Robert Wright on optimism | Video on TED.com
We are all in this together - Wright says that a moral revolution is required for humanity to survive the current crises. An awareness that our fate is tied to the fate of others, even to those who may hate us, could help us want to try to understand why they feel as they do, and help us respond in ways that respect their humanity. They may become more able to see our humanity, too, when we go down this path of trying to understand, to see from the others' perspective... "All the salvation of the world requires is the intelligent pursuit of self-interest, in a disciplined, careful way."
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
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
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
Friday, March 12, 2010
We should embody moral precepts in practice (Neurons do)
A deep commitment to moral
principles will resolve the flaws that produce a civilization that is neither
equitable nor sustainable
The Golden Rule requires a strong respect for
human rights, which include rights to property. Respecting property rights
means respecting the right (and duty) of property owners to participate in the
benefits (and responsibilities) of ownership. But we are committing a serious
error when we only pay attention to some of the fundamental human rights that
we can call property rights. We respect private property rights with the
full force of law, while almost completely neglecting questions relating to
ownership and management of public or commons property—the
natural resource wealth of the planet.
Legitimate governments must respect the moral principle that recognizes the Earth and natural resource wealth as a shared legacy, a kind of shared property vested in the people at large. Citizens must create... WE must create... governments that function in a way that ensures that commons or public property rights are respected.
Legitimate governments must respect the moral principle that recognizes the Earth and natural resource wealth as a shared legacy, a kind of shared property vested in the people at large. Citizens must create... WE must create... governments that function in a way that ensures that commons or public property rights are respected.
Ownership
in the Earth, and the benefits and responsibilities of ownership, ought to be
vested within all of us equally. We need a paradigm shift– profound and
sweeping change in our politics and economics. A society that respects public
property rights will require industries that take natural resources or emit
pollution in pursuit of profit to pay money to the people when they take or
degrade that which belongs to all. The amount paid could float up
incrementally, until it is high enough so that businesses have the necessary
incentive to change their practices to bring overall environmental impacts into
line with what most people think is acceptable.
A system of random surveys could reveal whether human-caused impacts of various kinds are being kept within appropriate limits. A democratic society would aim at creating conditions (rates of taking resources or putting pollution) that most people say are about right. If most people felt that there should be more stringent controls on this or that kind of pollution or slower taking of natural resources, we could raise the fees charged to industries that cause these impacts. Our political system would serve as an arbiter between users of natural resources (corporations, primarily) and owners (the people at large). As owners, we will share in the benefits of ownership. We will share the rent proceeds from those environmental impact fees. We'll also share the civic duty to help decide what the overall limits ought to be for various kinds of human impacts on the Earth. Perhaps when we receive our natural wealth stipend, we might also answer a few random survey questions about particular kinds of environmental impacts, or about whether funding for this or that public program or service should be increased or decreased. (Decisions about what programs are deserving of support can be decentralized, vested in the people at large, along with the decisions about what limits on pollution or depletion of resources are acceptable.)
A system of random surveys could reveal whether human-caused impacts of various kinds are being kept within appropriate limits. A democratic society would aim at creating conditions (rates of taking resources or putting pollution) that most people say are about right. If most people felt that there should be more stringent controls on this or that kind of pollution or slower taking of natural resources, we could raise the fees charged to industries that cause these impacts. Our political system would serve as an arbiter between users of natural resources (corporations, primarily) and owners (the people at large). As owners, we will share in the benefits of ownership. We will share the rent proceeds from those environmental impact fees. We'll also share the civic duty to help decide what the overall limits ought to be for various kinds of human impacts on the Earth. Perhaps when we receive our natural wealth stipend, we might also answer a few random survey questions about particular kinds of environmental impacts, or about whether funding for this or that public program or service should be increased or decreased. (Decisions about what programs are deserving of support can be decentralized, vested in the people at large, along with the decisions about what limits on pollution or depletion of resources are acceptable.)
On a thoroughly populated planet, neglect of basic moral principles can make a world of grinding poverty and environmental degradation inevitable. Neglect of public property rights means that extreme poverty can exist alongside great opulence. Neglect of principle means that environmental damage and depletion of resources is more profitable than what would be the case if industries had to pay fees in proportion to pollution put or resource taken.
If citizens of a free and democratic society decide to live and act only in ways consistent with moral principle, we will see a shift in voting patterns toward green and libertarian alternatives (or left-libertarian). This will combine the limits to government action implied by libertarian principles (no first-use of force or coercion by government) with a program agenda that will allow us to fulfill our responsibilities to one another and to the larger community of life on Earth.
Healthy societies require that members give
due regard to the interests and concerns of their fellow members. If we look at
a collection of neurons as a community or society, with members in
communi-cation with and interacting with one another, we may see patterns that
bring to mind some basic principles or rules of social interaction.
Because of the kind of molecular
quantum-machine entity that it is, a neuron has the tendency to 'want'
to be either in a resting state or in a state of steady activity.
A neuron is no more likely to want to remain in a state of being somewhat
active than a ball is likely to 'want' to roll along the mountain crest between
two valleys. Neurons make adjustments in how they interact with their neighbors so
that, if they are operating at a pace that is a bit slower than their most
comfortable steady pace, they will increase their connections to their more
active neighbors. They will then become more active themselves and thereby
approach their ideal steady pace. Conversely, if a neuron is nearly quiet, it
will want to decrease connections with active neighbors so that it can achieve
a more restful state.
But a neuron may not make these discernments
and adjustments only with an “eye” toward what will improve its own state. It
is a decision machine. It decides based on what it perceives of its neighbors'
states. A neuron may try to make its adjustments in a way that allows it to
meet its own goals while also aiding its neighbors in achieving their
goals. There may be several ways that a neuron could adjust its pattern of
connections with its neighbors that would improve its own state. The neuron may
try to make those adjustments that most benefit both itself and its
neighbors. (This would, in turn, benefit the entire community.) Otherwise, any
attempt by one neuron to improve its own state might interfere with or
frustrate the efforts of neighboring neurons in their efforts to improve their
states. By trying to discern which of its neighbors are trying to become more
active, and which are trying to move to a state of rest (then acting
accordingly), a neuron improves the efficiency or functionality of the neural
network and the quality of its output.
[Within each neuron, there are a multitude of
microtubules that can connect with and disconnect from neighboring microtubules
to create, from a large number of possibilities, specific pathways for ions to
travel. Which pathways are chosen determines which synapses will send neurotransmitters
to neighboring neurons. Both the tips of the tubes and the molecules that make
up the walls of these tubes are in a peculiar state of oscillation between
quantum and classical realms. There are recurring moments
when the precise orientation or location of the tube tips are in quantum
super-position. It is as though the tubules were simultaneously connected to
several of their neighbors (and those neighbors to several of their
neighbors, and so on) and were sampling the various possibilities to see which
pathway provides the best 'fit' for the context. The continually-renewed
sampling is a consequence of the oscillation or vibration between quantum and
classical realms. (A similar thing happens in a chlorophyll molecule to find
the best path through which to transfer the energy of a photon.)]
For a neuron, the golden rule says to make
your decisions about how to interact with your neighbors in a way that aids
them in achieving their goals of reaching a more comfortable state. Likewise
for members of human society: We must follow our own Golden Rule to ensure the
proper functioning of our society and civilization. We must act in ways that
show concern for the interests of our fellows. Maybe brains function only
because neurons follow their golden rule. So too should we follow our
Golden Rule, if we seek to establish justice and sustainability as the foundation of a properly functioning global
civilization.
The Golden Rule requires
that we not use government as an instrument to initiate violence or coercion
against any person. We would not want others to use government against us in
this way. We should not support policies that involve government agents
initiating force against peaceful people. Private behavior within private
spaces should not come within the purview of government.
When we learn that our systems of governance
are at odds with our most basic moral precepts, due to our failure to adhere to
principles relating to proper restraints on the use of force, and to principles
relating to the sharing of natural resource wealth—when we learn that our inattention to basic
principles is the cause of abject poverty and
furthermore that it results in a situation where industries profit by squandering resources and degrading environmental quality— we have a moral duty to take steps to remedy the
situation. A different way of thinking about the power and responsibility of
government (and of citizens) could ensure that our political and economic
systems will serve as a foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
What responsibility do our religious
communities have, if any, to address questions of public property rights, to
ensure a sustainable and just civilization?
Where are the voices challenging us to
exercise our moral sense as we form and
participate in our political and economic systems?
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Open Letter to our Secretary of State
Dear Secretary Clinton,
Disparity of wealth and abject poverty in the world today fuel anger and desperation in the dispossessed, and in those who identify with them. This anger and desperation can be exploited by those with an extremist agenda who would use violence to further their aims. To allow grinding poverty to persist, then, threatens our safety. We could change our political and economic systems, to reduce disparity, and to ensure that those on the low end of the income distribution spectrum are assured a significant minimum. By promoting the material security of those who are least secure, we would be promoting the security of all.
We need not violate any of our principles to bring about this change. Indeed, we need only live by our principles more faithfully. Almost everyone believes that the air and water and other natural resources belong to all of us. We could require that a fee be paid by corporations that take or degrade the quality of natural resources. The proceeds of the pollution fees and natural resource user-fees would constitute a monetary representation of the value of Earth's natural resources (including air and water) and could rightly be shared among all people equally. The value of these resources has been estimated at $33 trillion per year.
We should pay more attention to how natural resource wealth is managed and apportioned. We allow those in pursuit of profit to take or degrade natural wealth, but we do not require any compensation be paid to the owners of the resources, the people at large. If we address this inconsistency in our own behavior in relation to our principles, we will solve many social and environmental ills.
Equal sharing of the wealth of the commons would mean about $20 per day for every person on the planet--perhaps enough to make everyone feel that they have a stake in the system and should work to build and improve it, rather than destroy it. (Even those who would not do evil may sit by quietly when they know another is bent on destruction, if they feel that the current system is unjust and unsustainable, and they see no prospect for meaningful change.) We must win the hearts and minds of the world's people if we want them to help build and defend a sustainable civilization, a free and democratic global society.
We must empower the dispossessed. Would they choose a world that impoverishes them? Within a free and democratic society, what kind of world would they make? What kind of world would we make? Each and every one of us should have opportunities to express our opinion in meaningful ways (in ways that make a difference) regarding how much pollution, paving, noise, monoculture, or extraction of limited resources is just too much. Agreement (or lack of agreement) between people's expressed will on these questions on the one hand and the actual conditions in the world on the other could serve as an objective measure of democracy.
This change would bring our society more into accord with our own principles regarding commons property ownership; and with principles regarding responsibility for compensating owners when damage is done or value taken. Human rights (including public and private property rights) are based on moral principle. Moral principles are natural laws that govern social interaction. So a public property rights paradigm can be seen as a major step toward respect of fundamental natural laws.
Economic power based on a shared ownership of natural resource wealth belongs to all of us. Our political and economic systems should reflect this fact.
John Champagne
This letter was posted as a comment in response to a news report at npr.org
Read more of my comments at npr.org
Equal sharing of natural wealth promotes justice and sustainability
More security for the least secure means more security for all
Disparity of wealth and abject poverty in the world today fuel anger and desperation in the dispossessed, and in those who identify with them. This anger and desperation can be exploited by those with an extremist agenda who would use violence to further their aims. To allow grinding poverty to persist, then, threatens our safety. We could change our political and economic systems, to reduce disparity, and to ensure that those on the low end of the income distribution spectrum are assured a significant minimum. By promoting the material security of those who are least secure, we would be promoting the security of all.
We need not violate any of our principles to bring about this change. Indeed, we need only live by our principles more faithfully. Almost everyone believes that the air and water and other natural resources belong to all of us. We could require that a fee be paid by corporations that take or degrade the quality of natural resources. The proceeds of the pollution fees and natural resource user-fees would constitute a monetary representation of the value of Earth's natural resources (including air and water) and could rightly be shared among all people equally. The value of these resources has been estimated at $33 trillion per year.
We should pay more attention to how natural resource wealth is managed and apportioned. We allow those in pursuit of profit to take or degrade natural wealth, but we do not require any compensation be paid to the owners of the resources, the people at large. If we address this inconsistency in our own behavior in relation to our principles, we will solve many social and environmental ills.
Equal sharing of the wealth of the commons would mean about $20 per day for every person on the planet--perhaps enough to make everyone feel that they have a stake in the system and should work to build and improve it, rather than destroy it. (Even those who would not do evil may sit by quietly when they know another is bent on destruction, if they feel that the current system is unjust and unsustainable, and they see no prospect for meaningful change.) We must win the hearts and minds of the world's people if we want them to help build and defend a sustainable civilization, a free and democratic global society.
We must empower the dispossessed. Would they choose a world that impoverishes them? Within a free and democratic society, what kind of world would they make? What kind of world would we make? Each and every one of us should have opportunities to express our opinion in meaningful ways (in ways that make a difference) regarding how much pollution, paving, noise, monoculture, or extraction of limited resources is just too much. Agreement (or lack of agreement) between people's expressed will on these questions on the one hand and the actual conditions in the world on the other could serve as an objective measure of democracy.
This change would bring our society more into accord with our own principles regarding commons property ownership; and with principles regarding responsibility for compensating owners when damage is done or value taken. Human rights (including public and private property rights) are based on moral principle. Moral principles are natural laws that govern social interaction. So a public property rights paradigm can be seen as a major step toward respect of fundamental natural laws.
Economic power based on a shared ownership of natural resource wealth belongs to all of us. Our political and economic systems should reflect this fact.
John Champagne
This letter was posted as a comment in response to a news report at npr.org
Read more of my comments at npr.org
Equal sharing of natural wealth promotes justice and sustainability
More security for the least secure means more security for all
Monday, February 01, 2010
What do we need to know that news media and universities are not telling us?
There is a systemic flaw in our civilization that threatens its stability..
Self-interest dictates that we look for the low price. Enlightened self-interest suggests that prices should tell us the truth about real costs so that we can make well-informed decisions. But we have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse impact caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost-benefit analyses and buying decisions to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things that tend to deplete resources and pollute air and water more than what they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy.
"Economic externalities" (hidden costs) cause us to do the wrong thing. This distortion harms the interests of all of Earth's inhabitants. It causes long-term damage that will harm the interests of future inhabitants, including our own descendants. When markets function with a lack of regard for environmental impacts and quality of life (because natural resource user-fees and pollution fees are not part of the economic calculus), citizens may lose interest in maintaining free markets as an efficient and fair way to allocate resources. Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against an economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing? This defect in our economy disrespects the interests of other inhabitants of this world, and of future generations of humans, by depleting resources that they might rely on and polluting air and water that they need or will need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
We should charge fees to those who degrade environmental quality or take natural wealth in pursuit of profit, and if we believe that natural resource wealth is owned by all equally, then any money paid by users of these resources should go to all the people; to each an equal amount. A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world. We would not only improve the efficiency of markets and of our whole economic system in terms of natural resources used, we would also improve the fairness of markets by making access to them (in the form of economic power) more universal across the human population. When natural resource wealth is shared equally, disparity of wealth becomes a much smaller problem.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral to acquiesce in a system that gives, at most, mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that idea in reality. If more efficient management and more fair accounting of natural resource wealth (which is necessary as a foundation of a sustainable civilization) would bring an end to abject poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms. … I hope a reporter or editor somewhere can explain why this analysis is flawed; or start accounting for natural resource wealth in their reporting.
Minimum Wage versus Minimum Income
Gaia Brain paradigm: Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere
Self-interest dictates that we look for the low price. Enlightened self-interest suggests that prices should tell us the truth about real costs so that we can make well-informed decisions. But we have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse impact caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost-benefit analyses and buying decisions to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things that tend to deplete resources and pollute air and water more than what they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy.
"Economic externalities" (hidden costs) cause us to do the wrong thing. This distortion harms the interests of all of Earth's inhabitants. It causes long-term damage that will harm the interests of future inhabitants, including our own descendants. When markets function with a lack of regard for environmental impacts and quality of life (because natural resource user-fees and pollution fees are not part of the economic calculus), citizens may lose interest in maintaining free markets as an efficient and fair way to allocate resources. Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against an economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing? This defect in our economy disrespects the interests of other inhabitants of this world, and of future generations of humans, by depleting resources that they might rely on and polluting air and water that they need or will need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
We should charge fees to those who degrade environmental quality or take natural wealth in pursuit of profit, and if we believe that natural resource wealth is owned by all equally, then any money paid by users of these resources should go to all the people; to each an equal amount. A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world. We would not only improve the efficiency of markets and of our whole economic system in terms of natural resources used, we would also improve the fairness of markets by making access to them (in the form of economic power) more universal across the human population. When natural resource wealth is shared equally, disparity of wealth becomes a much smaller problem.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral to acquiesce in a system that gives, at most, mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that idea in reality. If more efficient management and more fair accounting of natural resource wealth (which is necessary as a foundation of a sustainable civilization) would bring an end to abject poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms. … I hope a reporter or editor somewhere can explain why this analysis is flawed; or start accounting for natural resource wealth in their reporting.
Minimum Wage versus Minimum Income
Gaia Brain paradigm: Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Biodiversity as a public good
The decision regarding the extent to which humans shall disturb the larger community of life should be a collective decision.
A basic principle of property rights requires that those who degrade the value of others' property will compensate the owners for the damage done or value lost. If we believe that we all own the air and water in common, then we should require industries that cause pollution to pay a fee to the people at large, because their actions degrade the quality of that which belongs to all of us. We should respect public property rights, too.
Destruction of meadows and forests for conversion to monoculture farmland, pasture, paving and structures adversely impacts environmental quality. It would make sense to assess a fee on monoculture, paving and other kinds of land-use, to counteract the economic incentives that encourage destruction of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. The most appropriate fee would be a fee that is just high enough to ensure that destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity are not carried to an extent that most people would say is excessive.
A basic principle of property rights requires that those who degrade the value of others' property will compensate the owners for the damage done or value lost. If we believe that we all own the air and water in common, then we should require industries that cause pollution to pay a fee to the people at large, because their actions degrade the quality of that which belongs to all of us. We should respect public property rights, too.
Destruction of meadows and forests for conversion to monoculture farmland, pasture, paving and structures adversely impacts environmental quality. It would make sense to assess a fee on monoculture, paving and other kinds of land-use, to counteract the economic incentives that encourage destruction of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. The most appropriate fee would be a fee that is just high enough to ensure that destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity are not carried to an extent that most people would say is excessive.
Defining a limit to the overall extent to which humans encroach on the larger community of life could mean a more democratic society. Would most citizens prefer that we define such a limit? If most people feel that an appropriate limit would be more strict than what is allowed under current practice, a survey question could ask what percent reduction per year of paving, monoculture or pasture (or what rate of advancement of untrammeled wildlife habitat) would be an acceptable rate of improvement toward the goal (that is, toward the point where the conditions that manifest in reality match average opinion about what is acceptable).
A random survey is a versatile tool. We can use random polls to gauge the extent to which we should protect habitat and preserve biodiversity. We can also use them to gauge the relative value to society of various kinds of land-use. If a majority of citizens polled said that monoculture dedicated to production of sugar cane or tobacco or opium contributed to adverse impacts on wildlife and that such monoculture supported excessive consumption of sugar or cigarettes or heroin, to the detriment of the human community at large, we might attach a higher fee to monoculture dedicated to growing these crops. We could thereby manage the overall prevalence in society of sugar, tobacco, heroin (and other potentially harmful substances) without the need to take a war-like or militaristic stance or police action against individual citizens who choose to use certain substances within their private spaces.
A random survey is a versatile tool. We can use random polls to gauge the extent to which we should protect habitat and preserve biodiversity. We can also use them to gauge the relative value to society of various kinds of land-use. If a majority of citizens polled said that monoculture dedicated to production of sugar cane or tobacco or opium contributed to adverse impacts on wildlife and that such monoculture supported excessive consumption of sugar or cigarettes or heroin, to the detriment of the human community at large, we might attach a higher fee to monoculture dedicated to growing these crops. We could thereby manage the overall prevalence in society of sugar, tobacco, heroin (and other potentially harmful substances) without the need to take a war-like or militaristic stance or police action against individual citizens who choose to use certain substances within their private spaces.
(We could require that the buying and selling of some substances be kept every bit as private as the use of them. No public spaces--no places open to the public--need have such markets operating, if the people at large choose to adopt such a standard. Users of heroin or cocaine would need to join a private club and be discrete, away from public view. Parents' interest in shielding young children from the worst of bad influences can be protected.)
In our not-so-distant evolutionary past, certain foods were quite rare, but necessary and highly beneficial to those who could find them. Our taste buds and our psychology are adapted to ensure that we are highly motivated to seek out these previously scarce, high-energy foods. But following the development of agriculture and modern economic systems, scarcity of these high-energy, high-value foods is no longer a reality, while our physiological and psychological appetites for them remain strong.
A fee system could ensure that the mix of foods produced by our agricultural system more closely matches what most nutritionists and most people would agree is a more healthful balance. With a different political and economic paradigm (one able to put a general damper on excess production and consumption by assessing fees on specific types of land-use or other environmental impact), we could see improvements in personal health, along with substantially improved ecological health.
Fees attached to the cultivation of plants that most members of society feel ought to be grown only in limited amounts would make the products derived from these plants more expensive than what would be the case in the absence of any controls. But the extra profits associated with those higher prices would go to all the world's people as part of a natural wealth stipend. This method of control would not support black market profiteering or corruption of law enforcement and other public officials, as current methods of control do.
The threat of legal sanctions against people who use controlled substances in private spaces, including the threat of lengthy (and costly) prison sentences, would be removed. This would make it easier for people with substance abuse problems to seek help when they recognize that they do, in fact, have a problem.
A system of fees can be applied generally as an efficient and fair way to control pollution, to manage rates of taking of natural resources, and to end abject poverty in the world (through equal sharing of fee proceeds to all). An equal, modest payment to all people would mean that workers would have more flexibility in choosing their place of employment. The prospect of being unemployed would no longer bring the threat of becoming destitute (as it does within the current system), because (a monetary representation of) natural wealth will be shared equally.
With a modest income going to all people based on shared natural wealth, a slowing economy would not bring calls for injection of additional money into circulation that are often heard during periods of economic contraction. Monetary stimulus (printing more money) is corrosive to the stability of economic systems generally, as it fuels inflation and tends to stimulate production beyond what is sustainable and what is needed by the human economy and society.
The ultimate limits to human economic activity are the physical limits that are imposed by the nature of the world we live in. If we exceed limits of what is sustainable for an extended period of time, civilization will collapse. Stimulating the economy by inflating the money supply means that the overall size of the economy grows, and demands on natural resources increase, taking us closer to these physical limits (or farther beyond them, as the case may be). Conversely, fees assessed on those actions that move us closer to (or farther beyond) those natural limits (actions that tend to use up resources and foreclose future opportunities) can moderate the prevalence and intensity of potentially harmful human activities. Fees can prevent excessive growth of economic activity that could otherwise bring the economy to the point where it becomes detrimental to the larger community of life; detrimental to climate stability; harmful to future generations, etc.
In our not-so-distant evolutionary past, certain foods were quite rare, but necessary and highly beneficial to those who could find them. Our taste buds and our psychology are adapted to ensure that we are highly motivated to seek out these previously scarce, high-energy foods. But following the development of agriculture and modern economic systems, scarcity of these high-energy, high-value foods is no longer a reality, while our physiological and psychological appetites for them remain strong.
A fee system could ensure that the mix of foods produced by our agricultural system more closely matches what most nutritionists and most people would agree is a more healthful balance. With a different political and economic paradigm (one able to put a general damper on excess production and consumption by assessing fees on specific types of land-use or other environmental impact), we could see improvements in personal health, along with substantially improved ecological health.
Fees attached to the cultivation of plants that most members of society feel ought to be grown only in limited amounts would make the products derived from these plants more expensive than what would be the case in the absence of any controls. But the extra profits associated with those higher prices would go to all the world's people as part of a natural wealth stipend. This method of control would not support black market profiteering or corruption of law enforcement and other public officials, as current methods of control do.
The threat of legal sanctions against people who use controlled substances in private spaces, including the threat of lengthy (and costly) prison sentences, would be removed. This would make it easier for people with substance abuse problems to seek help when they recognize that they do, in fact, have a problem.
A system of fees can be applied generally as an efficient and fair way to control pollution, to manage rates of taking of natural resources, and to end abject poverty in the world (through equal sharing of fee proceeds to all). An equal, modest payment to all people would mean that workers would have more flexibility in choosing their place of employment. The prospect of being unemployed would no longer bring the threat of becoming destitute (as it does within the current system), because (a monetary representation of) natural wealth will be shared equally.
With a modest income going to all people based on shared natural wealth, a slowing economy would not bring calls for injection of additional money into circulation that are often heard during periods of economic contraction. Monetary stimulus (printing more money) is corrosive to the stability of economic systems generally, as it fuels inflation and tends to stimulate production beyond what is sustainable and what is needed by the human economy and society.
The ultimate limits to human economic activity are the physical limits that are imposed by the nature of the world we live in. If we exceed limits of what is sustainable for an extended period of time, civilization will collapse. Stimulating the economy by inflating the money supply means that the overall size of the economy grows, and demands on natural resources increase, taking us closer to these physical limits (or farther beyond them, as the case may be). Conversely, fees assessed on those actions that move us closer to (or farther beyond) those natural limits (actions that tend to use up resources and foreclose future opportunities) can moderate the prevalence and intensity of potentially harmful human activities. Fees can prevent excessive growth of economic activity that could otherwise bring the economy to the point where it becomes detrimental to the larger community of life; detrimental to climate stability; harmful to future generations, etc.
Fees charged to industry proportional to pollution and resource extraction can dampen the upswing and excesses of an overheating economy, while equal sharing of fee proceeds can ensure that recessions do not become so deep that they threaten the viability of the system. With confidence bolstered by a natural wealth stipend, all people will continue to spend in support of basic needs. An economic slowdown will never mean a risk of severe depression or collapse of society.
This proposal assumes that the decision of how we ought to balance the amount of the Earth's surface dedicated to monoculture and paving on the one hand versus meadows and forests on the other hand belongs to all of us. It reflects the view that ownership of the decision about how we ought to balance overall production levels of various kinds of food belongs to all of us. (We can manifest these shared rights to decide these questions in the big picture without intrusive regulation of individuals' personal choices.) The responsibility for deciding how much sugar to produce or how much habitat to destroy does not rest solely with the minority who are landowners.
Our current system encourages economic actors to destroy wildlife habitat for many reasons, including to make room for growing crops for biomass, to support biofuels production. A public property rights paradigm will embody within the structure of our political and economic systems the understanding that bio-diversity is more valuable than bio-mass.
A Capitalism-Communism Synthesis
Natural law requires respect of public property rights, too
Systemic flaws are not reported
This proposal assumes that the decision of how we ought to balance the amount of the Earth's surface dedicated to monoculture and paving on the one hand versus meadows and forests on the other hand belongs to all of us. It reflects the view that ownership of the decision about how we ought to balance overall production levels of various kinds of food belongs to all of us. (We can manifest these shared rights to decide these questions in the big picture without intrusive regulation of individuals' personal choices.) The responsibility for deciding how much sugar to produce or how much habitat to destroy does not rest solely with the minority who are landowners.
Our current system encourages economic actors to destroy wildlife habitat for many reasons, including to make room for growing crops for biomass, to support biofuels production. A public property rights paradigm will embody within the structure of our political and economic systems the understanding that bio-diversity is more valuable than bio-mass.
A Capitalism-Communism Synthesis
Natural law requires respect of public property rights, too
Systemic flaws are not reported
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)