From: Douglas P. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I'm sorry if my comments on Jay Hanson's message sounded like a personal
>attack, or if they incited others to attack Mr. Hanson. I really don't
>think much is gained by calling each other names. It may be naive of
>me, but I rather hoped that Mr. Hanson might respond positively to my
>remarks and change his style -- I thought he might have something positive
I HAVE offered something constructive and useful in the past. I will attach
more to the end of this post.
I think many of you academics misunderstand the context of this debate. In
his book "Of Men and Galaxies", cosmologist Fred Hoyle sets our physical
context -- its' a one-shot affair:
"It has been often said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it
here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense
of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have,
exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is
concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ore gone, no
species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions
to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this
planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance,
and one chance only." [ Hoyle, 1964, 64 ]
The social context of this debate is POLITICS -- and, as I have amply
documented for you, it's the politics of life and death. I welcome a debate
on economic theory, but the economists on this list aren't interested in
debating economic theory because economics is not science -- it's politics.
Economists do not react do disproved hypothesis by formulating a new
hypothesis, instead they work politically to make the offending components
conform to their hypothesis. Moreover, it's not possible to talk anyone --
even economists -- into giving-up political power. If history teaches
anything, it's that political power must be taken.
If economists are upset by the tone of my attack, it's because they are not
used to being treated as politicians.
What other way is there to live? Here's one:
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Sustainable development both improves quality of
life and retains continuity with physical conditions. To do both requires
that social systems be equitable and physical systems circular.
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." [ Virginia Abernethy, POPULATION AND
ENVIRONMENT, Vol. 18, No. 1, Sept 1996. cited in CCN's FOCUS, Vol. 2, No.2,
p. 20. ]
COERCION: To "coerce" is to compel one to act in a certain way -- either by
promise of reward or threat of punishment.
POLITICS: One coercing another.
AUTHORITY: I use this word in the sense that goals (or ideals) are NOT
produced by a consensus of the governed. For example, physical goals for
sustainable development must come from "scientific authority" -- because no
one else knows what they must be.
Examples of "authoritarian" political systems include corporations,
Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and churches.
An obvious example of extremely successful "authoritarian, systems politics"
is a corporation.
GLOBAL PROBLEMATIC: Global tragedy of the commons because people are
genetically programmed to more-than-reproduce themselves and make the best
use of their environments.
THE ONE-AND-ONLY SOLUTION: Global coercion.
NEW SOCIETY
We already live under a coercive, global religio-political system called
"Capitalism". The sine qua non of Capitalism is the conversion of our
life-support system into commodities. Thus, Capitalism WILL end -- one way
or another. Moreover, a new system would need to be anywhere near a brutal
as our present one.
In reality, the current development paradigm is nothing but a grotesque --
energy gulping -- Rube Goldberg machine to deliver "needs" to people. Today,
people still "need" the same things that people "needed" 35,000 years ago:
community, shelter, health care, clean water, clean air, and about 3,000
calories a day of nutritious food. But each of those three million
hunter-gatherers -- Homo sapiens -- used the same amount of energy as a
common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), whereas each of today's 269 million
Americans -- Homo colossus -- uses as much energy as a sperm whale (Physeter
macrocephalus)..
Step one is to break out of the money/market/advertising/consumption death
grip. A new society would NOT be based on money because it's inherently
unsustainable. It would be based on something like Hubbert's energy
certificates. [ See It's the Money, Stupid! at
http://dieoff.com/page149.htm
The key to the new society is to find meaning and happiness in
non-consumptive activities such as religion and the arts. With modern
technology, probably less than 5% of the population could produce all the
goods we really "need".
A certain number of "producers" could be selected and trained by society to
produce. The rest can stay home and sing, dance, paint, read, write, pray,
play, and practice birth control.
Highest priority would be to establish a global government of some sort with
police powers that are capable of protecting the global commons -- our
life-support system -- as well as protecting individual human rights (as
yet, undefined). Within the global framework, I believe a great deal of
freedom is possible -- in fact, far more than we have now.
Any number of cultural, ethnic or religious communities could be established
by popular vote. Religious people could have public prayer in their schools,
prohibit booze, allow no television to corrupt their kids, wear uniforms,
whatever. Communities of writers or painters could be established in which
bad taste would be against the law. Ethnic communities could be established
to preserve language and customs. If someone didn't like the rules in a
particular community, they could move to another religious, cultural, or
ethnic community of their choosing.
In short, the one big freedom that people would be giving-up would be the
freedom to destroy the commons (in its broadest sense). And in return, they
would be given a guaranteed income and the freedom to live the kind of life
they choose.
Jay
-------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
