?
Still, the lack of forsight cannot tacked on to capitalism - some people
have it, some don't.
The incentive for a wise choice comes from looking far enough ahead,
not from the economic system a person is in.
- Therefore, capitalism is doomed to eventual failure and collapse
- Capitalism is no more doomed to eventual failure and collapse than
that of any other economic system. All economies and civilizations
require some resources There is nothing unique about capitalism in
this way. There are possible claims that I an throwing in a red herring,
trying to draw the attention away from disproving the above argument -
nevertheless...
- A (fill in) economy must consume resources to remain healthy
- Resources are finite within the universe
- Therefore, a (fill in) economy is doomed to eventual failure and
collapse.
This is just as good (or bad) an argument as has been initially proposed
and would show that any economy will eventually fail. Nothing unique
about capitalism has been proven. When there are no resources, there is no economy. It does not matter if this is a capitalistic one or socialistic one.
I hope that I have shown sufficient reason that all of the premises
are flawed and that the claim is moot with regards to the distinction
that one economic system is doomed while others are not.