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 wildlife habitat. 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 loss of habitat. The most appropriate fee would be a fee that is just high enough to ensure that loss of habitat is 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 set a limit? If most people feel that an appropriate limit would be more strict than what we see currently, 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. 

(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 in the form 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.


Biological Model for Politics and Economics

@TallPhilosopher - John Champagne on X

Who should decide how to spend public funds?

 Respect for civic duty should not require citizens to support that which offends their conscience.

Hardly a day goes by that we do not hear another news report about law enforcement officers (who are supposed-to-be public servants) violently assaulting the citizens who they are supposed to be protecting. (Until editors decide that the story is old and they move on to the next hot topic. Then we'll likely see those reports only if we look for them, or if an incident sparks an uprising.)

We need law enforcement agencies that the people can trust. Citizens must feel free to communicate with police officers and other public officials when they see problems, and they must feel that talking to law enforcement about criminal behavior will help bring positive results. This requires high levels of trust in the police. It requires that the people trust that the law is fair.

Hardly a day passes that does not bring new reports of corruption by elected and appointed officials somewhere in the world. Corruption anywhere is a threat to civil society everywhere because if we fail to create systems of government that are honest and responsive, we will suffer further erosion of trust in the integrity and value of our civil institutions. There will be some segment of the population that is more prone to being seduced by claims of a pure, perfect ideology, an alternative system, if the established order is in decline. Any fundamentalist, reactionary ideology that is prominently opposing the establishment will appear more attractive when contrasted with an unsustainable and corrupt system [even though the competing, reactionary ideology would bring its own (less visible to adherents) systemic defects.]

In order to thrive, our society requires healthy institutions that have the people's trust. We need to be confident that governments and public officials are operating in the public interest.

Would we be better-off with an alternative political paradigm that puts public funds directly into the hands of the people? Or, should we allow citizens the option of withholding funds from that which offends their conscience? Each of us might be allowed latitude to decide where we believe our tax money is being misused. We could withdraw funds from those uses and redirect them toward support of that which we think, and most other people think, will better-benefit society. If I spend my share of public funds on things that, say, 50% of citizens feel promote the public interest, we could be pretty sure that my choices, whatever they are, will, in fact, promote the public interest at least somewhat and probably quite a bit. We can use public random surveys to know what the people at large think regarding this or that public service (to find out to what extent people think particular services produce benefit for society and the environment).

We can create a paradigm that, in its very operation, directs people's attention to the question of how public funds are being and should be used. Imagine surveys that ask where more public funds should be directed, and where we should reduce public spending. Imagine random polls that show examples of people performing actions that aim to promote public interests. Shown in pairs, one randomly-selected example might be thought by most survey respondents to show a greater benefit than another. Spending can be directed primarily to providers of services that are most highly rated in this A/B testing.

The results of the A/B test surveys can inform our actions when we decide to withhold funding from something we think is offensive or counter-productive. What we shift the funds to would need to rate more highly in these tests.

We could allow an even greater role for taxpayers, beyond withholding and shifting funds. Citizens could decide the allocation of their entire contribution to public spending, if they choose to engage in the process in greater depth. For example, if I put a large fraction (say 80%) of my tax payments toward support of programs and projects that eight-out-of-ten citizens agree promote the public interest, I might be allowed more latitude in deciding how to use the remaining amount (in this example, 20%). The requirement could be that I use the remaining amount to support programs that 20% of citizens agree promote the public interest. 

This question of what might benefit the community is a really big question, and one about which  reasonable people will disagree. Within this paradigm, the most widely-supported programs would receive the bulk of the public dollars (or distributed-ledger crypto-currency), while other programs (more controversial or experimental programs, perhaps) would have access to reduced but still significant amounts of public funding.

If this idea of dispersing public policy decisions to all people is adopted more generally, we could manage environmental impacts in ways that are in accord with what most people think is acceptable. If we take a survey and learn that most people think we would be better-off and that our children would be better-off if we were to reduce carbon emissions by, say, 40% over the next ten years and 40% more in the decade after that, then we should have a policy that would bring about that reduction (about 5.5% per year). We can assume that some people would want a greater-than-40% reduction, while others would want less-rapid reduction or no reduction. Forty percent in ten years might reflect the median or average opinion about what is acceptable. The amount endorsed by average opinion would be the amount appropriate for a democratic society.

We could issue permits for fossil carbon emissions (or for extraction of carbon) and auction the permits in a free market. The number of permits offered would correspond to what most people think is acceptable. We can apply this idea to the management of all kinds of human impact on the environment.

When the decision of how to spend public funds is put into the hands of the people at large, no person will be forced to support a program with which they have a philosophical disagreement. With a sliding-scale criterion for eligibility, there would be no hard cut-off point for access to funds. No program manager would have reason to be overly-concerned about achieving a particular qualifying score (50%, for example). Instead, all managers and providers of public services would have an abiding interest in improving their service or efficiency, regardless of their current position on a public approval ratings scale.

Within such a paradigm, we might expect to see broad support for public sponsorship of secular (non-sectarian) schools, public parks, libraries, scientific research, public health services and responsible law enforcement.

Imagine a public school system that allows students access to a budget that they can use to 'purchase' time at hands-on activities vs. lecture/discussion vs. art/music, gardening, etc. There is no reason why schools cannot create more than one environment for students to participate in that will nurture their development. We might have some students attending some lectures, engaging in some hands-on learning, some art, every day, while others participate mostly in (lower cost) lecture/discussion for three weeks straight in order to save up funds to be able to go on a spectacular field trip.

One clear advantage of secular (non-religious) schools  is that we would be less likely or not-at-all likely to find the teaching of an 'us-vs-them' mentality. We would be more likely to see expressions of the idea that we are all Earthlings. We must work together to make a healthy global community and to effectively meet the great challenges that confront us.

Biological Model for Politics and Economics

@TallPhilosopher I'm not using Twitter so much, after learning that my replies were being relegated to the 'Offensive Tweets' backwater.

Discussion at Kialo: Discretionary taxation