Biological Model for Politics and Economics

Human Society as Neural Network

A truly democratic political system would provide opportunities for citizens to share their opinions (information) about what they believe to be acceptable levels of pollution, rates of depletion of resources, extent of paving or monoculture, etc. As members of an advanced technological society, we have a collective duty to share in deciding limits to harmful impacts on the environment. In a democratic society, opinions about what limits are acceptable would be conveyed to the economic actors (e.g.: corporations; consumers) who produce the various kinds of impacts on the Earth. This information about what people want would be conveyed in a way so as to affect the behavior of business planners and consumers.

If most of the people polled in a random survey express the opinion that there is too much of some type of pollution or too-rapid depletion of a certain kind of natural resource, then industries should change the amount of the pollutant they emit or the rate at which they take the natural resource. A democratic society could use a system of random polls to gather opinions on the whole range of different kinds of impacts on the environment. (The random poll is a practical alternative to an impossible policy of asking all people for opinions about all kinds of human impacts on the environment.)

In an economic system, information is conveyed and value is represented by money. If the signal that the people want to send to industry is that we value clean air and water so much that we feel it is necessary for industries to try harder to avoid fouling the air and water, then the most efficient and fair way to communicate this information is to attach a fee to those actions that are causing the detrimental impact. If most people responding to a survey feel that a particular pollutant should be more strictly limited, then imposing a fee or raising the fee charged to those who emit that pollutant would give a signal to industry and would provide an incentive to try harder to reduce that kind of environmental impact. The expressed will of the people would be borne out in reality.

If a random survey shows that most people feel that a particular kind of pollution is not a problem and that it would be OK to allow more of it, then the associated fee should be reduced. Reducing or removing the fee would send a signal to industry that they need not try so hard to limit that type of environmental impact. When pollution or resource depletion or noise or other potentially harmful impact is not a problem, then a lower fee or no fee makes sense. Attention and resources can then be turned toward more pressing concerns.

A fee is a straightforward way for society to manage pollution and the taking of scarce natural resources. Alternately, free market auctions of a limited number of natural resource user-permits could be used as a way to make industries pay a price when they cause adverse impacts on the environment.

The auction price of user-permits (or the appropriate fees) would make environmental impacts cost what society collectively decides they must cost in order to cause industry to put the necessary amount of effort into conservation and pollution prevention. 'Necessary effort' is the amount of effort required to bring overall impacts to levels that most people find acceptable. Permits offered (or the fee amounts imposed) would reflect the "supply" of environmental impacts, according to what most people are willing to allow--what average opinion consents to.

In a society that respects public property rights, each person would receive a monetary payment equal to their share of the value of natural resources taken by corporate interests in pursuit of economic gain. Fee proceeds would go to all people, to each an equal amount.

Biomass is increasingly being used as fuel. Fuel prices will increase in the coming years, as fossil fuels become more scarce and as governments enact policies to reduce carbon emissions. There will be more pressure to convert meadows and forests (what is left of them) into cropland to produce biofuels. Also, some farmers who now grow food will switch from food crops to fuel crops. These changes will push food prices higher.

Higher prices for food and new markets for biofuels will mean more incentive for farmers to destroy wildlife habitat to grow more food and fuel. But a public property rights paradigm could mean less incentive for farmers to destroy meadows and forests.

If we were to decide as a society that monoculture cropland adversely impacts ecological health because it involves the destruction of diverse ecosystems and wildlife habitat, then we could also decide (using a random survey) what limit on the overall extent of monoculture is most appropriate. In a democratic society, we can identify the 'most appropriate limit' as that which reflects the will of the largest number of people. We could charge a fee to landowners who convert diverse communities of life to monoculture cropland (or who maintain monoculture or paving or other impervious cover on landscape that otherwise could support a diverse ecosystem). We could charge such a fee, and we should charge the fee, if most people surveyed feel that disruption and destruction of wildlife habitat has been carried to excess and should be curtailed. The policy would incorporate into the price system the idea that a diverse ecosystem, a healthy community of life, is valuable.

A public property rights paradigm would decrease social instability caused by poverty and wealth disparity. Equal sharing of proceeds from environmental impact fees (equal sharing of the value to the economy of natural resource wealth) becomes a simple and direct way to reduce the hardship caused by rising food prices. Increasing cost of food hurts the poor and dispossessed the most, of course, because they spend a larger portion of their total budget on food and they are scarcely able to reduce their need for nourishment as the price goes up. But an equal payment to all people in the form of a natural wealth stipend helps the poor more than it helps the wealthy. By expanding our respect  for property rights to include public property rights, we make a more equitable society. If we end poverty by sharing (a monetary representation of) natural wealth, there will be no need for a social welfare bureaucracy to decide who is in an advantaged group and who is disadvantaged.

Sharing natural wealth would promote economic stability because a natural wealth stipend will assure every citizen that, even if they lose their job due to economic slowdown or technological change, they will maintain some economic wherewithal in the form of their natural wealth stipend. A complete loss of economic confidence and a precipitous drop in spending on essentials by unemployed individuals (a positive-feedback trap common to economic crises) simply cannot occur under any circumstance in a society where natural wealth is shared among all citizens.

This paradigm that has natural resource wealth being owned by all people equally promotes justice by eliminating extreme poverty and reducing disparity of wealth. It also embodies within the economic structure the awareness that biodiversity is more valuable than biomass.

Within this paradigm, expressions of opinion by the people about what are the most appropriate limits on human transformation of the Earth would directly influence the things people do that affect the human community and that impact the larger community of life. Similarly, signals from neurons in biological brains affect the behavior of other neurons, and they affect conditions in the larger organism. A system of fees on those human activities that people feel are harmful or should be limited would function as an autonomic nervous system for Earth. 

Environmental impact fees could also be seen as a sensory nervous system for the planet, reducing and preventing injury to the Earth. (This view sees a healthy civilization as part of a larger Earth system, and too-rapid depletion of resources as threatening the continued stability of that civilization. So injury to the Earth can be seen in terms beyond whatever stress or damage might be inflicted on the larger community of life.) 

By making prices honest and sharing natural wealth, we become not a cancer on the Earth, fouling and depleting resources beyond what is sustainable for ourselves and for the larger community of life. Instead, we become more like brain cells for a healthy planet, with an economy that functions within limits that the larger ecological system can support. Accounting for externalities in an efficient and fair way would help to maintain a healthy ecological balance.


Neurons, as members of a community, help themselves by helping their neighbors

Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights along with PRIVATE property rights