At 5:11 PM -1000 12/16/98, Jay Hanson wrote:
<<snip>>
>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.
I'm not at all sure about this. Paradoxically, affluent societies such
as the Northwest Coast Indians and modern North Americans tend to have
stable populations by choice. Poverty, disease and desperation cause
prolific breeding, quite possibly in order to ensure the survival of at
least some offspring. Modern medicine superimposed on that pattern has
produced higher survival rates, and hence exploding population. I
believe that the only real solution (short of mass murder) is general
education, especially the education of women, and other measures which
(like the Grameen Bank) which give women a measure of independence.
>
> COMMONS: "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."
I would say, "A commons is any resource treated as though it belongs to
none. When anyone or a large number can claim a resource without
compensating others or society for its use or destrruction, 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).
As Gandhi said, "there is plsnty for everyone's needs but not for
everyone's greed." Even today, I think this is true, but the limits are
certainly in sight if not surpassed.
>
> 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.
Does this include fossilized 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.
"Scientific" authority knows? Science, as praciced, is just as
political as economics, and just as hypocritical about it. I have more
faith in a well informed public (which may be an oxymoron).
>
> 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.
>
That's a fairly broad definition; does it include "green taxes"? If so
I might agree.
> 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.
>
So long as scientists are subject to political and economic pressures,
many will continue to be influenced by those forces, often
subconsciously. I cannot share your faith in them. Where I often see
the most wisdom today is in those who speak for the poor, not those
with the most degrees. Scientists are of course important to provide
data, but data EVALUATION is always a political act.
>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.
>
I agree in principle, but if it's going to work it must truly be
responsible to the people of the world rather than the dollars. How can
one achieve that, given that numbers inevitably undermine democracy?
>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.
That's a good idea. It calls to mind Ed Deak's enrgy based efficiency.
>
>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.
>
I realize that regulation is an effective tool, but I am inherently
deeply suspicious of command and control. I think a truly sustainable
system must reward "right" choices much more than punishing wrong ones.
Georgist economics- Geonomics- with all natural resources (including
waste sinks) recognized as common property and rented for the
appropriate rent, which is collected for and distributed to ALL, seems
like the most promising starting point.
>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.
>
Right on. I would add, or inject as the foreemost one, community- daily
intercourse with friends and neighbours. And a renewed appreciation for
LOCAL sports and arts. Discovering that one can take as much or more
pleasure from community music, sports and theater, for instance, where
the performers may be well short of world class but where they are
known and recognized, can generate at least as much energy and pleasure
as watching the very best on TV or in impersonal fora.
>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.
Right on, Jay.
Caspar Davis
Victoria, British Columbia
