the mellow tigger's musings

Considering how quickly the CO2 level increases in my house, now that I have convenient CO2 monitors to measure it, I began wondering why it changed so fast when I have plenty of houseplants at the windows downstairs. Sure, not all of them get direct sunlight, so they're not at peak efficiency, but why don't they make more of a dent in the carbon dioxide buildup?

That question led me to this recent YouTube video. It poses the question, "How many plants do you need to breathe?" The channel's author then builds an airtight room to test that question. The video is about half an hour long, and you could skip to the end for more of an "answer" (there's not an exact answer yet), but the journey is educational and worth the time to view it.

Basically, I wouldn't be able to grow enough plants to meet my own personal needs. It's a very disappointing answer, far from what we thought NASA said. It might be possible, though, to redesign houses with some kind of bioreactor that could do a fair job of scrubbing the air for a single person. It really calls attention to how much biosphere we need as a species. We should definitely do more to protect the forests (trees) and oceans (algae) that allow us to continue living here.

I still want to write up some definitions of capitalism and neoliberalism, mention alternatives, and generally just think about what we're doing to ourselves by choice. First, though, I feel it's necessary to draw attention specifically to the central lie of the free market economy: the invisible hand of the market will produce the best outcomes for the system.

It sounds like a brilliant idea inspired by the principles of evolution, namely the self-organization of parts into a complex whole without central coordination. It's true that competition can encourage creativity, but only insofar as all necessity does. That necessity can be imposed by the harsh physics of the universe or by the reasoned decision to choose certain limitations. The hypocrisy of unfettered competition's superiority is easily exposed. Consider this simple question:

If a sports game is so good in its current form, then would it be even better to remove the sports official, so each team and each player can freely choose at will their own rules?

Also interesting is a related question of why English has so many names for sports officials, if sports would in fact be better off without any of them? Why the emotional investment in rules and enforcement within sports but nowhere else?

Capitalism and neoliberalism simply do not care about the cost to the environment or to the human population, as long as wealth is extracted and collected first for a few key individuals. We see this effect in practice with predictable bank failures, pollution scandals, falling wage values, and the ongoing biosphere crisis. Now, we even have PFAS "forever chemicals" in toilet paper. Yes, capitalism has managed to poison toilet paper. Profit is the sole driving force of our current economic system, for as long as it can be maintained, even though it's obvious to everyone (since 1993, at least) that it can't be maintained forever.

Which world do we want to live in? World 1, in which corporations and people work to extract profit from everyone, everything, and everywhere at all times? World 2, in which corporations and people work to continue their existence within constraints of sustainability and ethics? It's simply a choice, and it always has been. Will we choose to add constraints to make the game more enjoyable? Which system of those two possibilities do we want to maximize for its efficiency?

Choose. May you live in the world that your efforts create. Whether my wish for you is a blessing or a curse probably depends on your choice.