Squeers may be right to some extent so, OK, we change the economic system away from capitalism as we know it. What we need is a dynamic steady state economy - goods are made, bought and sold and people's needs are met but the whole economy doesn't expand - nor does population. The critical elements are that we cannot use more natural resoures than are supplied by nature nor produce more waste (particularly carbon dioxide) than can be absorbed by nature. Squeers is right on peak oil - it will be highly disruptive as our economy is so dependent on it. So what we will need is a contraction of population numbers (hopefully slowly) as the economy contracts and shifts over to renewables. Localisation of economies will go hand in hand with rising oil prices and we may well see a lot more bartering and a movement away from the money/monetary system as we know it. Capitalism may not go away completely, but it is certainly going to have to change its nature.

You guys are dreaming!
Capitalism is an entrenched world-system. There is no opting out or contracting to cottage industries. And for the record, growth "is" fundamental to the system. The only chance of change has to be an international effort and that ain't happening. We've just come out of the GFC and can anyone point out a country to me that's not obsessed again with economic growth?.
It is going to take something like a peak-oil catastrophy before any country even entertains the idea of moderation. They're still kidding themselves that AGW spells the next round of clean commodity production! but production a) means growth, b) demands oil, and c) means more emissions.
And Yabby, while its o-so humble of you to be satisfied with your lot, neither your opportunities nor your success were or are typical.

If I'm wrong, does anyone have any practical suggestions how these great reforms are going to be accomplished in bourgeois democracies addicted to conspicuous consumption? Not their fault btw, they were bred for it!

*And Yabby, while its o-so humble of you to be satisfied with your lot, neither your opportunities nor your success were or are typical*

Of course I am typical, Squeers. There are plenty of baby boomers
quite content with their lot, many downsizing for a seachange or
treechange. Not everyone always wants more. If fact as people
become more philosphical with age, their values commonly change.
A great many people are quite happy with their lot.

*If I'm wrong, does anyone have any practical suggestions how these great reforms are going to be accomplished in bourgeois democracies addicted to conspicuous consumption?*

Our whole little shindig right now, is based on the back of cheap
oil. I know Americans who live up in the snow, who hardly insulate
their homes, they just burn more oil. They hardly make a cup of
coffee, its off to the drive through coffee place. Once oil prices
spike, society will change. These people will be forced to change.

We lived quite happily 100 years ago, in village kind of communities,
with some chooks out the back, some fruit trees and a vegie patch.
There is no reason why we can't go back to that. No need to go
to the gym anymore, work your gut off by planting vegies. Its
refreshingly basic and healthy.

Squeers, from your first post:

<< …capitalism will go on extracting the last drop and the last penny unto total collapse and beyond >>

This is how I see it:

Capitalism, or the democratic or pseudodemocratic governments under which it operates, will adapt to change. It will only adapt after the situation looks particularly ominous and probably too late to prevent major upheaval, but change it will. Why? Because people will see the urgent need for change and governments, societies and businesses will make it happen.

Capitalism will NOT just blunder on into massive strife without some attempts, albeit probably last minute attempts, to greatly modify itself. And it certainly won’t just continue on as it now is after a major upheaval caused by its recklessness.

It’ll be different after a crash event.

From your second post:

<< Can you defend your faith in solid-state capitalism (like cold-fusion) in the real world; that is, capitalism without the profit motive? >>

Capitalism will always have the profit motive at its core. That doesn’t mean that it has to have constant expansion in supply and demand to make it work. If governments did their job properly, they’d regulate capitalistic regimes so that growth was dependent on technological advances and improved efficiencies rather than ever-bigger markets and ever-bigger workforces to cater for them.

This absurd growth spiral, which you seem to link inextricably with capitalism is NOT inextricably linked to it. If it was, capitalism wouldn’t work on small islands or in Scandinavian countries which essentially have stable populations and economic turnovers.

<< For money to circulate at all, capital must be reinvested in the next profit-making venture, i.e. growth. >>

Phoowey!

What about all those small businesses that don’t grow, but just continue to provide a steady income for many years? Are they not totally part of our capitalistic regime?

Here’s a bit of info on a steady state economy:

http://steadystate.org/

http://steadystate.org/discover/video-audio-and-presentations/video-gallery/ Check out the video called ‘sustainable society’, and others.

This is just a start. Could be a long discussion Squeersy.

Ludwig:
<Capitalism will NOT just blunder on into massive strife without some attempts, albeit probably last minute attempts, to greatly modify itself. And it certainly won’t just continue on as it now is after a major upheaval caused by its recklessness.

It’ll be different after a crash event.>

Gee really, so where's the action on climate change? which isn't exactly a recent phenomenon. And what about the GFC for a crisis event?
And those links..
I don't need to be told what's happening, I just question that anything's being, or about to be, done about it.
People like you almost annoy me more than the minimifidianists! You think you can have your cake and eat it too! Even without peak oil or AGW the Australian lifestyle is unsustainable and unconscionable, but you think you can make it work. And I'll bet you're not planning to down-scale or rationalise your family income? So how do we convince the billions in China and India (who we'll go on selling resources to, mind you!) that they can't have comparable lifestyles? And what hope do we have of addressing these issues while they play catch up on a scale the industrial revolution couldn't have begun to cater for?
I mean, just look at Yabby's last post; you'd think it was a level playing field, or that Australia and its egomaniac baby-boomers were typical! Yabby thinks all he has to do is grow a vegie patch, though I think he's deliberately baiting me. Even he can't be that smug.
And even if Australia was able to preserve its little Brigadoon, what makes you think it won't be taken from us, or that we don't deserve to lose it?
It's not going to be a long conversation, Ludwig. Unless you've got something sensible or plausible to say, I've got better things to do!

<< What we need is a dynamic steady state economy - goods are made, bought and sold and people's needs are met but the whole economy doesn't expand - nor does population. >>

Absolutely right popnperish.

Within a steady state economy, capitalism will be alive and well…. with the profit motive intact but without the continuous expansion in markets or the production of goods.

Capitalism WILL change its nature to conform to a steady state economy, sooner or later. That is guaranteed!