Message-ID: <055001be296a$e5987a40$c74ffea9@jay98> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:11:07 -1000 From: Jay Hanson <mailto:j@QMAIL.COM> Subject: Newsletter Highlights To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Here are a few of the highlights of my next newsletter.CRISIS The roots of our present crisis are inherent to both "capitalism" and "pseudo democracy". Both of these interdependent social systems require ever-increasing amounts of high-quality natural resources and waste sinks in order to maintain stability. Neither one of them can survive the depletion of oil. Global oil production is expected to "peak" around 2005. [1]
FREE TRADE Free trade and "invisible wealth" (movable capital) were originally conceived as "political" devices to bring good government and keep the peace:
Montesquieu: "... and through this means commerce could elude violence, and maintain itself everywhere; for the richest trader had only invisible wealth which could be sent everywhere without leaving any trace . In this manner we owe.., to the avarice of rulers the establishment of a contrivance which somehow lifts commerce right out of their grip.
Since that time, the rulers have been compelled to govern with greater wisdom than they themselves might have intended; for, owing to these events, the great and sudden arbitrary actions of the sovereign (les grands coups d'autorité) have been proven to be ineffective and ... only good government brings prosperity [to the prince]."
Smith: "... commerce and manufactures gradually introduced order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived in almost in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of servile dependency upon their superiors."
PSEUDO DEMOCRACY In 1997, the Chinese lobbyist Johnny Chung observed: "I see the White House is like a subway - you have to put in coins to open the gates." Millions of Americans have made the same observation: American politics is based on money - one dollar, one vote. Why is American politics based on money? The surprising answer is because the Founding Fathers intended it that way.
Democracy is defined as "government by the people", but the framers of the Constitution never intended "the people" to govern themselves. Governance was reserved for the moneyed class (for excellent reasons). Madison even went so far as to boast that "the true distinction" between ancient regimes and the proposed experiment in government "lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity." In short, the framers of the Constitution crafted an "authoritarian" political system that presented the illusion of democracy to "the people".
( My next newsletter covers these issues in great detail -- with all the references. Sign up at: http://dieoff.com/page1.htm it will be sent out on Jan 1.)
Seen in this light, all of the "economic" posturing and rationalization (e.g., comparative advantage and so on) for free trade amount to nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the political aspects of the economy from "the people". Moreover, modern neoclassical theory looks like nothing but an elaborate lie -- complete with mathematical conjuring tricks -- designed to protect the moneyed class from public scrutiny (remember the man behind the screen in the Wizard Oz?).
As it has turned out, modern evolutionary scientists have found that the Founding Fathers were right: true democracy won't work. Natural selection and genetic development created a human tendency for dominance, submission, hierarchy, and obedience, as opposed to equality and democracy.
Although, capitalism and pseudo democracy have worked well enough for those of us who have been able to take advantage of it, these social systems must end soon. Besides the inherent energy limitations, our life-support system itself is disintegrating from the waste and destruction:
"To put this in context, you must remember that estimates of the long-term carrying capacity of Earth with relatively optimistic assumptions about consumption, technologies, and equity (A x T), are in the vicinity of two
billion people. Today's population cannot be sustained on the 'interest' generated by natural ecosystems, but is consuming its vast supply of natural capital -- especially deep, rich agricultural soils, 'fossil' groundwater, and biodiversity -- accumulated over centuries to eons. In some places soils, which are generated on a time scale of centimeters per century are disappearing at rates of centimeters per year. Some aquifers are being depleted at dozens of times their recharge rates, and we have embarked on the greatest extinction episode in 65 million years." -- Paul Ehrlich http://dieoff.com/page157.htm
So what can be done? Before solving our crisis. we must see it as an "engineering" problem and NOT as an "economic" problem ("getting the prices right")!
I REPEAT: Before solving our crisis. we must see it as an "engineering" problem and NOT as an "economic" problem!
In other words, send the economists on permanent vacation and call in the engineers and the scientists. Here is an "engineering" sketch for a new society:
KEY DEFINITIONS GLOBAL PROBLEMATIC (after The Club of Rome, 1972): Global tragedy of the commons because people are genetically programmed to more-than-reproduce themselves and make the best use of their environments.
COMMONS: "A commons is any resource treated as though it belongs to all. When anyone can claim a resource simply on the grounds that he wants or needs to use it, one has a commons."
NEEDS: Human "needs" have a scientific basis which is defined by human biology. 35,000 years ago, three million hunter-gatherers "needed" community, shelter, health care, clean water, clean air, and about 3,000 calories a day of nutritious food. Today, people still "need" the same things that hunter-gatherers "needed" then (except fewer calories).
eMERGY: eMergy is the solar energy used directly and indirectly to make a service or product. In other words, eMergy is the "cost" of a service or a product in units of solar energy.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Sustainable development both improves quality of life and retains continuity with physical conditions; it requires that social systems be equitable and physical systems circular.
AUTHORITY: Goals (or ideals) are not produced by a consensus of the governed, rather a qualified authority determines goals. For example, physical goals for sustainable development must come from "scientific" authority - because no one else knows what they must be. All contemporary political systems are "authoritarian" with the moneyed class ruling the pseudo democracies.
COERCION (politics): To "coerce" is to compel one to act in a certain way - either by promise of reward or threat of punishment. Two obvious examples of coercion are our system of laws and paychecks.
THE ONE-AND-ONLY HUMANE SOLUTION: Global coercion. In principle, the global commons can only be managed at the global level by people who understand the physical systems involved: scientists. Global coercion can be seen in the worldwide reactions to ozone depletion and global warming.
Step one would be to establish a global government of some sort with the authority to protect the global commons - our life-support system - as well as protecting universal human rights. This government would also oversee the "clean" manufacturing of "repairable" and "reusable" energy-efficient appliances and transportation systems. It would also insure the sustainable production of staples like wheat, rice, oats, and fish.
Step two would be to break out of the money-market-advertising-consumption death trap. The new society would NOT be based on money because it's inherently unsustainable. Our new socity would be based on "eMergy Certificates" instead.
Does this new global government sound repressive or restrictive? Not at all. A great deal of freedom is possible - in fact, far more than we have now.
The key for continued human survival is to find meaning and happiness in non-consumptive activities such as sports, the arts, and religion. If we can't do that, we're dead.
In short, the one big freedom that individuals would have to give up would be the freedom to destroy the commons (in its broadest sense) - the freedom to kill. And in return, they would be given a guaranteed income for life and the freedom to live almost any way they choose.
Jay -------------- COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU! http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
[1] THE END OF CHEAP OIL, by Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère; Scientific American, March, 1998; http://dieoff.com/page140.htm