This thought exercise is intended as both

an address to the average person concerned about global problems

along with those who are confused about

or even in opposition to The Zeitgeist Movement.

I'm going to pose three basic questions here.

If you disagree with the answers I provide

or perhaps even the premise of the questions themselves

I encourage you to respond with an alternative solution or a counterargument.

If you choose to do this, just make sure that you have reviewed

the sources listed and keep focus.

Again this is about the three questions, only.

Now, before I begin, the term 'market economy'

will be used here throughout.

And since people are quick to get lost semantically about what

'capitalism' or a free market supposedly is or isn’t,

I am going to define my context now, bypassing any semantic confusion.

When I use the term 'market economy', I am simply referring

to the core attributes shared by every major market system variation

in the world today.

And only three basic characteristics are needed here.

The 1st is labor for income.

Obviously the whole global economy is based on employment;

this is how people gain money to survive

and spend back into the system, keeping it going.

The 2nd is that all resources, goods and services retain property value

transferred by means of monetary exchange.

Obvious enough.

Everything is bought and sold through the use of money

mediated by the market itself.

And 3rd, the overall incentive strategy is based upon competition for demand

whether person-to-person or institution-to-institution

all oriented around the interest to

(a) save money on production and

(b) maximize profits upon final sales.

Again, this is the most basic gaming logic present in the market.

That’s it: very simple and again these characteristics are universal

to all economies functioning in the world today.

So on to Question 1:

"Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain

demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed,

is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use,

biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint,

and hence assist the ever-increasing need for

improved ecological sustainability in the world today?"

The most basic mechanism of the market is the movement of money.

And like the gas pedal on a car

if monetary circulation slows, it means demand and turnover slows,

and the average effect is a loss of jobs,

loss of income and a loss of economic growth.

Therefore, consumption is the fuel of the market system

and the more we consume, the better the 'health' of the overall economy.

Yet this necessity for constant, cyclical consumption

is in complete contradiction to what is needed for basic,

long-term species survival.

Wouldn’t it seem responsible to conclude that

the goal of any viable economy

is not only to meet the needs of the population, but to do so

in the most strategic, efficient and conservative manner possible?

Yet the market incentivizes the exact opposite behavior

due to this need for constant turnover.

In fact, the entire basis of the market can be summarized in one paradox:

“The market justifies its existence by the recognition of scarcity

but due to its structural mechanics

actually promotes and rewards infinite consumption."

If this confuses you, it might be because

this contradiction remained rather hidden in the past.

Two hundred years ago, our technical means were primitive

and the idea of being able to produce as rapidly as we do now,

accessing major resources virtually at will, was a pipe dream.

We simply didn’t have the technological efficiency back then.

For example 300 years ago a shoemaker could produce maybe

a few pairs of high quality shoes a day.

Today a common automated shoe factory can produce

a pair every 30 seconds or about 4,000 a day.

So, the level of production efficiency has increased so dramatically

that we are no longer having a problem overcoming any 'scarcity of means'.

The problem now is keeping people consuming.

By the way, if you are wondering why, in the wake of this great productivity,

there are still billions of people who lack the most basic goods

that is the result of a different market mechanism

which will touched upon in question 3:

the inevitability of market generated poverty and inequity.

Anyway, back on point:

The modern economy is no longer scarcity-based on this level,

it is consumption-based

as it needs high levels of turnover to keep people employed and growth going.

And obviously the side effect of all of this is

ever-accelerating resource depletion,

biodiversity loss and destabilizing pollution.

Now, there are now countless corroborating studies that confirm

how the world is increasing in its deficiency to meet the

needs of the future population.

Some estimates find that humanity will need 27 more Earths

by 2050 to meet demand, for example.

The rampant, severe biodiversity loss

is not only disrupting basic biosphere functions

it is now a fact that virtually all life support systems are in decline

with 50% of all wildlife having been destroyed in the past 40 years alone.

As far as pollution, these issues are nothing but accelerating

– both water and atmospheric -

creating tremendous destabilization and ongoing environmental damage

and negative public health outcomes. And keep in mind,

as explained at length in The Zeitgeist Movement's materials,

these problems are not immutable.

They can be fixed, if an economic and industrial reorientation

away from market economics was achieved.

However, those specifics are not the subject of this essay.

For more information on that please read the free online book:

'The Zeitgeist Movement Defined.'

Now, as a final point of evidence, a cursory review of

all recent historical attempts to stop overconsumption,

slow biodiversity loss and reduce pollution, have been met

with virtually a stonewalling mentality by the business community.

Of course, there is no mystery to this tendency

because the fact is: acting in a conservative,

truly efficient and sustainable manner is literally the opposite

of what the market requires to function in the long term

keeping this profit machine going.

For example: America’s Environmental Protection Agency

has constantly been attacked by interests worried about

a loss of income and growth.

Just last month the Wall Street Journal ran the headline

'The EPA's Latest Threat to Economic Growth.'

attacking the EPA for its interest to improve air quality standards.

And they are right! If the EPA does push forward

many jobs and billions of dollars will be lost.

That is simply what happens when waste reduction and technical efficiency

and conservation is applied to this system.

If you need a more visceral example

look at what the developing nations are doing

as they struggle to gain economic growth and raise their standard of living.

It's all being done at the expense of the environment.

China’s push for massive industrialization and growth has been enabled

by keeping low environmental standards

and now it has 16 of the world’s most polluted cities.

Again if you look carefully, all developing nations are doing the same thing.

They simply can’t afford more 'green' industrial methods at this point.

As far as resource overshoot and biodiversity loss,

perhaps the most clear description of this clash was made

in the 2010 Convention of Biological Diversity report.

In 2002, 192 countries got together and agreed to slow biodiversity loss

only to come back eight years later completely defeated, stating:

“None of the twenty-one sub-targets accompanying the overall target

of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010

can be said definitively to have been achieved globally.

Actions to promote biodiversity

receive a tiny fraction of 'funding' compared to

infrastructure and industrial developments...

Moreover, biodiversity considerations are often ignored

when such developments are designed...

Most future scenarios project high levels of extinctions

and loss of habitats throughout this century.”

And of course, why would we expect anything else?

Our economy literally has no structural incentive to adjust;

there is no direct market reward to preserve resources,

habitats or reduce consumption in general.

All it knows is that people need to keep buying stuff

and the more they buy, the better everything is supposed to be.

So back to the question, I ask again:

"Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain

demand for human employment and further economic growth as needed,

is there a structural incentive to reduce resource use,

biodiversity loss, the global pollution footprint,

and hence assist the ever-increasing need for

improved ecological sustainability in the world today?"

The answer is 'No'.

There is only the external incentive

– meaning the frustrated outcry of concerned citizens,

demanding this or that change –

which, in truth, simply won't do anything in the long run.

Why? Because it goes against the most basic premise

of the market's functionality itself.

The only true solution is to overcome the structural flaw,

not by fighting it with legislation, but by changing the system.

To do that, we must replace the current economic model

with one that structurally incentivizes and rewards conservation,

true technical efficiency and overall sustainability.

And on a final note, right now it is safe to project

that due to this habitat destruction, biodiversity loss,

resource overshoot and CO2 pollution,

we very well could be entering a period of what's called

the '6th Great Extinction' on Earth.

And unless thing change rapidly the next generation

will be one of great suffering and disorder.

Question 2:

"In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs

in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers,

what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed,

in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs

can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?"

The long standing defense of those who claim there is no problem

with machines replacing human jobs

is that overall technological innovation will simply balance everything out

by eventually creating new human occupations,

absorbing anyone who is displaced prior.

And while this perspective may have seemed viable

given early periods of slow technological change,

the ever-exponential advancement of automation potential

is now far outpacing the creation of new, human-exclusive labor roles.

And as the trends show

it is simply a matter of time before it becomes most cost effective,

reliable and productive, in all major economic fields to automate.

First, let’s consider the potential. Today there are numerous

corroborating studies showing the capacity of automation

including the conclusion that right now

over half of the world’s jobs can be mechanized.

Second, we need to consider

(A) the trends of employment shifts by industry

(B) the staggering rise in productivity related

and (C) how automation costs are undercutting human labor costs.

I’ll be using the United States as a statistical base, a proxy if you will.

For if it applies to the US, given its advanced technological state,

then it applies to the rest of the world

in the context of trends and potential.

Sector Shifts

There are three core economic sectors:

Agriculture, Industrial and Service.

In 1870, about 75% of Americans worked in agriculture

while today it's about 2%. Why?

Well, there certainly hasn’t been a loss of agricultural demand, right?

And while food imports in the US have grown to about 17%

that obviously doesn’t balance the near 98% drop

in its related employment sector since 1870.

And neither do increases in textile fabric imports and the like.

This drop is almost entirely a result of machine automation.

Where did the jobs go? The Industrial sector and the Service sector.

US Industrial labor reached its peak around 1950

dropping from almost 40% to about 20%.

Why? Well, the common assumption is that globalization

and labor outsourcing in manufacturing is the cause.

And while there may be short term and regional relevance to this