Comments on:
Institutions, Infrastructure, and Schooling
Comments on Worldview and Vision
Here are my initial comments: (1) I agree with all - good job. (2) Need to address dismantling current infrastructure for nuclear power and weapons.
_____
Some great stuff here. I would warn against making assertions about what will be, versus making positive statements about how we would like things to be. For example, under "communities" the statement claims that "People walking together in the same direction naturally converse, establishing friendships, informing each other of current events, and discussing issues of relevance to the community. Obviously, none of the framers of this document have ever lived in New York City, or any large walking city, for that matter. Walking together in the same direction does none of the above. However, we would like people to converse, establish friendships, and inform each other in a public setting. We need to think harder about how to get there.
I am also worried about statements like "Industry will be forced to redirect some of its technological prowess towards making our days..." seven and a half pages of sustainable visions, social democracy, etc., and suddenly industry is shaping our workdays? This feels poorly thought out and inconsistent with the rest of the vision. How can an ecologically unsustainable and socially undemocratic institution like modern industry be imagined into this new world? Be careful.
Finally, we live in the United States of America. Our nation's name is not America, our continent and the continent below ours is named America. We are United States citizens. We are also Americans, but so too are Argentineans, Peruvians, Mexicans, Canadians, etc. My friends and family in the south resent the arrogance of United States citizens appropriating the entire two continents of the western hemisphere as their own. I would thus recommend either, a) expanding this vision to include all of America, or using the more accurate description of our nation. (Also, I might add, the unsustainability of the modern nation state does seem to make this vision for the United States a little short sighted).
Thanks!
Kent
_____
To the (co)creators of the ESDA vision, This is beautiful, absolutely beautiful, and i wish the endeavor the greatest success. Almost every day I hear of another group such as this one with a focus on creating a positive, less egoic future for mankind and even all of Gaia. The ESDA vision is particularly comprehensive, grounded, and most importantly, connected to the root truth of egoity (or the illusion of separateness)as the source of our woes and so I am particularly happy and inspired to have come across the ESDA group. I am convinced that efforts such as these have a tremendous power in actually helping create the positive future we all desire. When we meditate on the negative conditions we wish to change, I believe we actually perpetuate them, whereas, when we meditate on the changed, positive condition then we actually help to create it.
From the position of my community in Spokane, WA, I am involved in planetary improvement in several forms, and would like to happily contribute some thoughts in the hopes that they may enhance the collective work we are all doing. First then, I believe the draft paper is working from a solid foundation in addressing (even if only somewhat explicitly) egoity as the root of all problems, be they political, emotional, or environmental. The overcoming of the illusion of separateness is at the heart of all advanced religious traditions, and should begin to be understood in a fairly sophisticated way by all humans. This is the fundamental tool for all positive change, and I believe the ESDA has it and should continue to make the point more explicit. For writings on the relation of egoity to current world affairs, I would direct anyone interested to the writings of my Spiritual Guru, Avatar Adi Da Samraj. He has written, and continues to write, extensively on the plight of our current planetary situation and how it is all tied to the unchecked egoity of our species. Particularly relevant essays can be found at www.adidam.org/gateway/society/peace/peace.htm. On the same website are essays on our need to re-establish community from the standpoint of non-egoity, and many other similar topics addressed in the ESDA paper. I hope that these may provide inspiration and perhaps some new insights to the work of ESDA.
Second, I really, really, liked reading the section on community. For some time I have craved deeply to live in a communal, community setting more in line with traditional human societies and the detailed descriptions of daily life in the future communities rings so true that I can almost imagine living in this world. What deserves elaboration, however, is the sacred aspect of the community. I realize it may be beyond the scope of this project to get too close to religion, but it should be acknowledged on some level that the foundation of any community is their ultimate orientation to reality, which is really just the worldview, but if a worldview of non-egoity (or that at least affirms some sublime beauty in all of existence) then there will be some sort of religious orientation at the heart of the community. Let that be integrated into the project as it may.
Thirdly, I believe it will be important at some point to change the calendrical system used by our civilization. The 12:60 gregorian timing system seems to me to go hand in hand with the mechanistic worldview that has taken all sacredness from nature and threatened the very existence of our planet. A fundamental element of change then, will be the re-adoption of more natural means of keeping time, something more akin to systems used by indigenous populations. I have been for some time following the Dreamspell calendar developed by Dr. Jose and Lloydine Arguelles and believe this to be the system that would most greatly benefit our growth. It is based on the 13:20 calendrical systems of the Maya and many other indigenous peoples, and in contrast to the meaningless 12:60 system, is deeply resonant with the cosmos and draws out connection to the natural world. Information on this system, and the need for calendar reform in general, can be found at www.tortuga.com www.earthascending.com and www.public.usit.net/jaybones/dreamspell.html. Again, do with this as you will, and as is appropriate to the specific tasks of ESDA, but please be aware of the need for a fundamental change in our calendar system and also of the Dreamspell scene as a part of the positive futures community.
Lastly, given the increasing number of groups such as this devoted to a positive future, it would seem appropriate at some point to have some sort of global council of visionaries or some sort of organization that could be a unifying umbrella to all of them and therefore maximize the work we're all doing and minimize repetition, etc. The groups that I know of that would be included are: the rainbow family, the aforementioned Dreamspell crowd, and the Global Renaissance Alliance. These are three major ones, but there are many more that could be drawn into the fray very easily and happily, groups like the 'Bear Tribe', Unitarian Universalists, Bahai, and many, many others who would all jointly benefit through some formal dialogue with one another.
It has been a joy reading your work and writing this letter, and I look forward to participating with ESDA in every way that I can. If there is any specific way I could be of service, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With Love and the shared Hope of a Beautiful World,
Noah
_____
I commend your group's efforts and I pray that as global citizens we can eventually reach important and necessary goals.
I believe that Americans can and should "embrace a world vision" . . . however, before we can move forward and join any sort of meaningful discussion and strategy with other countries, we (USA) must have the vision for our country (including making inroads through our cracked and broken political process) in tact.
It is strange to me that our politicians, especially given the year 2000 "New Millennium" opportunity, never even identified a list of ideas as to where and how the country should move forward in the next century. what do we want for our people? what kind of economy will work to ensure the health, not only of the population but also of the environment . . . to recognize the absolute NEED for diversity in ALL places, in all things, to embarce this as HEALTHY for a nation . . . as much as one's personal diet needs to be diversified, so too do we need diversity in population, in labor (i.e., we cannot thrive with the loss of many and varied small businesses, and especially NOT without our manufacturing base), in our economy, in income, in species, in land use, etc. I believe that the problem with "globalization" is that it limits diversity which will not only give us (and others) an unhealthy country, but, of course too, ultimately, an unhealthy planet. . .
An economy with 10% wealth and 80% poor (or whatever the unbalanced percentages may be) is unhealthy, and it does not take an economist to point out the need for varied levels of income, types of work, etc. as critical to a nation's health. The US as simply a "service-economy" will never work, it is unhealthy for the nation in the same way a diet of potatoes would be unhealthy for the body . . .
We should be asking "What are the necessary ingredients for a healthy nation?"
After each country finishes with that question, then we can move on to a global level.
_____
Please accept my compliments for the visioning exercise.
This is an excellent approach. I'll review the groups' suggestions over the next week.
One suggestion now, though, I wonder if it might be more productive to include all points of view in this dialogue, including overt growth economists and apocalyptic religionists? I know this would make the process more difficult and would require compromise but could it make it more politically effective?
I make this suggestion based on my work in conflict resolution and knowing that resolution is difficult, if not impossible, unless all sides are at the table. Mediation seeks to both resolve the conflict and preserve relationships. Litigation can lead to a resolution but it's a win/lose situation and relationships are inevitably severed.
Can we afford to severe our relationships with those who could help us even though many of us feel that there is no hope of changing their views. We must remember, though, that those who subscribe to fundamentalism, whether it be economic or religious, actually believe in their values and they simply become defensive when we challenge them.
Once again, accept my compliments. This is a good approach and, regardless of what happens, it can't possibly hurt.
Tim
_____
Hello. I would like a future that smells good! Where there is a science of joy. Where there is meaning of life. I will tell you more later. Meanwhile, please make sure that you look at similar endeavour mostly from europe: http://www.2100.org/index.html. A future where men's issues are OK. Where children have the right to both parents.
Sincerely, claude
_____
I am intrigued by your efforts at envisioning and creating a sustainable future, and would be delighted to participate in any way that I can. I am an anthropologist with interests in sustainability and global issues. I was intrigued also by your vision statement, which I first saw via Rachel's Environment and Health News. It resembled in many ways the final chapter of a book revision that I recently completed (enclosed).
Richard
Visit the Web Site for the Study of Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism: http://www.plattsburgh.edu/legacy
New! The Online Global Problems Reader http://www.plattsburgh.edu/legacy/gpr.htm
_____
Here are some suggestions of what can make possible the vision statement:
1. get rid of Bush-Cheney in any legal manner;
2. put in place and implement enforceable population policies EVERYWHERE in the world;
3.reject outworn assumptions concerning economic growth (see current issue of Worldwatch magazine (Vol 14(5));
4. tax the entire USA population for overconsumption;
5. raise the price of gasoline to at least $4.00/gal; with the tax money subsidize construction of efficient urban public transport;
6. close public rangelands to private use, especially for cattle;
7. tax polluters--heavily
Thanks for your efforts. For a briefer description of a more sustainable future, check out http://www.ssne.org/VisionTextLong.htm
Paul
_____
I am amazed that you think that there should be single "vision" driven by "concerned citizens" of the USA for an environmental sustainability. Why not many, many small visions? The globe has been under the yoke of the vision of industrialism for 200 years. It doesn't seem that it has been a very good deal, for most.
I suggest you look closely at Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem" and in particular at discussions relating it to social systems. Everysystem inevitably generates problems for which it cannot develop solutions.
I fear greatly a "grand vision" designed to fit everyone. The Catholic church has been doing this for 2000 years. Hasn't worked yet!
Michael
_____
Even the beginning of that vision statement is too long in the tooth. You might try something more like this:
1. The Bill of Rights and the rule of law, including the bankruptcy code, to apply everywhere. Individual rights to be MORE important and MORE jealously guarded, not, as your group proposes, less. Most of the world's problems result from giving primacy to the "rights" of governments and corporations.
2. Sports, not warts.
3. Increase production of sustainable agriculture to 50%, then 75% of total.
4. Reduce the trashpile's rate of growth in 5 stages to zero; begin reducing total size of trashpile.
5. Make corporations and their employees criminally accountable for crimes (like war crimes tribunal), not just liable in a civil suit, as they are now. (See my novel beloved Gravely (Scribner's, 1984) for a brief analysis of problems caused by "the secret king.") (Their chemicals killed you? Then try them for murder.)
6. Reduce influence of corporations on government by restricting political donations and lobbying contributions to human beings.
7. Give corporations a fixed lifespan (3 score and ten?), subject them to an inheritance tax to reduce their advantage over human beings.
8. Open borders and freedom to travel, live and work with minimum of red tape.
_____
In the paragraph on re-establishing a spiritual connection to nature, I like the overall concept. However, it would be helpful to be more specific or concrete in the phrase that humans must "obey the laws imposed by nature". That could mean so many different things to so many different people, it seems almost meaningless to me. Hard to envision how anything could be clearly implemented from that dictum as currently stated.
In the next paragraph, I like the concept of inherent complexity, and the implicit advocacy of the precautionary principle. Perhaps the precautionary principle could be referenced.
The next paragraph on individualism could be more precise and palatable to civil libertarians such as myself if a modifier such as the word "physical" were inserted in the 3rd sentence after the word "negative". The effect of such a clarification would be that individualism that had only a moral context would be tolerated, or even encouraged, but that when it effected us physically, then a line might be drawn. If such a distinction is not made, then endless arguments would likely ensue about what "negative impact to community" means. The Right to Life community,e.g., would interpret that abortion has a very detrimental impact on our community. I can't imagine we would want to become embroiled in the abortion debate, e.g., in this vision creation.
In the last paragraph in which a steady state economy is described, I would advocate for a clarification of the sentence "The economy will be solar powered". I am not an expert in this area of energy, but wouldn't it be clearer to the lay public such as myself if we replaced the phrase "solar powered" with something like "powered in a sustainable way"? That then would clearly include wind power, hydrogen power cells, geothermal, and other sustainable processes of energy production which might not be normally considered "solar". If it is our intention to exclude nuclear, due to safety considerations, then perhaps we could insert something like "safe in the short and long term, and not creating long-term toxic storage problems".
Thanks again for engaging in this visioning process. I was put onto you by the Rachel Newsletter.
John
_____
How beautiful it is to find that ideas evolve separately from one another and at the same time... it happily confirms the intangible connections between us all. I love when that happens.
Thank you for the work you are taking on.
Feedback:
1) Boil it down to simple broad statements. Then 'link' to expanded explanations. Lengthy website text generally turns people off or overwhelms them.
2) I invasion a world where, with in the context of human society, children are the primary value. All decisions are therefore made with.."what effect will this have on our children and they're future?" as the first question to be answered when making decisions. New social, economic, and environmental ideals would therefore evolve to mirror the importance of children. For example: job/work times, schools, biodiversity, community, extended families, etc.
With all this said, children are a point in which it is easy to gain consensus and rightly so. Certainly we can agree that love, kindness, respect and compassion should be mirrored to them within the fabric of our social structure, our government, our communities, and families. The way we treat the environment and the way we treat each other. I think you are missing a key consensus building, primary element to rally around. Children.
3) Human population levels should be addressed, either along side consumption issues or separately. It is taboo and needn't be.
My two cents!
Christine
_____
I've just read through your website and I think it's lovely. You express a vision of what I long for. When I came to live in Ireland over 30 years ago, I thought I'd found Utopia. It was so backward it was forward. In the past ten years I've seen Ireland embrace capitalism and join the global economy to become the Celtic Tiger and the 51st state. It is so sad. My village in Dundrum, Dublin, is, as we speak being demolished for a bypass and a major shopping mall. Your vision for the future made me laugh. Utopia (I'm off to read Thomas Moore) = pie in the sky! How old are you people? mm
_____
Introduction to two of the greatest visionaries of the 20th century might be of value for us. Teilhard deChardin (1888-1955) was one of the leaders in pointing humankind on to a new spiritual pathway. He tried to write and speak about the daring conclusion that WE ARE EARTH COMING TO CONSCIOUSNESS, TO DREAMING AND LOVING. His visions were not well received because most could not accept his foresight.
Thomas Berry (1914- ) is almost Teilhard reincarnated as he articulates Teilhard's view of humanknd and our oneness with the natural world. THE UTNE READER considered Thomas Berry as one of the 20 great visionaries of our era. The Dream of the Earth and The Universe Story are two of his fine books. There are numerous video tapes about Berry and hs vision for the cosmos. Along with the conclusion of E.O. Wilson in The Diversity of Life, (p.35) Berry states that "we are terminating the ecozoic age". If we are to survive, Berry believes that the coming "Ecozoic" age is essential. This word was coined by Berry. I once read a professor's evaluation of a book review written by an Ivy League school in which the professor compared Berry to Descartes and other intellectual giants in history.
Since there are less than 5 percent of the people who do any serious reading, I have written five books of haiku poetry IN DEFENSE OF NATURE. The haiku was intended by Basho in the 18th century to praise nature. However, it is disappearing so fast, that I took the liberty to write over 5000 haiku on behalf of nature. Allthough a violation of the poet's purpose, I believe our scene is so grim as to turn three lines and 17 syllables around for the coming spiritual-ecozoic age. Over 1000 of the poems can be viewed on www.vichummert.org
All the best in your efforts. Vic
_____
Dear members of the drafting committee, I am in many ways greatly encouraged by the purpose of the ESDA and most of all by the fact that there are people in the world who are working for a sensible alternative to the "might makes right" mentality (now translated into the market view that "profit makes right" or the corporate faith in "success at any cost"). I admire your efforts all the more because at my age the force of hope has been too often driven back by experience, though the passion for change increases. It is in this frame of mind that I set down a few random comments, disjointed I fear, but of some use to you and your group it is to be hoped.
The World View (Rachel's Weekly #727 and #728) I found to be very satisfying. The generalities concerning the manner in which right is determined, the questions about mechanistic physics as a way of thought (we might also question here the sanction that Socratic argument lends to the narrower forms of debate in our culture), the re-evaluation of nature and its role in our existence, redefining of individualism and status by relating them to the common good, and the questions about endless and unlimited consumption, all of these were most welcome in their clarity and direction. Full cost accounting is a wonderful idea whose time is coming. It will produce the most powerful arguments for the sustainable economy. And again, the shift to values from technical expertise feels right to me despite the necessary vagueness of "values" at the present. Here it is important to investigate modes of thought that are neither dominated by binary thinking nor by undifferentiated emotion, but somehow are able to accommodate both well. We must think beyond fields, that is, science versus humanities or such, because these are prone to both extremes and one finds as much emotionality in 'scientific' causes as there is binary thinking in 'humanistic' enterprises.
Built Capital (version in Rachel's Weekly #728), however, made me wonder whether the imperatives of sustainability might not in the end become as odious as those of unrestrained capitalism. The vision of the community raised many questions for me, but more than I can hope list here. For a start, I am very suspicious of language such as: "Because community space is abundant and well designed...." Unless you have an entirely different notion of "designed" from the one I have, I see you falling back into one of the traps which some of your remarks on the World View tried to avoid, an abhorrence of the natural. I was glad to see that you questioned the ubiquitous lawn, so widely worshipped in North America, but was sad that you did no see fit to extend it to community green space, which in some cases would even be "lawn-like", whatever that means. Is it that we still think of "letting it go wild" as synonymous with "letting it go to hell"? I am encouraged, however, by giving the freeways over to native plant varieties, though I think the consideration of energy costs to tear up all the asphalt is premature.
As I thought of the community and its dwellings and self-sufficiency, my thoughts went to the musician, artist, and researcher who rely on individual talents, and how a small dwelling would affect their lives. I also wondered how they would serve local needs when their audiences might be in a minority or non-existent? It seems impossible to me that the like-minded would all be able to congregate and live permanently in a community where both audience and resources were close at hand? Even if this were feasible, as it is partially in a university, the insularity could have deleterious effects. At the same time, there is a need for solitude, especially by those involved in creative activities. One thinks as well of the ownership of books and instruments which require space that would be available only at a premium, as indeed solitude itself would be. The close community with small dwellings would ultimately lead to the disruption of concentration through inadvertent noise or the accessibility of others to one's time. Would the aims of the community discourage people from taking time and effort in 'unproductive' kinds of activity, like writing a book that would be of use to no one there, or indeed only a few scattered in other communities, and do so at the expense of others, such as demanding they behave in certain ways to accommodate one person? These are not simple choices or decisions made by the individual, but depend more than we dream on size and geographical configurations of space, that is, dwelling space and that space around it. The mere demand "Do not disturb" on its own is without any force whatsoever. For one case alone, consider the fate of the free-lance baroque musician. In the community which is defined by the area one can circumambulate in an hour or two, he will be out of work in a week. [Note: by using 'he', I am not excluding female musicians by any means but relying on an earlier usage in English when 'he' in this context did not imply male supremacy, even to the blind literalist. Actually, I am thinking of my son, who is the example of this case.] Is he to disappear from the world of the 22nd century? And living among a community of free-lance baroque musicians in fact defeats the purpose of his existence which is to bring most palpably a past heritage to us who do not know it. Or is he to be relegated to the pool of workers whose performances are brought to audiences only through electronic means? But then we are facing the spectre of centralization and competition once again. The deadly efficiency which this brings will bring also domination once more by the profit motive. There may be technological advances which will change the question or indeed render it pointless, but as I see it now, the free-lance baroque musician in western Europe can lead a most fulfilling life only by being a somewhat free agent in society, and this requires much travel and transportation, not always public.
In fact, what with cheap and efficient long distance electronic transmission of sound and image, I do not see how the entrenched centralization of the entertainment industry is going to be wrenched from the hands of the unscrupulous. Although the general direction of the Vision Statement seeks to avoid centralization, it leads in many ways directly to it and very strongly. For example, needs will be supplied locally so that consumers can walk to the outlets. But there will inevitably be demands for things which are not found locally and I believe this will be so even if advertising were to stop tomorrow. Such demands will require distribution systems that are prone to centralization and it seems likely that the corporate 'authorities' would make the choices. Where there is a surplus of some useless product they will, much as they do now, educate the public into thinking that such is what they want. It is a sobering lesson to realize that the richest people in the world, i.e. Bill Gates and the Wall family, got where they are by selling inferior products at a low price to people who for the most part had no special use for such things, the Internet notwithstanding, and most dispiriting of all, with not any more advertising than their competitors used. I don't see that the Vision Statement addresses these considerations. It is a most complex problem, and cannot afford to be left to generalizations. There must be studies somewhere which tell how Walmart captured the American (and Canadian) public--or was it that they capitalized on the cult of consumerism, the force of which now replaces the influence that religion once had upon the minds of the public? The World View speaks of status but does not suggest how the public might achieve a sense of it independent of purchasing power. Desirable as this would be, I don't see it happening by itself. It would be comforting to think that the schools might help, but given the dismal record of public education in the last generation or so, there is not much hope. And again what of those whose work belongs to a community much wider than any they can possibly inhabit physically? How can their contribution to civil society be localized and counted?
I do not see how advertising will be diminished; I do not see how canned entertainment is going to be diminished; I don't see how the public is going to be drawn away from the tube. Are we talking about stringent laws? I am at a loss to see how peaceful negotiations and talking good sense will accomplish anything. This is all about dismantling multi-billion dollar organizations that have the power and resources of several nations combined. Are they going to roll over and die because it would be better for society? The same with factories, quite aside from the other problems of localization, going back to local ownership by the workers seems a lost dream. We are considering here a major revolution if the project is to go beyond the stage of mere talk. I passionately hope that peaceful negotiation and good sense would prevail but given the general pattern of history, society is more likely to be inundated in the Orwellian '2184' toward which we all seem to be heading. Indeed I see some of your proposals contributing to that undesirable end as well, as I suggested in my questions on centralization.
As much as I favour your aims, I must admit to being disappointed by your generalized statement of them. My fears are that the cause won't get a fair hearing. The naysayers will dismiss it as "pie in the sky" or "socialist claptrap" which should go the way of the Soviet Union. I realize this is only a beginning, and certainly the call for comments is wise, however, I feel that what is required here is a vast and thorough investigation of actual cases, namely how people of all kinds work and live; what localized factories really mean in terms of changing the structure of industry, not merely in corporate existence and financial dominance as they are now seen, but ultimately in supplying the necessities of basic production and distribution required to keep the industry providing for the society it serves, or should be serving. I see no discussion of population growth, which is perhaps the single most devastating element in the whole problem. Perhaps the focus on the US diminishes the urgency somewhat and perhaps therefore that focus is questionable. The US does not exist isolated from the effects of overpopulation elsewhere, indeed, the carcass of that beast will provide the corporate vulture with sustenance on which to thrive long after he is driven from the lands that produce fewer 'profit fodder'. I have no idea what kind of control is needed to curb population growth but have no confidence that it will be self-regulating. We have only to look at India and especially China whose history is a record of efforts in establishing among the people viable and sustainable communities but whose very successes in cooperation in labour and commerce, setting of moral standards, and creating an atmosphere of mutual assistance have brought about a deluge of population growth which washed away the benefits in but a few generations.
Incidentally, in the section on Industrialization, you say, "While these characteristics will not always maximize productive 'efficiency', the costs will outweigh the benefits." Am I misreading something or should this be "the benefits will outweigh the costs"? Despite this rather dour view of the future, my hopes are with you.
With all best wishes. Wayne
_____
The most important part of the Vision is controlling corporations that use their money to rule the world by brute force (killing environmentalists in Africa, South America etc etc etc) Corporations are now efficiently sterilizing the planet and turning the Living World into landfill, Their media keeps us hypnotized and stupid.
1.We must change the law that a corporation is a "natural person" and also eliminate the corporate shield (limited liability) that protects executives and share holders from prison and law suits when companies pollute, kill people, drive species extinct and do irreparable damage , such as mining companies and clear cut logging. As you read this, entire mountains are being leveled in West Virginia to get coal, rainforests are being turned into moon scapes by mining destruction on an unimaginabale scale.
Another necessary componant is:
2.population control. Equal opportunity and reproductive rights for women are necessary for population control. Of the 90 million births each year , 80 million are unplanned (ZPG) Unless women have legal and reproductive rights equal to those enjoyed by men, the Vision will never happen and we will descend into a hellscape of environmental ruin , famine and *cannibalism*. Restricting women's reproductive rights supported by patriarchal men using women as factory farms for the endless production of consumer/worker/soldier/consumer units. Surplus people creates scarcity and low wages -to enrich the one percent of super rich at the top of the food chain -who now manage the Global Herd using media, religion and force.
The third component is
3. respect for animals and nature. Exploiting animals and nature (Dominionism) legitimizes the abuse of "lesser" humans (women and minorities and the poor)who are "treated like animals". (See An Unnatural Order by Jim Mason) Factory farms, animal experiments, vivisection and all forms of cruelty must be abolished in order to *resensitize* ourselves. Thus, brutalized men may stop dressing alike and killing each other.
_____
So far so good. I like most of what your committee has come up with.
I am wondering, though, if you might have underestimated the rate or degree of impact the solar/hydrogen fuel cell. It will be impacting the marketplace sooner than you may think. The ideal fuel cell utilizing hydrogen made from water via solar released hydrogen must be "the way to go".
This technology will do nothing to curtail the use of the automobile, but will make it a lot healthier. The less promoted use of the fuel cell will come from allowing home generated, pollution free electricity and hot water off the grid. This will enhance the opportunities of decentralized, semi-autonomous communities which make high use of human capital (intellectual, creative, etc.).
Actually, new utopias will become feasible again, but will have the world marketplace as their oyster though worldwide communication access already available. The hot water from the fuel cell power generation will also make horticultural conservatories and greenhouses feasible for providing excellent fresh produce (hopefully not genetically modified).
Ever the dreamer, I guess, I don't see why utopian communities can't arise again. I have been pursuing a self-actualizing lifestyle for most of my life, and see light at the end of the tunnel for leaving the legalistic/authoritarian industrial era behind, upleveling to higher egalitarian and expressive levels on Maslow's pyramid of values. That could be called a paradigm shift. Some of us make it years ago, or never "bought" into the institutionalized approach, though I do appreciate the accomplishments it has made possible during the Industrial Era.
Independence from the energy grids, and independence from the local economic limitations does, indeed, free up human capital for higher purposes. Look, the world is the oyster of the future. A great shift in prosperity away from earning a living, toward again authentically regaining meaningful livelihood. We can work on this level together, and no longer need to the totally conquering hero entrepreneur.
In a quality-of-life based environment, we will feel much better, and as the level of toxicity declines, our minds will function with more clarity. Quality of living experience, with richly personalized meaning.
Those ahead of their times, such as the hippies, and utopians before them, sought to "drop out" and build their own little isolated worlds. The new utopia will be something to drop into (proactive) rather than to drop out of (reactive). We will build our lives and health holistically. Hey, there's nothing like really feeling good, and living in a creative and productive environment.
A lot ground for all this has already been covered. You know from cultural creatives to self-actualizers. Plenty of us are ready to leave the old consciousness ways of life where human capital is something that capitalists seek to exploit. More work for less pay type exploitation. Work and life will again be restored into an integrated experience. The whole person will be freed from a great deal of energy draining stress. Human nature need not be viewed as stuck on the lower levels of Maslow's value pyramid.
I'm just dashing off a few ideas before breakfast, as I'll be off to work in a few minutes. Let me know if anything I've expressed is cogent to your must worthy project.
Sincerely yours, Patrick
_____
What's missing from Rachel's vision is 'taking the benefits of increased productivity in the form of shorter work hours'.
Otherwise, we just end up squandering a lot of resources unnecessarily.
Ken
_____
I would LOVE to live in and work for the Utopia of the ESDA Vision. And I think it is healthy for our souls to ponder such possibilities. But our first step would have to be the taming of the monied classes who have brought us to our current Dystopia. The corporate coup is nearly complete. They control our government. They determine our collective fate. They control the future of the planet. Their power seems too great for us to combat. Their stake in preventing Utopia is huge. It seems that only a man-made or natural disaster. or a bloody revolution could dislodge them from their seats of power.
Many of the letters you've received reflect the control of corporate America on the minds of the people. They fear the loss of individuality, an individuality based upon possessions; ad driven consumer products that make us appear superior or somehow unique. This is a powerful hold on the minds of those who believe it.
I applaud and share the vision. Everything that has been created has first been a dream.
Shirley
_____
Isn't it contradictotory to favor full cost accounting" where "environmental costs ... as well as social costs ... must be accounted for in prices" while dismissing economists' analyses and scientific findings? Rather, models that incorporate social and environmental values and attempt to account for values throughout the process become essential to decision making. People understand "the bottom line", but corporations/decision makers/individuals might rather pass on costs to another level or ignore real, harder to quantify, costs. Phrase from an old popular song, "the best things in life are free" seemed accurate in the forties, but is so wrong today. Not even the air, water or trees seem like the best things. Neither are they free.
Finally, values will outweigh technical expertise in the decision making process. No longer will policy makers pay attention to economists' mathematical analysis of whether the costs of global warming outweigh the benefits.
Don't forget solid waste. Full cost accounting should include measures for manufacturers to include the cost of disposal or recycling or even litter pickup in the cost of the product instead of passing all of those costs along to waste collection rate payers or general taxpayers. Germany leads in requiring manufacturers' responsibility.
"where xeriscaping will be the norm"
All areas should require practice of water efficient landscaping.
"getting people out of their cars...walking and bicycle riding...."
What about provision of alternative transportation for all and universal handicap accessibility.
"Of course, though the near extinction of the single occupancy vehicle"
What time frame does this manifesto cover? Davis, California, a bicycle-oriented college town, allows golf cart type vehicles to use city streets, but even there the idea of no cars would be extremely unlikely.
"aggregations of smaller communities"
Neighborhoods function in large and small cities right now.
_____
I really like the part about... Because of our high per-capita consumption of energy and materials, and our relentless commitment to growth, our society is among the least sustainable of all human societies. Now... I hate to say I told you so, but... I was saying this 20 years ago. After everyone has 2 cars, a computer, 3 TVs, a cell phone, a summer cabin, a winter cabin, a palm pilot, and a membership at Tumwater Valley... what can we possibly sell people that they don't really need? Another TV? How about another cell phone? Maybe another car? I think our gadget economy has about saturated the US with useless gadgets. Maybe we should sell cell phones and TVs to the Mexicans, and the people in Africa... and maybe the people in China too. (That may not help much because all these gadgets are now manufactured outside the US... thanks to NAFTA and GATT.)
Its going to crash, and then we are going to be in a depression... like back in the 30's. I don't think I'm a pessimist; I see trends, and I like to project these trends into the future, and then reflect. Deficit spending has been out safety net, but that has limits too. Our society is hooked on growth; we need to be hooked on sustainability. (I don't like the word "sustainability" because it has a connotation of intellectually elite environmentalism. For me it means the "old ways" of conserving energy and materials that our parents and grandparents accepted as "common sense.")
_____
thank you for this one ! excellent topic ! the links are great ! one of your best !
_____
Great at last to see the focus on vision. I think vision and morale are everything and look forward to the ongoing material. I would like to add something - that is that the current system of wealth creation is one where some become wealthy by making others and natural systems poor. We need to find ways of creating wealth that adds value to others and to natural systems. This is not the way of the religion called economics and in my view is the greatest challenge in my view on the path to sustainability. Someone needs to write a book called: "The Myth of the Return on Capital".
Thanks so much for all of your great work.
Best regards always Warren
_____
Enjoying reading the hard work of many people to generate a vision of the future USA. Refer to passive open space vs "green" areas would solve one problem. This should work well with the rest of the statement as you refer to no impervious surfaces which is what passive open space is all about.
What I haven't seen yet, although I'm sure it's coming, is how we are going to get there. It's going to take a hell of fight and there is no way the majority of business folks are going to "vote" for this program. We're talking about systemic change here.
We should also discuss attempts to do some of these changes. Socialists countries were the first to initiate green belts e.g. USSR. They also experimented with micro communities in urban areas. One phenomena was that a "good" restaurant drew people out of micro communities. Any thoughts?
Thanks, Len
_____
You present a very attractive picture of what is possible. A very worthwhile goal. The kind of future i'd like to leave to my grandchildren's and future generations. My question: how do you propose we get from here to there? This vision, so far, is just a dream. What is your strategy and program to bring this vision into reality?
I have some general ideas i'd like to add to this discussion.
1. First, we need to be clear about what's in our way. What are the major obstacles to building a sane and sustainable society?
I would answer that we don't have to look very far. It's our present social/economic system, which places short-term profit maximization for the benefit of a few at the expense of the vast majority at the top of its priority list. This is a stumbling block that we need to get out of our way. Rampant consumerism, the unsustainable use of natural capital, abusive exploitation of human capital, concentration of wealth into fewer hands and impoverishment of the majority - these are a few of the effects of capitalism, organic to this system, not separate and disconnected problems. Environmental deterioration isn't a quirk. Its not an irrational result of a basically rational system. Rather, these problems are a logical result of capitalism-as-usual.
2. Republican policy is undeniably bad news for the environment. But the Democrats, due to their dependency upon corporate funding and sponsorship, aren't much better. Notice that in the recent campaign, Al Gore finally started sounding like an environmentalist and populist only after he started feeling pressure from the left in the form of Green Party.
3. Those countries that have strong Green &/or Labor &/or socialist parties tend to have much more enlightened policies re: the environment. The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, and Cuba are good examples of this. If we really want to make our dream of a sane society a reality, we need to build a viable vehicle to get us there. To depend upon either of the two pro-corporate parties will cripple our best efforts.
I think these are essentials to be considered in any rational thinking about the way forward. If we fail to mount a coordinated challenge to corporate power, things will get worse. If the movement fails to consider these three points, all our good ideas will remain an unrealized utopia.
Get real. dave
_____
I took the liberty of including links to the thoughts of two people whose views are especially relevant to this discussion: Michael Parenti: http://www.hydrexheat.com/~doretk/Issues/97-08%20AUG/ecoapox.html and David Korten: http://www.lapop.lsu.edu/rss/ruralspc.html
_____
Thanks to the ESDA Network and Rachel's for creating and disseminating what bids fair to be a stimulating process and useful framework for the all-important visioning needed to fashion a different society and world.
Indeed, "worldviews" seems a logical place to start and I want to weigh in on the discussion of Part I. The paragraph describing worldview is straightforward and clear. The rest of the article surveys changing worldviews based largely on changing conditions, with a focus on the perceived abundance or scarcity of natural resources and the accompanying necessity of a shift to a "ecological worldview of complexity and indeterminacy, inspired by nature as mentor..." I wonder about individualism; since it is not defined, I can only consign it to the patriarchal worldview I describe below.
Granted that space was limited in this article, I submit that this discussion needs a larger context if it is to help us understand the origins and complexity of our worldviews. For most people, worldview is received rather than chosen or even questioned. I assume a major purpose of this discussion is to identify received worldview(s) and to be conscious about the worldview(s) necessary for justice and human survival (I believe the planet and some of its other life forms will survive our species).
Today's nation states and their predecessor societies, with all their variations, have in common a patriarchal worldview that by most accounts developed some eight or nine millennia ago. Its essence is to understand power as something exercised over others; to assign unequal value, and thus dominance and subordinance, to human differences, thus creating "others"; and to exercise power and distribute resources accordingly. Hierarchy is the hallmark of this worldview, rather than the holistic/integrated/cyclical processes of nature. I see the worldviews described in the Rachel's article as subsets of this overarching one.
In some subsets or variations -- particularly Christian/Western --female, emotion and body/nature have been closely identified in contrast to male, reason and mind/spirituality. No wonder that humans in charge saw themselves as apart from nature/resources/other creatures, which were to be dominated and exploited.
The original "other" was female, thus the term. Some prefer gender neutral terms, like Riane Eisler's dominator and partnership societies. Others of us contend that patriarchy is appropriate so long as maleness is the most universal dominant characteristic, though "whiteness" is now running it a close universal second. This is not to say, of course, that only males exhibit patriarchal, power over/dominant, behavior. In the way of worldviews, especially one as deep-rooted and longstanding as this one, most people adopt and adapt their behavior to the prevailing norm, consciously and constantly or not -- even social change activists! For example, I have long found this a useful way to identify, monitor and try to eliminate (with middling success) my own patriarchal behavior. So patriarchy can be both gendered and gender-neutral, and as such, a splendid stimulus to spirited discussions.
So, what are the assumptions of a patriarchal worldview? Assumptions about who we are as human beings: authority is necessary to maintain order, protect us from ourselves and others; power, hierarchy and war are simply human nature (life is nasty, brutish & short); we aren't capable/worthy of self-governance/democracy. Assumptions about nature: our possession, to be tamed and controlled for human use; wild, unpredictable and primitive, having nothing to teach us beyond the glory of sunsets. Thus do we suppress and deny the real needs of creatures of nature: mutuality, a niche for everyone, diversity, community, death as part of nature's cycle rather than something to be fought (by everything from religion to missiles; heads up: we're losing).
The European conquest of the "New World" exemplifies the patriarchal worldview, and in contrast to its egalitarian founding rhetoric, the United States has honed to near perfection, as expressed by the newly coined "exceptionalist" doctrine, the entitlement to dominate (projecting US power in military planning terms; Master of Space as the US Space Command brazenly puts it). The "rule of law" is an integral part of this US sub-worldview, both a mantra and an unwitting synonym for patriarchal control: the mythology that the courts, legislatures, administrations/ regulatory regime, police, military, etc. etc. are subject to democratically established and accountable rules, well intentioned and for the benefit of all, rather than a mechanism and cover for the continued accumulation of wealth and power by the few.
The premier institution of what bell hooks calls the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy is the multinational corporation, invested with legal personhood by the US rule of law -- a telling glimpse behind an increasingly less veiled worldview. From my perspective, the budding global movement for democracy will thrive or wither to the extent that it recognizes and breaks free from the patriarchal model and fashions/models the ultimate alternative: partnership relationships based on nature's wisdom. This will require recognizing the degree to which our minds are colonized by the prevailing worldview, no matter how much we oppose and think we reject it.
Finally, as a former English teacher and a feminist who 30 years ago awoke to the political significance of language, I see the use of America and Americans to designate the US and its citizens as a linguistic symbol of the worldview that has appropriated two continents for itself.
Thanks again for the forum you are providing. May it bear fruit for a different future!
Mary
_____
Utopian visions of what we are for and against occupy some people's minds -- and are interesting to share with others over the net.
Without a vision of the ends we seek, the means employed in cyberspace have only the limited purpose of reading pleasure here and now.
This vision, ESDA Part II, (Envisioning a Sustainable and Desireable America) -- probably needs to get the "world" into the name, not just the USA -- focuses on repair of urban sprawl, carbon pollution, and excessive greed and stupidity among us.
It's not too long or loaded with jargon. The authors were once interested in collaboration with others. I may go to Rachel's and related sites to see where they are 8 months later.
At the heart of this vision is the thought that better accounting for environmental and social cost would help democracies move from pain to pleasure. They add to this concern, a wish for more collaboration and better use of competition. I agree with these concerns.
If you were a man from Mars arriving overhead and looking at commuters in traffic, or watching choked roads on Labor Day, or looking down at filthy streets and neighborhoods, or gazing at fire, flood, war and prison camps and yards, you would have a feel for what's wrong and be ready for this vision.
I'm ready. And I'm ready for Congress to go to Mars, come back, and get a clue on their failure to make the reforms we need. The World Bank runs Development Gateway on the net trying to address necessary reforms. We are asked by some to boycott it. I just think it stinks -- but boycott? I'm not sure. It is hard to find useful for any intended purpose.
But Cyberspace Society, too, is hard to find useful for its intended purpose. As is www.1944.org
John
_____
While I agree totally with the principal of sustainability, I am concerned about two aspects of this vision. First is the fact that reclaiming and improving the environment is not without potential for problems. Two circumstances point this out. Both have to do with the nature of man's manipulation of environments. It is obvious that civilization, the develpoment of town and city living, has brought man into closer contact with nature than ever. By moving the borders of developed areas out into lands which were formerly prostine, mankind has become exposed to problems such as Lyme disease and AIDS. If as is now believed, the AIDS virus began to spread rapidly through the human population through the hunting and preparation for eating of chimpanzees, and the contact of primitive peoples with city peoples, the development and spread of Lyme disease has come about due to the efforts to reclaim natural lands and the consequent improvment of the environment need for the disease to flourish. Thus, creating a better natural environment worldwide is likely to expose human populations to formerly well-contained microoorganisms and to illnesses previously limited to small and self-contained populations.
My second concern is that the incentives for undertaking sustainable policies are social but they may not be personal enough for such policies to appeal to individuals. The idea that human beings will undertake actions simply because those actions are good for them, has not proved out in practice. Utopian concepts fail ultimately because human nature tends to be excessively shortsighted and selfish. Your ideas include fines for not following the plan but those fines can be circumvented by lawyers in a legal system designed to protect the powerful and wealthy rather than society as a while (vid. General Electric's footdragging on cleaning up the Hudson despite the governments levying of a $500 million fine). The question is how does sustainability become so obviously in one's own selfish interest that conforming to the idea is desirable to the greedy as welll as the needy?
Sincerely, Dick
_____
The very concept of "natural capital" is an example of reification. Your viewpoint is that of what you seek to mitigate.
Kindest regards, Jesse
_____
I'm taking a moment to write my response to the 'Vision Thing' that has been going on in the last few issues of Rachel's. In no way is what I say meant as an attack. It is simply meant as input from a different perspective. A perspective garnered by fifty years of experience. And a male perspective at that. I cannot speak for women. Only for myself.
I will argue that there are three basic needs for men: the physical, the mental and the spiritual. All three are of equal importance. I will agree with the hypothesis of the ESDA that societies today are too focused on the physical. By physical I mean the materialist viewpoint. That means that societies, especially our own, do not pay attention to the mental or spiritual side of our being . . . unless it can make money.
On the other hand, in order to grow mentally and spiritually, one has to not worry about the physical. If the physical needs have not been met, they become primary. The real problem with modern society is that the physical/material becomes an end in itself. The spiritual/mental is looked upon with trepidation and, in many cases, either with fear or disdain.
When we start to talk about communities, what does that mean? Sure I want the best for everyone. But my needs are quite different from a 22 year old mother of two. Or a 32 year old father of six. Or an 18 year old high school student. I am on my path, they are on their path. What is important for me may not be important to them . . . neither now nor in the future. When I hear the term community, very often I gag. Nothing could be more boring. Nothing has been more boring. I have nothing in common with a Jesse Helms or the Republican party for that matter. Yet, they will not disappear.
So, I have a very hard time with the idea of community as some sort of agrarian, one for all, we are all buddies, let's hold hands kind of crap. I don't want to hold hands with a lot of people. I love all people but I don't want to know all people. Time is too short. Time is too important.
Which brings me to my second point, what should a modern community look like. In my opinion, it could look like what we have now with one big difference: environmental conscience. What does that mean? Non polluting energy sources. Very simple. Very doable. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Cars that drive on steam or other forms of renewable and non-polluting energy sources. Very doable today. Food that is organic and nutritious. I see absolutely no reason why our standard of life could not continue to grow on a physical level with environmentally safe concepts and products. Just the opposite. I think our physical well-being could be tremendously superior if the oil, gas & chemical lobby weren't so trapped in their need for immediate greed gratification.
The real problem with our system is quite simple: the modern conservative. The modern conservative is guided by one of two ideas, ideology or greed. In either case, there is no concern for consequences, long term results or sanity. Theirs is immediate gratification. The physical. Which means they are the perfect tool for the real evil in our world, corporations. Corporations, as presently construed, are evil. They have the same rights as your or I and none of the responsibilities. Their only reason for existing is profit. The corporation thinks only physically. Everything it does is to manipulate and control. It cannot think in any other way. It doesn't care about the spiritual. It doesn't care about the mental or intellectual or philosophical. In fact, it sees them as threats.So, if we want a vision of the future, it has to first and foremost deal with what a corporation will look like and act. Something totally lacking in the ESDA vision statement.
So, even though you try to paint a vision of what you think society should look like, the enemy remains the same from the beginning of recorded history: greed, materialism. The real question should be how do we take a materialistic society and add a brain and soul to it?
I apologize if this rambles. It's late at night and I do work. Eric
_____
After you write your best and briefest vision, re-write it ten times until it is better and briefer.
Start your appeal at $1 not $5.
John
_____
I am very much enjoying reading installments of Envisioning a Sustainable and Desirable America's vision statement. Three questions: Does it/will it address food issues, and vegetarianism as a fundamental part of a sustainable future? Are you addressing population in a more detailed way, such as how to encourage smaller families, reward family planning efforts, etc.? (These two topics are somewhat taboo in many otherwise progressive circles, and I think it would be worthwhile to address them, even if in a very gentle manner) And lastly, how are you circulating your vision? How do you hope to expand its influence? What steps do you think can be taken now toward its implementation, or do you believe strongly that it will be a natural evolution once enough people realize we are on the brink of ecological calamity?
I find it very inspiring that others are thinking along these lines and wonder whether if more people were exposed to this vision, some substantial momentum could be generated in that direction.
Thanks. Kirsten
_____
While your subject matter is certainly important, the practicality of your approach is suspect. It is evident that this message comes from the non-profit, completely subsidized, non-competitive academic world. The approach goes against the basics of human nature as we are not "sheep" who will follow a pied-piper into the unknown. The very nature of human beings is to compete and survive, so your approach will only work for some cloned "humans" of the future who have had their initiative stripped from their souls.
I have not read but suspect that a lot of your ideas are further ramblings of Karl Marx and other socialist "thinkers". These concepts just will not work and history has proven so. Your example of Linux is poor, at best. It was very limited in it's use even though it was free, and it was not until Red Hat and several other traditional capitalists offered enhancements and support for a price that it became as wide spread as it is today, but still very limited. Linux is almost similar to the model that Philip Kahn used at Borland, very minimal selling price, and look at where (he) they are today. I sincerely hope that no "public" money is going into your effort, at least not anything that I am responsible for, directly or indirectly. If important or "acceptable", it should stand on it's own "feet". I certainly have no objection to the expression of anyone's ideas, but they should be solely self-funded, else they share the same stigma as those you criticize. Keep up the work. It is thought provoking, whether one agrees or disagrees.
_____
I just read the 3 RACHEL emails about your project, and appreciate your work. I know relatively little about economics, so I don't have much to offer there. I have long been a promoter of reducing human numbers and per-capita consumption, for the richest 10% anyway, and believe we are on a self destruct course with our focus on individual wealth, while lacking concern for other people and other life. I invite you to check out my homepage http://www.efn.org/~patrickb/ to see if any of my writings are useful to you.
Thanks for your work, Patrick
_____
As a retired teacher who hopes for respect for all life on the planet to grow in coming years, Use of common sense to make better use of natural resources: use of solar energy . I totally like what I read: effort to decrease global warming; simpler, recyclable houses; obtaining carbon polymers from carbon dioxide in the air......I will ask our library to obtain your book: UNED FORUM
http://community.webtv.net/makewaves55/WebPageofMegWegs
_____
No apparent difference between Human and Social Capitol. Lots of unclear (e.g. definition of institution, work, labor), and unproven dream statements.
"Worker owned enterprises will logically paymore attention to worker well-being than enterprises driven by the need to generate shareholder profit."
Yeah, right. The purpose of enterprises to provide a product or service would come first, not worker well-being.
"... if worker/owners also live in the local community, they will have to answer to their neighbors for both price and quality of what they produce. High quality production will be a source of pride, while low quality and high prices will be perceived as incompetence and laziness, decreasing the individual's social standing in the community, and reducing their social capital."
These conclusions apply to business now, but aren't necessarily the case.
_____
Thanks for letting Rachel's repost your ESDA work. I makes great reading, and I readily support much of it.
The attack on the patent system in Part III, however, left me uncomfortable and I've been trying to figure out why. Here are a couple of preliminary observations in response to the request for feedback contributions.
1. Linux is a rare event in which altruistic, maybe even anarchistic individuals have given away wealth they created. I don't think such an exception is a solid foundation on which to build an alternative economic system.
2. Patents are not just some ripoff of common wealth for private exploitation. They are designed as a reward system for investment. Unless we have an alternative set of incentives with comparable or better rewards, those investments won't get made and the advance of human knowledge and the related forms of social capital will grind to a halt. This is not a simple system, into which we can insert a simplistic change and expect glorious results. In the end, I think this is what left me squirming about the draft Vision statement.
I'm not wedded to any particular patent system. I do believe that humankind has a lot left to learn to achieve perfection, and that we need a sophisticated system of infrastructure and incentives to encourage fellow humans to do the research and bring the knowledge and its benefits to the rest of us.
I'd be happy to kick these ideas around with other participants. Thanks again for pulling it together and sharing.
Best regards, Tom
Tom,
You've picked out the most controversial point so far, and one that I'm sure will be left out of any final vision. I probably included too many of my own ideas in that section. I am very concerned about patents however. When someone develops a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons, it is patented. Some countries can't afford the patents, and continue to emit CFCs, destroying the ozone, one of the most critical planetary life support systems. Patents on any technologies that increase energy efficiency have the same effect with respect to CO2 emissions. Patents on medicines that control contagious diseases increase the price of the drugs, make it more difficult to eradicate the disease, and ensure that more people will get it (which of course will increase profits for the manufacturers of the drugs). The WTO is forcing third world countries to respect international patents, 97% of which are held by the developed countries, thus increasing the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich. The ongoing clash over pharmaceutical patents is always in the news. I think it is clear that most inventions are really a cumulative effort of humanity,and much current research is government sponsored, but corporations get sole benefit from the patents. Some scientific researchers are complaining that patents on methodologies are making pure (i.e. non-commercial) research too expensive, and thus slow the rate of technological advance. Patents are monopolies, and monopolies are inefficient. I also understand your point very well. Ultimately, I believe in public research efforts for knowledge that eliminates public bads (contagious disease, global warming, ozone depletion) or that provides public goods.
Thanks for your response. I agree there's a problem in the mix between social justice, incentives for economic innovation, and property rights, although I don't know how to define it precisely (or how exactly to solve it).
While not yet the right solution, the recent decision by several of the pharmaceutical companies to make their AIDS-fighting concoctions available at different price in Africa and America was an intriguing recognition of non-linear relationships between need and ability to pay.
One of the things that has become apparent in the Business Strategy field is that MNEs are going to have to adopt locally sensible strategies and policies, if they really want to optimize their total business, which means they will not be able apply uniform, rigid, policies around the globe. It's more than just transfer pricing; it's related to product mix, production and distribution methods and costs / prices. Perhaps there's something in there that we can work with.
I agree that benefits need to reach those who need them, to the best of our ability as a humane society. Of course, we will never be able to afford to deliver all known technologies to all people. The questions seem to me to be related more to who pays for those benefits, and what kinds of incentives we can develop to encourage both more benefits and more widespread availability of them.
But there's another issue too, and a harder one to deal with morally. Diversity of values means that we have some people in many countries who would prefer to be somewhere else. Even if we could solve terrible things like persecution, we'd still have some important philosophical and cultural differences -- and I think that's good. Certainly, it gives us much to think about and discuss. One aspect of that is that some communities are wealthier in some dimensions than are others. Some have more material wealth, others have more fair administrations, or deeper religious and spiritual values. Even if we had complete freedom of choice, we wouldn't all choose the same package -- fortunately! Still, some levels of inequality are unfair, unjust, immoral. AND that also implies that some inequalities are not unfair, unjust or immoral.
I have many students at Rutgers whose parents sacrificed mightily to come to America, to give their kids a chance at the American Dream. I also know many families who have chosen a different Dream and ended up in Canada or other countries, so the US version is not the world's only attractive choice. Those parents may have actually reduced their quality of life to do this, abandoning their own parents, their historical communities, their heritage, to work menial jobs in this country. On Graduation Day, they are so immensely pleased, I know they believe all those sacrifices were worthwhile. Without differences in benefits across countries, those stories wouldn't happen.
Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing? I don't really know, but I suspect humanity would lose something important. Some aspects of inequality trigger some wonderful struggles to better ourselves, and I think those are important to what makes humans such a great species (most of the time). Egalitarianism, defined as equal access to benefits, doesn't seem to work as well for this species as systems with some inequality mixed with opportunities for betterment.
I expect you and I agree that some kinds and degrees of inequality are obscene. And we might differ too on where we draw some of those lines. In a free society, we have the good fortune to have some choices open to us, and the opportunity to debate and discuss and exchange ideas and values with others. That, too, is not universal, but I consider it an important benefit.
By the year 2100, I do not foresee that we will have the knowledge anywhere in our species to cure all diseases. Thus, there will continue to be diseases that plague us. There will be reasons to motivate people to find solutions. And it will not be logistically or financially possible to make all solutions available to all persons the instant they are needed. There will continue to be triage systems of some sort, and some of the solutions will be very expensive -- not just because their embedded intellectual property is restricted. Some of those solutions only come to public availability because their IP is controlled, making the necessary investments attractive for some people and groups. I doubt those principles will change over the next century.
What we can change is their interpretation, their application, their incidence of benefits and costs. I think we need to work towards an incentive system that continues to encourage innovation, and perhaps channels it toward somewhat different beneficiaries. How we modify our economic and political systems to accomplish those kinds of goals is a most worthwhile discussion. My belief is that improvements in social justice and ecological sustainability will depend upon significant adjustments in our system for innovation, and that it will continue to rely on widely diffused decision-makers, i.e., closer to the free enterprise system with modified social incentives, than on a public sector monolith.
A paper my father and I published in 1998 in JOCM showed how social incentives for some environmental actions have been reversed over the last century. At all points along that swinging political compass, society was able to establish its values effectively, and to generate economic behavior that reflected them. That reassures me that the real issues are ones of establishing social consensus on values and translating those values into our incentives/penalties system. The system seems to work; the challenge is to make sure it reflects our values. And, to do that, we must, in a democracy, convince others of the merits of our beliefs. That's not easy, or fast, but I prefer it to any other political system.
_____
A commendable effort. I have read your vision statement and find much that I could agree with, particularly your urban vision.
Some comments:
1 I had trouble sometimes distinguishing the statements depicting a desirable future from those depicting a probable future. For example, the discussion on patents reads ambivalently. It is quite possible that there may be conflict in 2100, between opponents and proponents of patent law, but it's not clear me what vision or position you have on this point. I presume that you're not saying that the conflict on this matter is desirable. If such 'visions' are to function as devices for stimulating widespread cooperation, the principle points requiring widespread agreement need clearer emphasis.
Need to be far clearer as to the key 'oughts', the moral vision, that must be agreed on to create a sustainable future. As Erich Jantsch put it, in his book 'Design for Evolution, 'if we want a rose, we have to plant one'. If we pursue this metaphor further, we need a clear picture of the seed, the sapling, the mature plant, the flower, the reproduction process, the desirable, dependable norms embedded in the organisms (DNA) constitution.
2 I think it absurd to imagine that USA could build a sustainable future, on its own, as exemplar, without global agreements and institutions, and without democratic dialogue and cooperation with people around the world. A credible visioning process, in my view, needs to begin with 'a world that works for all'.
3 If you accept 2, we need early on to envision and agree on democratic procedures for determining world constitutional norms (responsibilities and rights) for assuring global political, economic and ecological security, that can engage the broadest population, without domination or manipulation by status quo authority and institutions. The procedural vision is no less important than the substantive vision.
4 I find some of your economic visioning inadequately thought through. For example, little indication is offered as to the ethics of property ownership and transfer. Do you see it desirable that the highest bidder principle, and the market's law of supply and demand remain in place? If so, it is not clear to me how brakes could be placed, as you desire, on global market competition and the ruthless and rapacious activity it generates. (see attached)
For your interest and deliberations, I've attached a recent article of mine which attempts to exercise a modicum of rigour in determining and defending a set of world constitutional norms. This is done in anticipation and preparation for negotiation with you and others, in a democratic world constitutional forum.
I have also formulated a design brief (vision) for an Internet-based prototype world constitutional forum. It will require a considerable period of development and experimentation - Linux style. You might like to participate in this.
warm regards, Richard
_____
For a very different view of the potential, the value, and actual accomplishments of sustainable development, see an article in the current issue of the journal, Foreign Policy, by Dan Esty.
I think you can access it through: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_SeptOct_2001/esty.html.
Matt
_____
You have published an interesting series of articles about our possible future that I read in the Earth Watch section of Duluth's Reader Weekly.
I am somewhat confused by the conflicting predictions over Earth's future. I have read articles by scientists and reporters, some dating back to the 19th century, that Overpopulation and Pollution are ruining the world. Then again, I have read equally convincing antithesis telling me that our air and water, at least in America, are cleaner now then it was 20 years ago.
Yes, human culture can change. For example, two thousand years ago, in the city of Rome, one could buy another human being as a slave then watch gladiators kill animals and other humans for sport. We humans don't do that any more because human society progressed.
But, I never want my grandchildren to live in the over regulated, nightmare future you envision for 2100. Only criminals, operating a huge black market, not unlike the old Soviet Union, will benefit. In other words, unless you want our grandchildren to become Borg, your plan will not work with human nature.
However, there is a way humans can have dynamically more good and services while dynamically reducing our negative impact on Earth's natural environment. This is a book report I wrote for a University of Minnesota class. I hope you find this enlightening.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely yours, James