Barbara J. King joins NPR 13.7 Blog community as a guest blogger
Welcome Barbara!
“[W]e...forge our...responses to the world [in] a process beset as much by edgy negotiation and messy dissent as it is by coordinated thinking and harmonious cooperation.”
I have a proposal that I believe points the way to a sustainable and more just civilization:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule-and-public-property-rights.html
OR
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
What we have created up to this point appears to me to be neither sustainable nor just. Systemic flaws that led to the collapse of civilizations past have not been solved. The growth that has followed the long period of relative stagnation after the fall of the Roman empire has been supported by innovations that have enabled exploitation of more kinds of natural resources from increasingly remote geographic regions.
The most helpful feedback I have ever received has been from people expressing *disagreement*. It has forced me to clarify my thinking and language. I experience first-hand the benefit of a free society that allows people to express differences of opinion. Society is stronger when ideas flow freely because the good ideas come out and are more likely to be shared more widely.
Minimum Wage vs. Minimum Income
– Equal ownership of natural resources promotes social justice AND sustainability
Friday, September 16, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
White House Vegetable Garden and Preserving Biodiversity
Kids Taste a Sweeter Veggie, White House Style
A basic principle of property rights requires that those who degrade the value of property should compensate the owner(s) for the damage done or value lost. If we believe that we all own the air and water, then it makes sense that we should require corporations that pollute the air and water to pay a fee to the people at large in consideration of the fact that their actions degrade the quality of resources that belong to all of us. We should respect public property rights, too.
If we believe that destruction of meadows and forests for conversion to monoculture adversely impacts environmental quality, we might choose to attach a fee on monoculture to offset the economic incentive that drives destruction of biodiversity, to ensure that this kind of environmental impact is not carried to an extent that most people say is excessive.
Furthermore, if a large portion of people surveyed felt that monoculture dedicated to production of sugar cane or tobacco or opium, for example, included these adverse environmental impacts 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 this kind of monoculture.
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 physiology are adapted to ensure that we are highly motivated to seek out these (previously) scarce, high-energy foods. Now, with the development of agriculture, modern economic systems, et al, scarcity of these high-energy foods is no longer a factor, but our psycho- and physiological affinity and appetite for them is still strong.
We could design our political and economic system such that we could cause the price of these foods to increase, (through use of a fee system), so that their general abundance will not be driven to inappropriately high levels by our strong appetite (and economic demand) for them. This fee system--which also makes sense as an efficient and fair way to control pollution, manage natural resources and, (through equal distribution of fee proceeds to all), end abject poverty--could give us an efficient and straightforward way to manage the relative abundance of various kinds of foods in the food supply. It 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 healthy balance.
This proposal assumes that the decision about how we ought to balance the amount of the Earth's surface dedicated to monoculture versus the amount for meadows and forests belongs to all of us. It implies that ownership of the decision about how we ought to balance production levels of various kinds of food belongs to all of us. These questions ought not be placed entirely into the hands of the minority who are owners of arible land.
Natural Law Requires Respect of Public Property Rights, Too
A basic principle of property rights requires that those who degrade the value of property should compensate the owner(s) for the damage done or value lost. If we believe that we all own the air and water, then it makes sense that we should require corporations that pollute the air and water to pay a fee to the people at large in consideration of the fact that their actions degrade the quality of resources that belong to all of us. We should respect public property rights, too.
If we believe that destruction of meadows and forests for conversion to monoculture adversely impacts environmental quality, we might choose to attach a fee on monoculture to offset the economic incentive that drives destruction of biodiversity, to ensure that this kind of environmental impact is not carried to an extent that most people say is excessive.
Furthermore, if a large portion of people surveyed felt that monoculture dedicated to production of sugar cane or tobacco or opium, for example, included these adverse environmental impacts 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 this kind of monoculture.
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 physiology are adapted to ensure that we are highly motivated to seek out these (previously) scarce, high-energy foods. Now, with the development of agriculture, modern economic systems, et al, scarcity of these high-energy foods is no longer a factor, but our psycho- and physiological affinity and appetite for them is still strong.
We could design our political and economic system such that we could cause the price of these foods to increase, (through use of a fee system), so that their general abundance will not be driven to inappropriately high levels by our strong appetite (and economic demand) for them. This fee system--which also makes sense as an efficient and fair way to control pollution, manage natural resources and, (through equal distribution of fee proceeds to all), end abject poverty--could give us an efficient and straightforward way to manage the relative abundance of various kinds of foods in the food supply. It 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 healthy balance.
This proposal assumes that the decision about how we ought to balance the amount of the Earth's surface dedicated to monoculture versus the amount for meadows and forests belongs to all of us. It implies that ownership of the decision about how we ought to balance production levels of various kinds of food belongs to all of us. These questions ought not be placed entirely into the hands of the minority who are owners of arible land.
Natural Law Requires Respect of Public Property Rights, Too
Saturday, September 10, 2011
NPR Ombudsman Open Forum
Welcome!
I want to share ideas that I think could help us build a sustainable and just civilization.
I thought it might be nice to have one place where I could share all the various comments I make to news stories and other things I see on the internet.
So...
NPR reported on a Power Outage in San Diego.
my comment:
Many small things can contribute to a general decline. I think the underlying cause of civilization collapse is a tendency to overshoot, to grow beyond what the natural resource base, the environment can sustain.
It is a tragic fact that we have allowed ourselves to be distracted, to be misled really by the desire by some to start wars in foreign lands.
Too bad we didn't draft Walter Cronkite when we had the chance. (Why was it not newsworthy when he said in an interview, responding to the question of whether he would be throwing his hat into the ring: “Ha! I've got about as many stripes against me as all the others combined.” Then: “Notice you didn't get a flat 'No'”.) Nothing to do about that now, except recognize our error, perhaps, and start actively looking for the leadership we want and need.
This outage, whether caused by decaying equipment coupled with a big A/C load and perturbations from solar magnetic storms, may be symptomatic of underlying flaws.
I think movement toward distributed generation, with a smart grid that can quarantine faults quickly is the way to go to create a more robust system--one not so brittle (not so susceptible to large-scale collapse).
A cure for what ails the planet: http;//gaiabrain.blogspot.com
NPR Ombudsman invites readers of the NPR Blog to say what's mising:
Accounting for externalities & the history of life: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
We appear to be living in a society that is neither sustainable nor just. If there is a path that could lead us toward both sustainability and greater justice, I think it is worth examining.
There is a systemic defect in our civilization that threatens its stability.
Self-interest dictates that we look for the low price. Enlightened self-interest suggests that prices should tell us the truth about real costs so that we can make well-informed decisions. But we have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse environmental impacts caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost-benefit analyses and buying decisions to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things that tend to deplete resources and pollute air and water more than what they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy.
(2 of 3) "Economic externalities" (hidden costs) cause us to do the wrong thing. This distortion harms the interests of all of Earth's inhabitants. It causes long-term damage that will harm the interests of future inhabitants, including our own descendants. When markets function with a lack of regard for environmental impacts and quality of life (because natural resource user-fees and pollution fees are not part of the economic calculus) citizens may loose interest in maintaining free markets as an efficient and fair way to distribute resources. Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against an economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing? This defect in our economy disrespects the interests of other inhabitants of this world, and of future inhabitants (including future generations of humans) by depleting resources that they might rely on and by polluting air and water that they need or will need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
If we believe that natural resource wealth is owned by all equally, then any money paid by users of these resources should go to all the people; to each an equal amount.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
(3 of 3) A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world. We would not only improve the efficiency of markets and of our whole economic system in terms of natural resources used, we would also improve the fairness of markets by making access to them (in the form of economic power) more universal across the human population. When natural resource wealth is shared equally, disparity of wealth becomes a much smaller problem.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral to acquiesce in a system that gives, at most, mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that idea in reality. If a more efficient and fair accounting of natural resource wealth (necessary as a foundation of a sustainable civilization) would bring an end to abject poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms. I hope a reporter or editor can say where this analysis is flawed, or start reporting on natural resource wealth ownership.
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com
I want to share ideas that I think could help us build a sustainable and just civilization.
I thought it might be nice to have one place where I could share all the various comments I make to news stories and other things I see on the internet.
So...
NPR reported on a Power Outage in San Diego.
my comment:
Many small things can contribute to a general decline. I think the underlying cause of civilization collapse is a tendency to overshoot, to grow beyond what the natural resource base, the environment can sustain.
It is a tragic fact that we have allowed ourselves to be distracted, to be misled really by the desire by some to start wars in foreign lands.
Too bad we didn't draft Walter Cronkite when we had the chance. (Why was it not newsworthy when he said in an interview, responding to the question of whether he would be throwing his hat into the ring: “Ha! I've got about as many stripes against me as all the others combined.” Then: “Notice you didn't get a flat 'No'”.) Nothing to do about that now, except recognize our error, perhaps, and start actively looking for the leadership we want and need.
This outage, whether caused by decaying equipment coupled with a big A/C load and perturbations from solar magnetic storms, may be symptomatic of underlying flaws.
I think movement toward distributed generation, with a smart grid that can quarantine faults quickly is the way to go to create a more robust system--one not so brittle (not so susceptible to large-scale collapse).
A cure for what ails the planet: http;//gaiabrain.blogspot.com
NPR Ombudsman invites readers of the NPR Blog to say what's mising:
Accounting for externalities & the history of life: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
We appear to be living in a society that is neither sustainable nor just. If there is a path that could lead us toward both sustainability and greater justice, I think it is worth examining.
There is a systemic defect in our civilization that threatens its stability.
Self-interest dictates that we look for the low price. Enlightened self-interest suggests that prices should tell us the truth about real costs so that we can make well-informed decisions. But we have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse environmental impacts caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost-benefit analyses and buying decisions to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things that tend to deplete resources and pollute air and water more than what they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy.
(2 of 3) "Economic externalities" (hidden costs) cause us to do the wrong thing. This distortion harms the interests of all of Earth's inhabitants. It causes long-term damage that will harm the interests of future inhabitants, including our own descendants. When markets function with a lack of regard for environmental impacts and quality of life (because natural resource user-fees and pollution fees are not part of the economic calculus) citizens may loose interest in maintaining free markets as an efficient and fair way to distribute resources. Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against an economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing? This defect in our economy disrespects the interests of other inhabitants of this world, and of future inhabitants (including future generations of humans) by depleting resources that they might rely on and by polluting air and water that they need or will need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
If we believe that natural resource wealth is owned by all equally, then any money paid by users of these resources should go to all the people; to each an equal amount.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
(3 of 3) A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world. We would not only improve the efficiency of markets and of our whole economic system in terms of natural resources used, we would also improve the fairness of markets by making access to them (in the form of economic power) more universal across the human population. When natural resource wealth is shared equally, disparity of wealth becomes a much smaller problem.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral to acquiesce in a system that gives, at most, mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that idea in reality. If a more efficient and fair accounting of natural resource wealth (necessary as a foundation of a sustainable civilization) would bring an end to abject poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms. I hope a reporter or editor can say where this analysis is flawed, or start reporting on natural resource wealth ownership.
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)