VS.

There can never be net gain in a closed system. The earth is a closed system, thus, there can never be net gain on earth, minus breaches into the system by meteors or matter we project outside the system via rocket technology. These minor breaches are rare exceptions to the rule, given the total mass of our system and what manages to come in or out. Some erroneously argue that the earth is not a closed system because the suns energy radiates upon the earth. However, a closed system is defined by the flow of matter and not the flow of energy. Moreover, the suns rays and energy input never results in a net gain to the system due to the fact that the earth radiates the energy back out beyond the boundaries of the system. If this were not the case then the earth would become to hot from the net gain of heat energy from the sun (global warming occurs when gases prevent trap the infrared radiation from dispersing back out, thus causing the earth to have a net gain in temperature).

The wisdom born from these natural laws reveal that there can never be a gain without a proportional loss. Every action produces a reaction and the reaction has an equal and opposite offset. Thus, when examining issues and phenomenon that involves human actions and energy, there is always an offset or proportional trade off. There is no “win-win” scenario in the nature of closed systems. There is no win-win scenario in politics or economics, because all is governed by the laws of closed systems. In short, it’s a zero sum game under a closed system.

People often involve themselves in the ranking game between various sub systems of our closed system. They argue that capitalism or Marxism is superior to the other. They argue that democracy or communism is superior to the other. They argue conservatism or liberalism is superior to the other. However, in truth, all of these systems produce negating offsets to their benefits, the distinction and difference being the product of when the offsets takes place temporally (in time). Some offsets are real time (immediate) and some offsets are conserved into the future.

Such debates over systems and approaches are akin to a debate which attempts to determine what running strategy is superior between that of a sprinter and the marathon runner. All comparisons generally amount to measuring performance at a given point in time or between given points in time. Thus, if a sprinter is matched up against a marathon runner, with both doing what they are best at, a point in time measurement means nothing. What matters is the point in time in context with the start anf finish line. Obviously the sprinters massive expenditure of energy will put it ahead at a given point in time nearest to the start due to the moderate use of energy by the marathon runner. A point in time in the future is likely to produce burnout for the sprinter at which point the marathon runner eventualy surpases. Indeed it is the child hood story of the tortois and hare.


It goes without saying that if the finish line is nearer the finish line to the start, the sprinter advantage increases, while the farther from the start it decreases, while the opposite is true of the marathon runner. Each have equal store of energy that propels them forward but each uses a different amount of energy in a given unit of time. When one applies this theory to capitalism vs. Marxism or communism, it is obvious which system is most productive at given point in time. However, no one knows were the finish line is and the offset of capitalism being less real time portends a coming calamitous offset for future generations. Communism, in comparison, offsets are more real time and the people’s lives and standard of living in juxtaposition are meager in comparison. But the question is one of sustainability, ultimately.

In all our debates we fail to look at points in time relative to the finish line, thus most peoples contrast and comparisons are faulty. The truth is that if capitalism had its way and propagated itself ubiquitously around the globe, with each nation emulating the success and consumption of the West, the earth’s resources would be depleted and there would be an ecological calamity as well. No matter how capitalist proponents say the capitalism is good for the world, it is not, assuming that it produces the success that they claim. The reason being is that it is not sustainable in the long term, given the resourced needed to fuel those massive energy expenditures. Thus, humanity would simply be trading increased status and pleasure in the short run, for deprivation and pain in the long run for subsequent generations.

Contrary to what some will say, I am not condemning capitalism, but rather, simply pointing out the reality of it. Thus, I am not condemning capitalism, but the fallacies that are preached concerning it.