I have what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal. I think the ideas that came to me in a eureka moment would be coming to many others if there were some discussion of the topics of economic externalities (also called 'market failure') and some mention of the idea that natural wealth should be shared equitably, more or less equally. We should hear discussion of these topics in the context of news reports about the problems created by externalities, and within reports about the problems caused by the injustice of unequal sharing of natural wealth.
Externalities are relevant to any story about pollution, resource depletion, traffic congestion (a kind of resource scarcity), etc.
Sharing of natural wealth is an idea that could contribute to any discussion of or report about poverty, unemployment or disparity of wealth.
Some professors have said or endorsed the view that this proposal ... Biological Model for Politics and Economics ... would require changes in human nature and they decided that the paper they received should not be published. They have, however, repeatedly declined to say WHAT changes in human nature would be required. Nor have they said specifically what they read that caused them to believe this.
Kevin Hickey
Demetri Kantarelis
I want someone to show me a flaw in this proposal that would prevent it from working, if there is one.
OR someone show a better proposal for achieving these goals. This changed paradigm would provide the basis for a sustainable society, and it would bring an end to extreme poverty.
I am announcing a fast (68 hrs. on now), as a protest of the neglect of these topics. Also, I protest the discourtesy of these professors (Hickey and Kantarelis, at Assumption College, Massachusetts).
If ANY reporter or editor can say why continued neglect of these topics is defensible, I will end my fast.
(If interested, respond to this critique: Systemic flaws are not reported: What news media and universities are not telling us )
If the professors want to answer the questions, I will end my fast.
If ANY person can show a fatal flaw in the proposal, I will end my fast.
If ANY person points me to a better proposal for how to achieve these goals, I will end my fast.
If MANY people tell me that these goals are not important, I will end my fast.
Otherwise, I will die soon, in a most emphatic act of protest of the neglect of these topics, as explained at the link above.
My hope is that, by alerting you to this blind spot in your (and others') reporting, a change in practice will result.
Thank you.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Don't get distracted
Based on a comment I put in response to a piece on the remarkable accuracy of 1980's climate projections:
Dear People, Let's agree that we will disagree. And let's resolve that we will not let that disagreement forestall the proper functioning of our political system.
Let's agree that it is a function of government to control / limit / manage rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting of various chemicals into the air or water. (Now we inject deadly poisons into the ground, in tens of thousands of 'injection wells', as a means of 'disposal'. I hope we can agree that this practice should be limited, too. Or eliminated.) Certain practices (those that impact the public or community) should not be carried to an extent that most people would say is too much. We should limit pollution and resource extraction to levels that most people feel is acceptable. Otherwise, the right of the people to define limits to levels of pollution, etc., becomes a mere assertion, an idea, not manifest in reality.
Only if we limit impacts to what people consider acceptable can we say that the right of the people to decide is being respected in practice.
We ought not allow a disagreement about the effects of human action to distract us from collectively defining overall limits to those actions.
Promote sustainability and justice through equal sharing of natural wealth:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed Jul 18 2012 10:20:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Dear People, Let's agree that we will disagree. And let's resolve that we will not let that disagreement forestall the proper functioning of our political system.
Let's agree that it is a function of government to control / limit / manage rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting of various chemicals into the air or water. (Now we inject deadly poisons into the ground, in tens of thousands of 'injection wells', as a means of 'disposal'. I hope we can agree that this practice should be limited, too. Or eliminated.) Certain practices (those that impact the public or community) should not be carried to an extent that most people would say is too much. We should limit pollution and resource extraction to levels that most people feel is acceptable. Otherwise, the right of the people to define limits to levels of pollution, etc., becomes a mere assertion, an idea, not manifest in reality.
Only if we limit impacts to what people consider acceptable can we say that the right of the people to decide is being respected in practice.
We ought not allow a disagreement about the effects of human action to distract us from collectively defining overall limits to those actions.
Promote sustainability and justice through equal sharing of natural wealth:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed Jul 18 2012 10:20:06 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
How far to go in the quest for knowledge?
Response to a comment after NPR reported that the Higgs boson search team is planning a big announcement.
Gareth Andrews: “...maybe we're not supposed/allowed to get there.“
If anyone can say why creation of very dense particles, if taken to the extreme, will not mean creation of miniature black holes, I would appreciate it.
If a miniature black hole were created, we may not know it (except, perhaps, as an otherwise unexplained loss of energy in the debris of a large hadron collision). It would not have the immediate effect of pulling everything on Earth into it, since the gravitational force would only be significant at an extremely small distance from the particle.
There have been gamma ray bursts observed with modern instruments that are of unknown origin. If some advanced civilization has already developed these particle accelerators and used them to produce black holes, then these mini black holes will likely have settled toward the center of whatever planet that unfortunate civilization inhabits. Over time, there will be interactions with other matter, and this will cause the black hole to become bigger. The effect of its gravitational field will increase, so that it will start pulling other material into it at an increasing rate. Then the whole planet is swallowed up by this manufactured black hole. The planet would be almost completely converted to gamma ray energy as it implodes.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
JoeyN wrote: If you put enough energy in a small enough region, you can create a black hole. However, if the LHC creates a black hole by colliding two protons together, that black hole will be so tiny that it will have a vanishingly small chance of swallowing even a single electron during the entire lifetime of the universe. Who's to say what other hypothetical civilizations are doing, but it's not a concern on Earth, and I don't think it's probably a viable explanation for GRBs...
@Joey N.: I read that there are some GRBs that are EITHER a pair of colliding stars VERY far away, OR an asteroid hitting a neutron star more nearby.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336531/title/Christmas_gamma-ray_burst_still_puzzles
In other words, there are GRBs of unknown energy and we cannot know their total energy unless we know their distance. In the case of these ambiguous signatures, the distance is not known. We cannot distinguish the signature of one event from the signature of another if we do not have a good estimate of the distance.
I suppose that the star-star collision at great distance and the asteroid-star collision at a relatively short distance and the imploding planet at a middle range could all have similar signatures.
Do you disagree?
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Mon Jul 02 2012 12:40:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Gareth Andrews: “...maybe we're not supposed/allowed to get there.“
If anyone can say why creation of very dense particles, if taken to the extreme, will not mean creation of miniature black holes, I would appreciate it.
If a miniature black hole were created, we may not know it (except, perhaps, as an otherwise unexplained loss of energy in the debris of a large hadron collision). It would not have the immediate effect of pulling everything on Earth into it, since the gravitational force would only be significant at an extremely small distance from the particle.
There have been gamma ray bursts observed with modern instruments that are of unknown origin. If some advanced civilization has already developed these particle accelerators and used them to produce black holes, then these mini black holes will likely have settled toward the center of whatever planet that unfortunate civilization inhabits. Over time, there will be interactions with other matter, and this will cause the black hole to become bigger. The effect of its gravitational field will increase, so that it will start pulling other material into it at an increasing rate. Then the whole planet is swallowed up by this manufactured black hole. The planet would be almost completely converted to gamma ray energy as it implodes.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
JoeyN wrote: If you put enough energy in a small enough region, you can create a black hole. However, if the LHC creates a black hole by colliding two protons together, that black hole will be so tiny that it will have a vanishingly small chance of swallowing even a single electron during the entire lifetime of the universe. Who's to say what other hypothetical civilizations are doing, but it's not a concern on Earth, and I don't think it's probably a viable explanation for GRBs...
@Joey N.: I read that there are some GRBs that are EITHER a pair of colliding stars VERY far away, OR an asteroid hitting a neutron star more nearby.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336531/title/Christmas_gamma-ray_burst_still_puzzles
In other words, there are GRBs of unknown energy and we cannot know their total energy unless we know their distance. In the case of these ambiguous signatures, the distance is not known. We cannot distinguish the signature of one event from the signature of another if we do not have a good estimate of the distance.
I suppose that the star-star collision at great distance and the asteroid-star collision at a relatively short distance and the imploding planet at a middle range could all have similar signatures.
Do you disagree?
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Mon Jul 02 2012 12:40:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Oil drilling puts climate and wildlife at risk
In response to an NPR report: Ahead of Alaska Drilling, Shell Practices Cleaning Up:
Oil spills pose a risk to whales, walruses, birds and other wildlife. This wildlife at risk is identified as food source for native villagers, with the implication being that this is why putting it at risk is relevant.
To suggest that the risk to wildlife is only important to the extent that that wildlife is food for humans shows a very narrow view, I think. This reflects an unfortunate (and strong) bias against non-human life. Something understandable, perhaps, from an evolutionary standpoint, but something that we might have hoped to overcome through compassion and intellect.
All the crustaceans, fish and other life that these whales and walruses, etc., eat are at risk of an oil spill, too. It matters whether our actions put millions or billions of other creatures at risk of serious harm or death. It matters, whether or not any villagers had plans to eat those animals.
What if natural resources were shared equally?
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Oil spills pose a risk to whales, walruses, birds and other wildlife. This wildlife at risk is identified as food source for native villagers, with the implication being that this is why putting it at risk is relevant.
To suggest that the risk to wildlife is only important to the extent that that wildlife is food for humans shows a very narrow view, I think. This reflects an unfortunate (and strong) bias against non-human life. Something understandable, perhaps, from an evolutionary standpoint, but something that we might have hoped to overcome through compassion and intellect.
All the crustaceans, fish and other life that these whales and walruses, etc., eat are at risk of an oil spill, too. It matters whether our actions put millions or billions of other creatures at risk of serious harm or death. It matters, whether or not any villagers had plans to eat those animals.
What if natural resources were shared equally?
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Saturday, June 30, 2012
In response to a story from "Meat Week" on NPR: "This Chef Loves Her 'Pig', from Nose to Tail":
James Kling wrote: "We need to become MORE connected to how our food is sourced, not LESS."
When we are aware, we can respond.
As economic beings who weigh costs and benefits of various options, we by and large consider the price of goods and services when making choices.
We SHOULD be able to see environmental impacts when we look at prices. We should see them clearly. We can know that prices reflect an appropriate measure of environmental costs when fees paid by those who take natural resources or degrade their quality or put pollution into the air, water or ground are set high enough so that these practices are not done to excess. When most people say that there is not too much pollution of whatever kind, then we know the pollution fees are high enough. When most people say we are not depleting aquifers or helium reserves or whatever other natural resource too rapidly, then we will know that resource extraction fees are high enough.
When the price of the meat or whatever that we buy includes these fees paid for environmental impacts, we become more connected to the consequences of our choices in a way that accurately informs our choice.
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
I would hope that ALL producers who want to be involved in a sustainable industry will join a call for a shift of policy toward fees on environmental impacts, as a way to motivate and reward the shift toward sustainability. Those who believe that they produce with a bit or a lot less environmental impact than their competitors should be clamoring for such a change.
Beyond concern about harm to the environment, we may wish to reduce actual harm inflicted on animals raised for food. If we love pigs, we might want to impose a monetary penalty on those who confine them in ways that clearly frustrate their natural urges and proclivities. Such a penalty would favor those in the industry who produce in ways that most people agree are humane. (I would hope that a chef who loves pigs for the intelligent and sensitive creatures that they are would support such a policy.)
All fee proceeds should go to the people. This policy change will cause increases in prices of things essential for life. We need to make the change in a way that *improves* the condition of the vast majority of the world's people, through an equal sharing of the fee proceeds, which would represent the value of natural wealth that is the birthright of all.
Fri Jun 29 2012 15:01:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Diet Choice is a Moral Choice
James Kling wrote: "We need to become MORE connected to how our food is sourced, not LESS."
When we are aware, we can respond.
As economic beings who weigh costs and benefits of various options, we by and large consider the price of goods and services when making choices.
We SHOULD be able to see environmental impacts when we look at prices. We should see them clearly. We can know that prices reflect an appropriate measure of environmental costs when fees paid by those who take natural resources or degrade their quality or put pollution into the air, water or ground are set high enough so that these practices are not done to excess. When most people say that there is not too much pollution of whatever kind, then we know the pollution fees are high enough. When most people say we are not depleting aquifers or helium reserves or whatever other natural resource too rapidly, then we will know that resource extraction fees are high enough.
When the price of the meat or whatever that we buy includes these fees paid for environmental impacts, we become more connected to the consequences of our choices in a way that accurately informs our choice.
A Biological Model for Politics and Economics
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
I would hope that ALL producers who want to be involved in a sustainable industry will join a call for a shift of policy toward fees on environmental impacts, as a way to motivate and reward the shift toward sustainability. Those who believe that they produce with a bit or a lot less environmental impact than their competitors should be clamoring for such a change.
Beyond concern about harm to the environment, we may wish to reduce actual harm inflicted on animals raised for food. If we love pigs, we might want to impose a monetary penalty on those who confine them in ways that clearly frustrate their natural urges and proclivities. Such a penalty would favor those in the industry who produce in ways that most people agree are humane. (I would hope that a chef who loves pigs for the intelligent and sensitive creatures that they are would support such a policy.)
All fee proceeds should go to the people. This policy change will cause increases in prices of things essential for life. We need to make the change in a way that *improves* the condition of the vast majority of the world's people, through an equal sharing of the fee proceeds, which would represent the value of natural wealth that is the birthright of all.
Fri Jun 29 2012 15:01:44 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Diet Choice is a Moral Choice
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Access to markets in Yemen - Sharing of natural wealth in the world
A comment on a Morning Edition story about the difficulty of finding food in Yemen
also posted to the NPR ombudsman's Open Forum:
Economists know that natural resources are valuable.
Most people, with a moment's reflection, recognize that natural resources belong to all people equally.
The NPR ombudsman, if he is reading his 'Open Forum' page, knows that persistence of economic externalities means that the least well off are less well off than they would be if we were charging fees to industries that cause environmental degradation, and sharing the fee proceeds equally with all people.
Why is there no mention of the fact that natural resource wealth is shared extremely unevenly in the world we live in when reporting a story about poverty and lack of access to markets?
What if natural resources were really owned equally by all?...
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
We would end extreme poverty throughout the world. That's what.
And overall rates of using up resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water would be kept within limits that most people find acceptable.
Why is there never a public policy survey that asks the question whether we are using up resources too rapidly, or whether current emissions are within acceptable limits?
Why are these facts not noted in reporting about poverty and environmental challenges / sustainability?
Tue Jun 26 2012 08:45:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Equal sharing of natural wealth would promote justice and sustainability
also posted to the NPR ombudsman's Open Forum:
Economists know that natural resources are valuable.
Most people, with a moment's reflection, recognize that natural resources belong to all people equally.
The NPR ombudsman, if he is reading his 'Open Forum' page, knows that persistence of economic externalities means that the least well off are less well off than they would be if we were charging fees to industries that cause environmental degradation, and sharing the fee proceeds equally with all people.
Why is there no mention of the fact that natural resource wealth is shared extremely unevenly in the world we live in when reporting a story about poverty and lack of access to markets?
What if natural resources were really owned equally by all?...
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
We would end extreme poverty throughout the world. That's what.
And overall rates of using up resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water would be kept within limits that most people find acceptable.
Why is there never a public policy survey that asks the question whether we are using up resources too rapidly, or whether current emissions are within acceptable limits?
Why are these facts not noted in reporting about poverty and environmental challenges / sustainability?
Tue Jun 26 2012 08:45:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Equal sharing of natural wealth would promote justice and sustainability
Monday, May 28, 2012
Where is reporting on economic externalities and ownership of natural resources?
A comment in response to NPR's Ombudsman's request for feedback from listeners about what NPR might be missing:
Staff members at my local station say that this is a question that should be put to the ombudsman:
Why is there no reporting on the topic of economic externalities as such?
There is reporting on the consequences of (that is, the problems caused by) economic externalities, such as pollution, resource depletion, economic instability; but there is not any mention that these problems are the result of externalities.
The persistence of externalities means that the problems caused by externalities will also persist. Why no discussion of systemic flaws that underlie the most difficult challenges of our day?
We cannot expect to solve our problems if we don't even talk about their underlying causes.
Why no discussion of public property rights at they relate to questions of how rapidly we should be using limited natural resources? Why do we never see surveys that reveal whether most people feel that overall rates of resource extraction are acceptable, or too rapid, or too slow? Why do we see no surveys that show whether most people feel that pollution levels are acceptable, or too high, or are we too strict in our limits?
Do actual conditions match what people want?
Is this not a basic function of government--of a democratic government, particularly--to manage environmental impacts so that they are consistent with the will of the people at large?
Why is there no discussion of public property rights as they relate to the question of fair compensation to the owners of the resources, the people at large, when industries pollute the air and water, and thereby degrade the value of that which belongs to all?
If there are proposals that have been offered that would mean an end to extreme poverty AND a limit to humans' impact on the environment to levels that most people find acceptable, should they NOT be reported? (They are not reported.) Why not?
Which are among the best of such proposals? Shouldn't we be examining and comparing their relative merits and demerits?
Equal sharing of natural wealth would mean a sustainable and more just civilization (slower depletion of resources (or no actual depletion for renewable resources) AND an end to extreme poverty throughout the world):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
What is not reported:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-do-we-need-to-know-that-news-media.html
Mon May 28 2012 06:51:29 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Thursday, May 24, 2012
We are our own worst enemy - (lack of) attention to moral precepts puts us all in jeopardy
Adapted from a comment to NPR 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog: On Alien Intelligence, The Supernatural and Divinity
tomlet said: "But we're one of our greatest threats to continued existence..."
I think it is our departure from our basic moral precepts that endangers the health of the environment that sustains us, and that endangers, also, our communities and society.
If moral precepts are a kind of natural law, then our neglect of a whole category of human rights called 'public property rights' constitutes a disregard of natural law...
An inattention to natural law will always bring adverse consequences, as when a person makes a wrong step while on a ladder and suffers a fall as a result. There was a momentary inattention to the law of gravity, which results in a mishap.
The idea that public property rights should be respected reflects a moral precept that says that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared equally. By neglecting or giving scant attention to this moral precept (this natural law), we perpetuate extreme poverty as a persistent condition for millions of people across the world. This makes for a less just and less stable society.
Neglect of public property rights means depletion of the planet's resources and degradation of natural systems, to the detriment of future generations and the larger community of life.
Respect of public property rights implies some sort of payment to the people by corporations when they take resources or put pollution. This would mean, then, that pursuit of profit (attempts to reduce operating costs) will mean reduced environmental impact. Normal operation of the corporation in the form of profit-seeking behavior is no longer at cross-purposes to society at large. What's good for the corporation is good for the environment, and vice-versa.
Collapse of civilization will follow neglect of natural law.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
tomlet said: "But we're one of our greatest threats to continued existence..."
I think it is our departure from our basic moral precepts that endangers the health of the environment that sustains us, and that endangers, also, our communities and society.
If moral precepts are a kind of natural law, then our neglect of a whole category of human rights called 'public property rights' constitutes a disregard of natural law...
An inattention to natural law will always bring adverse consequences, as when a person makes a wrong step while on a ladder and suffers a fall as a result. There was a momentary inattention to the law of gravity, which results in a mishap.
The idea that public property rights should be respected reflects a moral precept that says that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared equally. By neglecting or giving scant attention to this moral precept (this natural law), we perpetuate extreme poverty as a persistent condition for millions of people across the world. This makes for a less just and less stable society.
Neglect of public property rights means depletion of the planet's resources and degradation of natural systems, to the detriment of future generations and the larger community of life.
Respect of public property rights implies some sort of payment to the people by corporations when they take resources or put pollution. This would mean, then, that pursuit of profit (attempts to reduce operating costs) will mean reduced environmental impact. Normal operation of the corporation in the form of profit-seeking behavior is no longer at cross-purposes to society at large. What's good for the corporation is good for the environment, and vice-versa.
Collapse of civilization will follow neglect of natural law.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Gas extraction today destroys future options
Comment to the Diane Rehm Show about hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale:
The method of fracking breaks up the rock formations, making them permeable. They will no longer hold gas, so it leaks out.
It does not only leak out into the gas well piping. Gas leaks out to the surface in random locations in the area of drilling. Cows have died, as methane, propane or butane displaced normal atmospheric gasses on the landscape.
What technical fix, I wonder, could be applied to such a problem? (I doubt seriously that a thorough technical fix is possible, because of the nature of the problem.)
The destruction of these geological structures means the loss of natural helium storage capacity, along with depletion of gas supplies. This is a little-mentioned cost of this method of gas extraction.
Helium cannot be replaced by any other material.
Where is the public discourse that includes the idea that emissions should be kept within limits that most human beings agree are acceptable limits?
To what extent do these companies inject poisons into the ground, with the claim that they are trying to force the gas out, simply because they have nothing better to do with the poisons (which they would have to pay to dispose of, otherwise)? I understand that the EPA does not regulate these injections of chemicals into the ground.
(Do these drilling companies fund independently-managed projects that assay or survey exactly what is in the groundwater BEFORE they start operation, so that reliable benchmarks can be gotten for comparison with water quality AFTER drilling has been ongoing for some time?)
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
The method of fracking breaks up the rock formations, making them permeable. They will no longer hold gas, so it leaks out.
It does not only leak out into the gas well piping. Gas leaks out to the surface in random locations in the area of drilling. Cows have died, as methane, propane or butane displaced normal atmospheric gasses on the landscape.
What technical fix, I wonder, could be applied to such a problem? (I doubt seriously that a thorough technical fix is possible, because of the nature of the problem.)
The destruction of these geological structures means the loss of natural helium storage capacity, along with depletion of gas supplies. This is a little-mentioned cost of this method of gas extraction.
Helium cannot be replaced by any other material.
Where is the public discourse that includes the idea that emissions should be kept within limits that most human beings agree are acceptable limits?
To what extent do these companies inject poisons into the ground, with the claim that they are trying to force the gas out, simply because they have nothing better to do with the poisons (which they would have to pay to dispose of, otherwise)? I understand that the EPA does not regulate these injections of chemicals into the ground.
(Do these drilling companies fund independently-managed projects that assay or survey exactly what is in the groundwater BEFORE they start operation, so that reliable benchmarks can be gotten for comparison with water quality AFTER drilling has been ongoing for some time?)
A cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Satellites causing erosion of the atmosphere?
Response to Adam Frank's 13.7 blog about commercialization of the space age:
Anyone want to take a crack at explaining why, when satellites collide with air molecules, we shouldn't be concerned that they are accelerating those molecules to more-than-escape velocity and thereby causing a slow erosion of the atmosphere.
No doubt some of those molecules will collide with other molecules in the thin air and be slowed. But some may not. They may continue at that high (35,000 m.p.h.) speed and be lost to interplanetary space permanently.
Is it OK, from a public policy perspective, to cause some erosion of the atmosphere, if the rate is slow enough? Who decides?
How could different designs of satellites reduce this effect?
A cure for what ails the planet: (end to extreme poverty AND an efficient & fair means for controlling humans' impact on the environment):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Anyone want to take a crack at explaining why, when satellites collide with air molecules, we shouldn't be concerned that they are accelerating those molecules to more-than-escape velocity and thereby causing a slow erosion of the atmosphere.
No doubt some of those molecules will collide with other molecules in the thin air and be slowed. But some may not. They may continue at that high (35,000 m.p.h.) speed and be lost to interplanetary space permanently.
Is it OK, from a public policy perspective, to cause some erosion of the atmosphere, if the rate is slow enough? Who decides?
How could different designs of satellites reduce this effect?
A cure for what ails the planet: (end to extreme poverty AND an efficient & fair means for controlling humans' impact on the environment):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
DRShow: Fracking in the Marcellus Shale: Consequences
In response to a comment at the Diane Rehm Show:
Environmental problems have been blamed on capitalism. An ideologue recently told me that 'imperialism' makes corporations want to rape the planet.
Capitalism or 'imperialism' in their current form, perhaps. (I should look up 'imperialism'.)
I would say that it is the persistence of economic externalities that makes environmental degradation the more profitable option. There is nothing intrinsic to the operation of a business that makes those engaged in it want to mess up the environment. They deplete resources at faster-than-sustainable rates because it is more profitable than the alternative.
If we want conserving resources to be profitable (and we want profligate use of resources to be prohibitively expensive) we need to charge fees (or charge higher fees) to those who take, degrade or deplete natural resources. When industries are paying appropriate fees for environmental impacts, they seek to do what is good for the community (reduce impacts) in order to do what is good for themselves (reduce expenses of environmental impact fees).
Natural complex organisms are made of parts (cells) that serve their own interests by and while serving the interests of the larger organism.
Our economy, as a kind of artificial organism, can work in an analogous way. As long as externalities dominate our economy, we will be somewhat like a cancer on the Earth. But when we recognize an equal ownership of or vestment in natural resource wealth, we will start accounting for externalities and will be more like brain cells of the planet. What is best for the corporation is best for the community. What is best for the individual (vote for higher fees to be paid to citizens by industry for adverse impacts) is also best for the environment (higher fees paid leads to more effort to reduce harmful environmental impacts).
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Environmental problems have been blamed on capitalism. An ideologue recently told me that 'imperialism' makes corporations want to rape the planet.
Capitalism or 'imperialism' in their current form, perhaps. (I should look up 'imperialism'.)
I would say that it is the persistence of economic externalities that makes environmental degradation the more profitable option. There is nothing intrinsic to the operation of a business that makes those engaged in it want to mess up the environment. They deplete resources at faster-than-sustainable rates because it is more profitable than the alternative.
If we want conserving resources to be profitable (and we want profligate use of resources to be prohibitively expensive) we need to charge fees (or charge higher fees) to those who take, degrade or deplete natural resources. When industries are paying appropriate fees for environmental impacts, they seek to do what is good for the community (reduce impacts) in order to do what is good for themselves (reduce expenses of environmental impact fees).
Natural complex organisms are made of parts (cells) that serve their own interests by and while serving the interests of the larger organism.
Our economy, as a kind of artificial organism, can work in an analogous way. As long as externalities dominate our economy, we will be somewhat like a cancer on the Earth. But when we recognize an equal ownership of or vestment in natural resource wealth, we will start accounting for externalities and will be more like brain cells of the planet. What is best for the corporation is best for the community. What is best for the individual (vote for higher fees to be paid to citizens by industry for adverse impacts) is also best for the environment (higher fees paid leads to more effort to reduce harmful environmental impacts).
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Friday, May 11, 2012
A starting point for the political system: Make conditions match what the people want
A post to the NPR ombudsman's 'Open Forum':
My mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness among my fellow humans to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality (to levels of pollution and limits to rates of taking of natural resources) that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
... and for comment on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process. Yet I have seen very little comment or feedback, thus far.
My mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness among my fellow humans to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality (to levels of pollution and limits to rates of taking of natural resources) that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
... and for comment on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process. Yet I have seen very little comment or feedback, thus far.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Does probing the laws of nature put the Earth in jeopardy?
A response to a post at NPR's Cosmos and Culture blog: Physics vs. Philosophy:
Within the experimental physics community, the view is that it is OK to operate a Large Hadron Collider because, if it makes miniature black holes, they will 'evaporate'. According to present theory.
But what if theory is wrong. (It has happened before.) Then, the black hole may go into orbit around the Earth, but with part of the orbit going through the Earth. If collisions with other particles cause the orbit to decay and also cause the black hole to accrete mass, then it grows, and it finds its way more and more toward the center of the Earth, where accretion of more matter is ever more likely. So it grows. Then, when the mass is large enough, the whole Earth implodes into the black hole. Is this an inherent risk of trying to probe the laws of nature at their extreme limits?
Can we *ever* answer the question of whether the universe is cyclic, or had a beginning? Can we do it without simultaneously putting the whole Earth in jeopardy?
Recently an extreme gamma ray burst was recorded. It was not known whether it was an extremely distant star colliding with another star or a less distant asteroid crashing into a neutron star. The middle possibility (an imploding planet) was not mentioned.
The Gaia Brain blog
Tue May 08 2012 12:53:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Within the experimental physics community, the view is that it is OK to operate a Large Hadron Collider because, if it makes miniature black holes, they will 'evaporate'. According to present theory.
But what if theory is wrong. (It has happened before.) Then, the black hole may go into orbit around the Earth, but with part of the orbit going through the Earth. If collisions with other particles cause the orbit to decay and also cause the black hole to accrete mass, then it grows, and it finds its way more and more toward the center of the Earth, where accretion of more matter is ever more likely. So it grows. Then, when the mass is large enough, the whole Earth implodes into the black hole. Is this an inherent risk of trying to probe the laws of nature at their extreme limits?
Can we *ever* answer the question of whether the universe is cyclic, or had a beginning? Can we do it without simultaneously putting the whole Earth in jeopardy?
Recently an extreme gamma ray burst was recorded. It was not known whether it was an extremely distant star colliding with another star or a less distant asteroid crashing into a neutron star. The middle possibility (an imploding planet) was not mentioned.
The Gaia Brain blog
Tue May 08 2012 12:53:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Neglected houses are an adverse impact on the environment
From a comment to the NPR report: Should Banks Maintain Abandoned Properties?:
Industries that cause pollution or take natural resources should be required to pay a fee as compensation for damage done or value taken. We can find such a policy mentioned in most basic economics texts.
If we believe that natural resource wealth belongs to all, then the fee proceeds ought to go to all people.
If we believe in democratic principles, then we ought to set the fee just high enough to cause industries to put the right amount of effort into reducing environmental impacts. When most people feel that there is not too much pollution or too rapid extraction of natural resources, then we will know that the fees are set at the right amount.
Such a policy of requiring payment to the people by those who cause adverse impact on the environment could readily be applied to this problem of neglected houses adversely impacting neighborhoods. If most people feel that too many properties are being neglected, to the detriment of the community at large, we could charge a fee to those who hold neglected properties... higher fees for properties that more people point to as blighted. This will give these property owners incentive to keep up their properties and/or find renters or buyers. This will benefit the entire community.
With fee proceeds shared equally with all, no one will live in extreme poverty.
Our present system is one that has many vacant properties and many homeless people. But within this alternative paradigm, all people will have income from their shared 'natural resource wealth stipend'. More property owners will want to offer their property for rent or sale, rather than leave it vacant and risk being liable for a 'neglected properties' fee.
Societies develop ideas of property rights in part to ensure that wealth is put to productive use. Property rights were never defended by political philosophers as a way to give wealthy people a place to park their money. If we respect private property rights to the extent that we allow banks to hold dozens of vacant and neglected houses in a neighborhood, we need to also respect public property rights to allow a neighborhood community to protect itself against the adverse impact caused by a glut of vacant houses.
When those who hold property are more motivated to market their properties, low income people will be more able to find housing. The housing stock will be utilized more efficiently to house people who need shelter. Subjective experience of wealth will increase
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed May 02 2012 11:48:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Industries that cause pollution or take natural resources should be required to pay a fee as compensation for damage done or value taken. We can find such a policy mentioned in most basic economics texts.
If we believe that natural resource wealth belongs to all, then the fee proceeds ought to go to all people.
If we believe in democratic principles, then we ought to set the fee just high enough to cause industries to put the right amount of effort into reducing environmental impacts. When most people feel that there is not too much pollution or too rapid extraction of natural resources, then we will know that the fees are set at the right amount.
Such a policy of requiring payment to the people by those who cause adverse impact on the environment could readily be applied to this problem of neglected houses adversely impacting neighborhoods. If most people feel that too many properties are being neglected, to the detriment of the community at large, we could charge a fee to those who hold neglected properties... higher fees for properties that more people point to as blighted. This will give these property owners incentive to keep up their properties and/or find renters or buyers. This will benefit the entire community.
With fee proceeds shared equally with all, no one will live in extreme poverty.
Our present system is one that has many vacant properties and many homeless people. But within this alternative paradigm, all people will have income from their shared 'natural resource wealth stipend'. More property owners will want to offer their property for rent or sale, rather than leave it vacant and risk being liable for a 'neglected properties' fee.
Societies develop ideas of property rights in part to ensure that wealth is put to productive use. Property rights were never defended by political philosophers as a way to give wealthy people a place to park their money. If we respect private property rights to the extent that we allow banks to hold dozens of vacant and neglected houses in a neighborhood, we need to also respect public property rights to allow a neighborhood community to protect itself against the adverse impact caused by a glut of vacant houses.
When those who hold property are more motivated to market their properties, low income people will be more able to find housing. The housing stock will be utilized more efficiently to house people who need shelter. Subjective experience of wealth will increase
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed May 02 2012 11:48:28 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Fossil fuels not so efficient
@b c (bcs89):
Fossil fuel can be called efficient only if we do not include the cost of the destabilized climate when we calculate the cost of fossil fuel.
Whether and how much human activity (such as adding carbon to the atmosphere) contributes to climate instability can be debated. A starting point for public policy ought to be that the reality should match what the general opinion among the people says is acceptable (in terms of carbon release or other impact). A democratic society would limit emissions of various chemicals into the air and water so that the overall amounts do not exceed what most people would agree is OK.
Even though there may be many trillions of tons of carbon in the Earth's crust, we may decide for public policy reasons to NOT allow all of that to be mined and transferred to the atmosphere.
If most people feel that we should slow the rate at which we are releasing carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, then the rate should be slowed. We should continue our debates about what effect human activities have on the climate and whether such changes are good or bad after we put policy in place that brings actual impacts into line with the will of the people at large.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed Apr 25 2012 11:38:05 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Fossil fuel can be called efficient only if we do not include the cost of the destabilized climate when we calculate the cost of fossil fuel.
Whether and how much human activity (such as adding carbon to the atmosphere) contributes to climate instability can be debated. A starting point for public policy ought to be that the reality should match what the general opinion among the people says is acceptable (in terms of carbon release or other impact). A democratic society would limit emissions of various chemicals into the air and water so that the overall amounts do not exceed what most people would agree is OK.
Even though there may be many trillions of tons of carbon in the Earth's crust, we may decide for public policy reasons to NOT allow all of that to be mined and transferred to the atmosphere.
If most people feel that we should slow the rate at which we are releasing carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, then the rate should be slowed. We should continue our debates about what effect human activities have on the climate and whether such changes are good or bad after we put policy in place that brings actual impacts into line with the will of the people at large.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Wed Apr 25 2012 11:38:05 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Looming water crisis threatens our wellbeing
(In response to Sheril Kirshenbaum's guest blog about the need for water conservation at the NPR 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog.)
Water quality is threatened by what is now common practice: injection of highly poisonous chemicals into the ground. There are tens of thousands of points where this is happening around the nation. (Hundreds of thousands around the world?)
Putting a fee on the taking of water or other natural resources is the best (most efficient and fair) way to give incentive to conserve the resources. Natural wealth belongs to all. This method of managing natural resource wealth is fair if fee proceeds are shared with all people.
Sharing fee proceeds will ensure that, in adopting a policy to provide necessary information and incentives to economic actors, we do not impoverish the people at large.
Information about potentially harmful stress to ecosystems caused by excess taking of water (and other resources) from the natural environment is transmitted through the human economy and society in a way analogous to the way that information about other kinds of harm enters other kinds of neural networks. Fees on environmental impact function as signals of a global neural network, acting so as to reduce harm to ecosystems. Like a sensory nervous system for Earth.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Wed Apr 25 2012 08:36:58 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Water quality is threatened by what is now common practice: injection of highly poisonous chemicals into the ground. There are tens of thousands of points where this is happening around the nation. (Hundreds of thousands around the world?)
Putting a fee on the taking of water or other natural resources is the best (most efficient and fair) way to give incentive to conserve the resources. Natural wealth belongs to all. This method of managing natural resource wealth is fair if fee proceeds are shared with all people.
Sharing fee proceeds will ensure that, in adopting a policy to provide necessary information and incentives to economic actors, we do not impoverish the people at large.
Information about potentially harmful stress to ecosystems caused by excess taking of water (and other resources) from the natural environment is transmitted through the human economy and society in a way analogous to the way that information about other kinds of harm enters other kinds of neural networks. Fees on environmental impact function as signals of a global neural network, acting so as to reduce harm to ecosystems. Like a sensory nervous system for Earth.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Wed Apr 25 2012 08:36:58 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Treating beings as things
In response to the NPR Ombudsman's comments about a report on raw milk
The photo depicts beings being treated as things--as milk-producing machines--owned as property by milk 'producers'.
Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong.
(This is not to take anything away from the fact that enslavement of human beings stands (even today, in some places) as among our most egregious examples of oppression and exploitation.)
There's not much said in news reports about the ethical implications of an animal agriculture industry that is not only unsustainable, but is also apparently at odds with fundamental moral precepts that teach us to consider the interests of others and treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. What does the animal slavery industry say about our attitudes toward our fellow inhabitants of Earth?
http://Earthlings.com
Diet choice is a moral choice:
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-choice-is-moral-choice.html
Cure for what ails the planet (REALLY!):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
(Please tell me where I am wrong on this, or help carry it forward... share it with others. Thanks.)
Sat Apr 21 2012 17:04:34 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
The photo depicts beings being treated as things--as milk-producing machines--owned as property by milk 'producers'.
Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong.
(This is not to take anything away from the fact that enslavement of human beings stands (even today, in some places) as among our most egregious examples of oppression and exploitation.)
There's not much said in news reports about the ethical implications of an animal agriculture industry that is not only unsustainable, but is also apparently at odds with fundamental moral precepts that teach us to consider the interests of others and treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. What does the animal slavery industry say about our attitudes toward our fellow inhabitants of Earth?
http://Earthlings.com
Diet choice is a moral choice:
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-choice-is-moral-choice.html
Cure for what ails the planet (REALLY!):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
(Please tell me where I am wrong on this, or help carry it forward... share it with others. Thanks.)
Sat Apr 21 2012 17:04:34 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Extreme disparity reflects a systemic flaw
Response to an NPR story about disparity of wealth in Panama:
The wealthy have more ability to maneuver into the most advantageous positions from which to exploit the commons or externalize costs.
The rich get richer.
Our society respects *private* property rights, but not *public* property rights, so it is possible to amass more and more personal wealth (and those with some wealth find it relatively easy to amass more), but there is no countervailing tendency that assures that some wealth will flow to all people, even though natural resource wealth is made through natural processes and cannot legitimately be claimed by one person any more than by another.
Natural resources belong to all. Natural law *requires* sharing of natural wealth.
Extreme disparity of wealth, economic 'cycles' of boom and bust and the “arc of civilization” of thrive and collapse are all the result of, they are caused by, our unequal sharing of natural resource wealth.
If we charge fees to industries when they take natural resources or put pollution, we will see them put more effort into reducing their impact on the environment. We need not leave an unstable civilization to the next generation. Natural resource wealth need not be depleted so rapidly that the sustainability of civilization is put at risk.
If fee proceeds were shared equally among all people, then no one would live in abject poverty. The disparity between rich and poor would be less of a problem. Within a paradigm of respect for *public* property rights, the part of the economy devoted to meeting basic human needs would be insulated from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. If people get a significant fraction of their income from a natural resource wealth dividend, then employment status would have a less pronounced influence on people's psychological state (their confidence) and their willingness (and ability) to spend in support of their basic needs.
Boom and bust is made less severe, and 'thrive and collapse' is eliminated, when we charge fees to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the proceeds to the people.
When will news reports mention equal ownership of natural wealth as a systemic solution to systemic problems?
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Biological model for politics and economics (a cure for what ails the planet):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Tue Apr 17 2012 20:28:39 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
The wealthy have more ability to maneuver into the most advantageous positions from which to exploit the commons or externalize costs.
The rich get richer.
Our society respects *private* property rights, but not *public* property rights, so it is possible to amass more and more personal wealth (and those with some wealth find it relatively easy to amass more), but there is no countervailing tendency that assures that some wealth will flow to all people, even though natural resource wealth is made through natural processes and cannot legitimately be claimed by one person any more than by another.
Natural resources belong to all. Natural law *requires* sharing of natural wealth.
Extreme disparity of wealth, economic 'cycles' of boom and bust and the “arc of civilization” of thrive and collapse are all the result of, they are caused by, our unequal sharing of natural resource wealth.
If we charge fees to industries when they take natural resources or put pollution, we will see them put more effort into reducing their impact on the environment. We need not leave an unstable civilization to the next generation. Natural resource wealth need not be depleted so rapidly that the sustainability of civilization is put at risk.
If fee proceeds were shared equally among all people, then no one would live in abject poverty. The disparity between rich and poor would be less of a problem. Within a paradigm of respect for *public* property rights, the part of the economy devoted to meeting basic human needs would be insulated from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. If people get a significant fraction of their income from a natural resource wealth dividend, then employment status would have a less pronounced influence on people's psychological state (their confidence) and their willingness (and ability) to spend in support of their basic needs.
Boom and bust is made less severe, and 'thrive and collapse' is eliminated, when we charge fees to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the proceeds to the people.
When will news reports mention equal ownership of natural wealth as a systemic solution to systemic problems?
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Biological model for politics and economics (a cure for what ails the planet):
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Tue Apr 17 2012 20:28:39 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Arguing whether humans cause climate instability, as a political issue, is a distraction.
In response to an Al Jazeera story about climate change:
Any political discussion of climate change ought to be within the context of an explicit recognition of a primary function of government: to manage environmental impacts in a way consistent with the will of the people. We should have rates of taking of resources and of putting pollution that do not exceed what most people would say is acceptable.
This needs to be our starting point. What does a random survey say? Should we have faster extraction of resources? Or slower? Or are we using things up at about the right rate?
Slower taking of resources would mean an easier transition for society (and easier for individuals) because resource availability will be extended farther into the future. There will be more time to learn to adapt to their absence.
The conversation about whether humans are causing climate instability can continue after we assess a fee to carbon and methane emissions, high enough to keep emissions within acceptable limits in the eyes of most people, and give the proceeds to all the world's people.
As citizens, it is our shared responsibility to see to it that our political system functions so as to manage this natural wealth in a way that reflects our will and also in a way that reflects our shared vestment in this wealth. We need to attend to the functioning of the political system, or to its replacement, to ensure that the *economic* system reflects a shared ownership of natural resource wealth. When the economy reflects a shared ownership of air and water and other natural resources, abject poverty across the world will no longer exist. (Natural wealth is estimated to be worth about $33 trillion per year. That's about $10 or $20 per day, per person, even if we cut or cut out other taxes and have each person spend a portion of their share of this 'natural resource wealth dividend' toward public programs that most people agree provide a valuable public service.)
'Economic externalities' are what economists call those hidden costs, like pollution and resource depletion, that are not usually part of the cost-benefit analysis. These costs can and must be taken into account. There needs to be a willingness on the part of reporters and editors to start reporting on the various forms of externalities, on their consequences, and on various ways of accounting for them. We'll particularly need to look at which ways of accounting for externalities are most efficient and fair.
Any political discussion of climate change ought to be within the context of an explicit recognition of a primary function of government: to manage environmental impacts in a way consistent with the will of the people. We should have rates of taking of resources and of putting pollution that do not exceed what most people would say is acceptable.
This needs to be our starting point. What does a random survey say? Should we have faster extraction of resources? Or slower? Or are we using things up at about the right rate?
Slower taking of resources would mean an easier transition for society (and easier for individuals) because resource availability will be extended farther into the future. There will be more time to learn to adapt to their absence.
The conversation about whether humans are causing climate instability can continue after we assess a fee to carbon and methane emissions, high enough to keep emissions within acceptable limits in the eyes of most people, and give the proceeds to all the world's people.
As citizens, it is our shared responsibility to see to it that our political system functions so as to manage this natural wealth in a way that reflects our will and also in a way that reflects our shared vestment in this wealth. We need to attend to the functioning of the political system, or to its replacement, to ensure that the *economic* system reflects a shared ownership of natural resource wealth. When the economy reflects a shared ownership of air and water and other natural resources, abject poverty across the world will no longer exist. (Natural wealth is estimated to be worth about $33 trillion per year. That's about $10 or $20 per day, per person, even if we cut or cut out other taxes and have each person spend a portion of their share of this 'natural resource wealth dividend' toward public programs that most people agree provide a valuable public service.)
'Economic externalities' are what economists call those hidden costs, like pollution and resource depletion, that are not usually part of the cost-benefit analysis. These costs can and must be taken into account. There needs to be a willingness on the part of reporters and editors to start reporting on the various forms of externalities, on their consequences, and on various ways of accounting for them. We'll particularly need to look at which ways of accounting for externalities are most efficient and fair.
What counts as news -- What does not count.
This is not the world I want to live in.
-- What does it mean to be an athlete with a Pampers - P & G sponsorship?
-- It means that I strive to be my best, and I get to do events like this.
The reporter may believe she is reporting news. But the athlete knows that *she* is earning points toward her obligation to promote the product.
If Mr. Schumacher-Matos were able to spend some time explaining, I would hope that we could gain some understanding not so much of why this is considered news, but rather, why mention of the various instances of, consequences of and solutions for economic externalities are not reported as such.
Or, even better, tell us when and how this serious omission will be corrected.
Accounting for externalities in ways that are efficient and fair would mean, possibly, a sustainable society. Accounting for externalities would *likely* mean a sustainable society. Currently, we do not have a sustainable society. Does that matter? Should that be mentioned?
Accounting for externalities efficiently and fairly would mean an end to extreme poverty across the world. Does that matter? Who cares?
What reporters are not reporting: Systemic flaws and their solution:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/08/systemic-flaws-are-not-reported.html
-- What does it mean to be an athlete with a Pampers - P & G sponsorship?
-- It means that I strive to be my best, and I get to do events like this.
The reporter may believe she is reporting news. But the athlete knows that *she* is earning points toward her obligation to promote the product.
If Mr. Schumacher-Matos were able to spend some time explaining, I would hope that we could gain some understanding not so much of why this is considered news, but rather, why mention of the various instances of, consequences of and solutions for economic externalities are not reported as such.
Or, even better, tell us when and how this serious omission will be corrected.
Accounting for externalities in ways that are efficient and fair would mean, possibly, a sustainable society. Accounting for externalities would *likely* mean a sustainable society. Currently, we do not have a sustainable society. Does that matter? Should that be mentioned?
Accounting for externalities efficiently and fairly would mean an end to extreme poverty across the world. Does that matter? Who cares?
What reporters are not reporting: Systemic flaws and their solution:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/08/systemic-flaws-are-not-reported.html
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Open Forum: Ombudsman wants to know what's missing
NPR Ombudsman blog invites feedback. Here's my response (part of a series of responses to this periodic feature):
I want to chime in on several of these comments. But my mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality of levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
and on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process.
I want to chime in on several of these comments. But my mind is so completely boggled by an apparent willingness to let pass an opportunity to create a sustainable and just civilization. 'Just' as in more egalitarian. 'Just' as not so much disparity between rich and poor. No one in extreme poverty.
'Sustainable' perhaps. I suppose that, even if we limit impacts to what most people would say is acceptable, we might exceed capacity... (more likely as we delay the transition).
Shouldn't this be a starting point? The result of the functioning of the political process ought to be to bring about those limits in reality of levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources that the largest number of people would say is about the right amount. This ought to be recognized as a primary function of government, but it is not even talked about as a policy option.
Of all blog communities on the web, NPR might be among the best places to come for some comment or feedback on this proposal:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
and on the idea that the problems and solutions relating to economic externalities ought to be discussed, and ought to be a normal part of the reporting process.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Removed (censored?) from the NPR Blog
This was removed from the Comments section of a blog post about April Fool's Day
What rule violation caused this comment ... to be removed?:
We live in a civilization that is sustainable and just (I realize now).
There is no need for NPR and other news media to report systemic flaws, since there are no flaws to speak of. The system is working well.
Economic externalities are really a pretty good way for corporations to make more profit at the expense of the larger society, future generations and the larger community of life.
Higher profits is a good thing. It means shareholders have more money to spend. And the businesses can grow larger.
Now I don't know *what* I was thinking with that 'share natural wealth equally' idea. To try to make our society reflect some kind of equal distribution of natural wealth would have been a lot of trouble for nothing. We probably would have been worse off, since things are working so well just as they are.
I feel better now. The stress was really getting to me, what with thinking we needed to change society, yet knowing that changing institutions and people's minds is inconvenient and even rather difficult.
What a relief!
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
http://socratesfriend.blogspot.com
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com
What rule violation caused this comment ... to be removed?:
We live in a civilization that is sustainable and just (I realize now).
There is no need for NPR and other news media to report systemic flaws, since there are no flaws to speak of. The system is working well.
Economic externalities are really a pretty good way for corporations to make more profit at the expense of the larger society, future generations and the larger community of life.
Higher profits is a good thing. It means shareholders have more money to spend. And the businesses can grow larger.
Now I don't know *what* I was thinking with that 'share natural wealth equally' idea. To try to make our society reflect some kind of equal distribution of natural wealth would have been a lot of trouble for nothing. We probably would have been worse off, since things are working so well just as they are.
I feel better now. The stress was really getting to me, what with thinking we needed to change society, yet knowing that changing institutions and people's minds is inconvenient and even rather difficult.
What a relief!
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
http://socratesfriend.blogspot.com
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
No international conferences aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons
to drshow@wamu.org
Putting off discussion of elimination of nuclear weapons
This is a nod to Israel. If we are ever going to talk about eliminating nuclear weapons, we will need to have honesty and transparency about who actually has weapons already.
Because they prefer to keep this question of whether they have nuclear weapons as an official secret, any conversation among nations about intentions and actions regarding abolition of nuclear weapons might be seen by participants and observers as a sham. So, we see no conversation, rather than direct unwanted attention to Israeli policy.
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Putting off discussion of elimination of nuclear weapons
This is a nod to Israel. If we are ever going to talk about eliminating nuclear weapons, we will need to have honesty and transparency about who actually has weapons already.
Because they prefer to keep this question of whether they have nuclear weapons as an official secret, any conversation among nations about intentions and actions regarding abolition of nuclear weapons might be seen by participants and observers as a sham. So, we see no conversation, rather than direct unwanted attention to Israeli policy.
Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too
Monday, March 26, 2012
To a Healthy and Peaceful Life
Is there a direct relationship between people's willingness to treat beings as things, as when we put flesh on a plate (phycho-pathology) and the tendency toward decay of the body (physiological pathology).
And what relation is there between the inclination to eat animals on the one hand and the tendency to see natural resources both as something scarce that must be grabbed or controlled and at the same time something to be squandered?
When someone wants to go to war, they will turn their attention to recruiting and exhorting youth (subjects of their own lives) into fodder for cannon (objects or cogs in a machine) for example.
According to Socrates, we cannot live a peaceful and healthy life if we pursue a desire to eat animals. The environmental damage, adverse impact on our health and the resulting scarcity of resources and impulse to war to get our neighbors' pasture (oil) will prevent it.
We are eating precariously high on the food chain:
http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2011/06/diet-choice-is-moral-choice.html
A Heart for Cheney
A comment on the web about a famous and influential warmonger who had surgery recently:
Thomas Hatch (Seen_It_All) wrote: < br />
It was 'most recommended', this comment.
Thomas Hatch (Seen_It_All) wrote: < br />
Why now give a heart to a man who has managed to live for 71 years without one? Mon Mar 26 2012 05:03:27 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
It was 'most recommended', this comment.
Re: Philippe Van Parijs - Basic Income
To BBC Business News on Facebook:
A team of scientists, Robert Costanza, et al -- in 1997, estimated the value of natural resource wealth at about $33 trillion per year. If we were to charge fees to those who take natural resources or put pollution, then share the proceeds of these fees equally, this estimate suggests that each person might receive about $600 per month. Of course, this estimate was an estimate only. Some things were left out of the calculus because they were just too hard to put a number on. And we might decide to NOT give the money for personal use only. We might eliminate or significantly reduce other taxes, but require each citizen to put a portion of their share of the proceeds from environmental impact fees toward public programs that they deem (and that a large fraction of other citizens believe) are worthy of public support. It is likely that abusive police forces or inadequate schools would NOT qualify to receive funds under such a system, since relatively few people would say that they promote the public interest. In this way, we could respect PUBLIC property rights (equal sharing of natural wealth) along with private property rights, and thereby end extreme poverty in the world AND manage environmental impacts in the most efficient and fair way.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/
A team of scientists, Robert Costanza, et al -- in 1997, estimated the value of natural resource wealth at about $33 trillion per year. If we were to charge fees to those who take natural resources or put pollution, then share the proceeds of these fees equally, this estimate suggests that each person might receive about $600 per month. Of course, this estimate was an estimate only. Some things were left out of the calculus because they were just too hard to put a number on. And we might decide to NOT give the money for personal use only. We might eliminate or significantly reduce other taxes, but require each citizen to put a portion of their share of the proceeds from environmental impact fees toward public programs that they deem (and that a large fraction of other citizens believe) are worthy of public support. It is likely that abusive police forces or inadequate schools would NOT qualify to receive funds under such a system, since relatively few people would say that they promote the public interest. In this way, we could respect PUBLIC property rights (equal sharing of natural wealth) along with private property rights, and thereby end extreme poverty in the world AND manage environmental impacts in the most efficient and fair way.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Squandering Natural Resources Has Consequences
Comment to Meet the Press on Facebook:
The same rock formations that hold natural gas and oil also trap helium. Unlike fossil fuels, there are NO substitutes for helium. When the reserves are gone, we will have to do without. This will impact our modern economy in ways that most people are completely unaware of. (I read that NASA uses large quantities of helium, but makes no effort to recycle it.)
Rapid depletion of oil and natural gas reserves, through fracking, not only pollutes groundwater and makes transition to alternatives more difficult, it also destroys the geologic formations that have held the gas for so long. Why is there no public discussion about whether and by how much we should slow down our depletion of these limited resources, for the sake of future generations? A rational policy would assess fees to industry when they extract resources and put pollution. Fees attached to extraction of natural gas should be higher for those fields that have higher helium content.
All fee proceeds should be shared equally among all people.
I really would like to know, why are these issues and ideas not discussed by the news media? Squandering natural resources has consequences. Future generations (along with younger members of today's society) will suffer as our fossil fuel-based civilization collapses. Or we avert the collapse by developing a respect of PUBLIC property rights and by accounting for economic externalities.
We can solve the major problems facing our civilization. We will have to talk about the systemic flaws underlying those problems. Are we willing to engage in a public discourse about systemic flaws and their solution?
Equal sharing of natural wealth makes the world's biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
The same rock formations that hold natural gas and oil also trap helium. Unlike fossil fuels, there are NO substitutes for helium. When the reserves are gone, we will have to do without. This will impact our modern economy in ways that most people are completely unaware of. (I read that NASA uses large quantities of helium, but makes no effort to recycle it.)
Rapid depletion of oil and natural gas reserves, through fracking, not only pollutes groundwater and makes transition to alternatives more difficult, it also destroys the geologic formations that have held the gas for so long. Why is there no public discussion about whether and by how much we should slow down our depletion of these limited resources, for the sake of future generations? A rational policy would assess fees to industry when they extract resources and put pollution. Fees attached to extraction of natural gas should be higher for those fields that have higher helium content.
All fee proceeds should be shared equally among all people.
I really would like to know, why are these issues and ideas not discussed by the news media? Squandering natural resources has consequences. Future generations (along with younger members of today's society) will suffer as our fossil fuel-based civilization collapses. Or we avert the collapse by developing a respect of PUBLIC property rights and by accounting for economic externalities.
We can solve the major problems facing our civilization. We will have to talk about the systemic flaws underlying those problems. Are we willing to engage in a public discourse about systemic flaws and their solution?
Equal sharing of natural wealth makes the world's biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Faster drilling today means more disruption and hardship tomorrow
Should the program be called "Some Things Considered"?
There's no mention on NPR of the fact that faster drilling for oil today means faster depletion of fossil fuel reserves. This will mean a more difficult transition when the wells finally run dry or become so unproductive that extraction is prohibitively expensive.
Why is there no mention of the fact (this is not opinion, but fact) that more rapid depletion of natural resources today means a more difficult life for our children and their offspring in years to come?
How can this essential fact be deemed not relevant to the public discourse?
We are living in an UN-sustainable civilization. Public policy that reduces the rate of taking of natural resources would tend to promote stability over the long term.
A truly democratic society would adopt policies that ensure that resources are not depleted at rates that exceed what most people would say are acceptable. A truly democratic society would not allow levels of pollution to exceed what most people say is acceptable
There are proposals that promise a sustainable civilization where abject poverty is abolished. They involve an equal sharing of natural wealth. Why are they not mentioned at all?
A sustainable and just civilization:
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 18:37:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
There's no mention on NPR of the fact that faster drilling for oil today means faster depletion of fossil fuel reserves. This will mean a more difficult transition when the wells finally run dry or become so unproductive that extraction is prohibitively expensive.
Why is there no mention of the fact (this is not opinion, but fact) that more rapid depletion of natural resources today means a more difficult life for our children and their offspring in years to come?
How can this essential fact be deemed not relevant to the public discourse?
We are living in an UN-sustainable civilization. Public policy that reduces the rate of taking of natural resources would tend to promote stability over the long term.
A truly democratic society would adopt policies that ensure that resources are not depleted at rates that exceed what most people would say are acceptable. A truly democratic society would not allow levels of pollution to exceed what most people say is acceptable
There are proposals that promise a sustainable civilization where abject poverty is abolished. They involve an equal sharing of natural wealth. Why are they not mentioned at all?
A sustainable and just civilization:
Http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 18:37:42 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Address problems we must face together
Seeking six words about race -- Talk of the Nation
*Race is a culturally constructed concept.*
Would we be better off if we were to see ourselves as members of the human community and larger community of life, rather than as members of one or another socially constructed racial category?
This is not to deny the extra burden carried by those with dark skin in USA.
Would it be better for race relations if we were to spend more time talking about the challenges that face the entire human community AND possible solutions.
Re possible solutions, we could END extreme poverty throughout the world AND control environmental impacts and manage natural resource wealth for a sustainable civilization if we resolve to respect PUBLIC property rights along with private property rights. (Natural resource wealth should be shared equally.)
NPR and other mainstream news organizations do not mention public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth. Nor do they mention that we are living in an unsustainable civilization.
How might addressing problems that we face as a human community reduce tensions related to our various group identities.
How might reducing disparity of wealth reduce racial tensions?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 15:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
*Race is a culturally constructed concept.*
Would we be better off if we were to see ourselves as members of the human community and larger community of life, rather than as members of one or another socially constructed racial category?
This is not to deny the extra burden carried by those with dark skin in USA.
Would it be better for race relations if we were to spend more time talking about the challenges that face the entire human community AND possible solutions.
Re possible solutions, we could END extreme poverty throughout the world AND control environmental impacts and manage natural resource wealth for a sustainable civilization if we resolve to respect PUBLIC property rights along with private property rights. (Natural resource wealth should be shared equally.)
NPR and other mainstream news organizations do not mention public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth. Nor do they mention that we are living in an unsustainable civilization.
How might addressing problems that we face as a human community reduce tensions related to our various group identities.
How might reducing disparity of wealth reduce racial tensions?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Thu Mar 22 2012 15:16:26 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Systemic flaws persist: News reporting is not complete without some mention of economic externalities
My comment in response to the NPR ombudsman's introduction of the new Ethics Guidelines
The guidelines say that news reporting will be "as complete as possible".
Economic externalities are not discussed on NPR air. Externalities skew all buying decisions and business models toward more harm to the environment. Externalities mean more pollution and faster depletion of resources than what would be the case if environmental impacts were properly accounted for in the price structure.
These facts make externalities and options for efficiently and fairly accounting for them issues of public concern.
One efficient and fair way to remedy this systemic flaw is to charge a fee to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the fee proceeds to the people at large.
(We should remedy this flaw so that prices will accurately reflect all the costs of production. When prices tell the whole truth about real costs, buyers will be able to make well-informed decisions and societies will be able to manage natural resource wealth in a way that is sustainable or that avoids instability caused by rapid depletion of resources.)
What other ways of accounting for externalities have been proposed? What are the relative merits and demerits of the various alternatives?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sat Mar 17 2012 15:58:10 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
The guidelines say that news reporting will be "as complete as possible".
Economic externalities are not discussed on NPR air. Externalities skew all buying decisions and business models toward more harm to the environment. Externalities mean more pollution and faster depletion of resources than what would be the case if environmental impacts were properly accounted for in the price structure.
These facts make externalities and options for efficiently and fairly accounting for them issues of public concern.
One efficient and fair way to remedy this systemic flaw is to charge a fee to those who take or degrade natural resource wealth and give the fee proceeds to the people at large.
(We should remedy this flaw so that prices will accurately reflect all the costs of production. When prices tell the whole truth about real costs, buyers will be able to make well-informed decisions and societies will be able to manage natural resource wealth in a way that is sustainable or that avoids instability caused by rapid depletion of resources.)
What other ways of accounting for externalities have been proposed? What are the relative merits and demerits of the various alternatives?
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sat Mar 17 2012 15:58:10 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Monday, March 12, 2012
Accounting for externalities means reduced food waste
A post to NPR Cosmos and Culture blog again:
Taking a Bite Out Of Energy Consumption
As long as we allow economic externalities to persist, we will have an economy that gives everyone perverse incentives to do the wrong thing.
Food is sold in our distorted markets at an artificially low price. Externalities mean that much of the resource depletion costs and pollution costs associated with food production are not reflected in the price structure.
What we call a free market cannot effectively favor the most environmentally responsible players if these environmental costs are hidden, if they are not part of the cost-benefit analysis.
So called 'free' markets are actually corrupt markets when externalities are involved and where commons or public property rights are not respected.
Accounting for externalities will make the price of food go up. When we have to pay more for food, we will be more careful not to waste it.
When we account for externalities, ALL industries will have to pay for environmental impacts. Then they will be more interested in reducing those impacts.
We have seen growing awareness of the persistent assault by corporations on ecological health and the corporation has become quite the villain in our contemporary struggle-for-social-justice narrative.
Corporations have always been externalizing machines, but now availability of the easier sources of natural resources is fading fast, and the more difficult sources are being tapped, while global demand continues to grow. This portends a day of reckoning, when resources to sustain civilization are no longer available.
In this context, the 'more difficult source' of petroleum and natural gas is the material derived from fracking, which involves injecting deadly poisons into the ground, where they can mix with groundwater. The 'difficulty' is shifted to the future generations who will be faced with polluted water.
Another difficulty is that a possible source of helium for future generations (those layers of shale and clay) is destroyed in the process of breaking up those layers. (Why there is no mention of the fact that this process squanders helium reserves is a complete mystery to me.)
When externalities are accounted for, the profit-seeking tendency of the corporation matches the interests of the larger society AND the larger community of life: Effort is put into reducing environmental impacts, to the benefit of the corporation AND everyone else.
Whether we talk in terms of economic externalities or neglect of public and commons property rights, we need to correct this serious defect in our economic system. We need to start accounting for externalities, but we have a news media that doesn't even mention externalities in their economics reporting. Nor do they mention public property rights in relation to natural resource wealth when they report on poverty and disparity of wealth generally.
When we take account of externalities, the increased incentive to seek ways to reduce environmental impacts will mean a multitude of little changes and many big changes, in all industries. In relation to management of our food supply, higher food prices will mean that we will see changes ranging from restaurants offering smaller portions to save money, to more shoppers asking produce managers for discounts on their grade 'B' produce, to shifts toward less or no meat consumption, an so on...
Biodiversity as a public good:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/respect-public-property-rights.html
If natural resource wealth is recognized as belonging to all, then the proceeds from these fees (a monetary representation of this wealth) will be shared among all the world's people. Although accounting for externalities will mean price increases for food and other things, the people at large will be better off because this representation of natural wealth will be shared equally (no one will be impoverished by the policy change).
And we will all be better off because the economic system and our global society will be made sustainable through the appropriate economic incentives toward resource efficiency and reduced environmental impact.
This paradigm shift toward respect of public or commons property rights along with private property will mean a moderating of the boom and bust of the business 'cycle', and it will mean a potential cure for that existential instability that we see as the arc of civilization of thrive and collapse. These two instabilities are really the same phenomenon seen at different scales.
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Biological Model for Politics and Economics:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Mon Mar 12 2012 19:06:07 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/11/148138657/taking-a-bite-out-of-energy-consumption
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Accounting for externalities would help reduce food waste, too
Adapted from a comment to the NPR 13.7 Cosmos and Culture Blog:
Taking a Bite Out Of Energy Consumption
I would echo what Chad said about raising animals with intent to kill and eat them. Feeding grain to cows, pigs, chickens, etc., is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
(From a metaphysical standpoint (or is it an ethical standpoint?), we might consider that the frame of mind that says that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and all are commodities, that they are things for humans to use as means to our ends, is a fundamental, existential error. Exploitation of animals means denying freedom and imposing discomfort and even misery. Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong, and this is all extremely contrary to how we must learn to recognize and interact with one another.)
There are relatively large populations of plant-eaters in the natural world, where diverse ecology still exists. But there are only small populations of animal-eaters. This difference reflects some fundamental truths about the universe.
Dave says that accounting for externalities would remedy the problem of food waste. Accounting for externalities would, in fact, cause the economy to function with respect to, rather than with lack of regard for, these underlying truths.
Accounting for externalities helps the economy embody principles of biology and the laws of thermodynamics.
If we want to reflect environmental impacts as part of the price structure (so that the economy becomes more intelligent by incorporating information about its environmental impacts into its structure and functioning, in an adaptive, responsive way) then the taxes or fees need to be applied to more than just energy-related externalities. We could easily decide that monoculture itself is an adverse impact on the environment (because it diminishes the extent of biodiversity across the landscape). We could impose a fee on all kinds of monoculture. We might impose a higher fee on monoculture of crops that most people feel are being planted to excess, to the detriment of the human community at large. Sugar cane, corn, opium, cocoa and cannabis may (or may not) be examples of such crops.
The balance or ratios of the different kinds of food produced by our agricultural system would come to reflect what most people believe is a good balance. (This is assuming fees are set at the amounts that will result in the limits that the largest number of people say are about the right limits. Random surveys are an obvious choice as an instrument to discern what those limits should be.)
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sun Mar 11 2012 18:25:21 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Taking a Bite Out Of Energy Consumption
I would echo what Chad said about raising animals with intent to kill and eat them. Feeding grain to cows, pigs, chickens, etc., is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
(From a metaphysical standpoint (or is it an ethical standpoint?), we might consider that the frame of mind that says that cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and all are commodities, that they are things for humans to use as means to our ends, is a fundamental, existential error. Exploitation of animals means denying freedom and imposing discomfort and even misery. Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong, and this is all extremely contrary to how we must learn to recognize and interact with one another.)
There are relatively large populations of plant-eaters in the natural world, where diverse ecology still exists. But there are only small populations of animal-eaters. This difference reflects some fundamental truths about the universe.
Dave says that accounting for externalities would remedy the problem of food waste. Accounting for externalities would, in fact, cause the economy to function with respect to, rather than with lack of regard for, these underlying truths.
Accounting for externalities helps the economy embody principles of biology and the laws of thermodynamics.
If we want to reflect environmental impacts as part of the price structure (so that the economy becomes more intelligent by incorporating information about its environmental impacts into its structure and functioning, in an adaptive, responsive way) then the taxes or fees need to be applied to more than just energy-related externalities. We could easily decide that monoculture itself is an adverse impact on the environment (because it diminishes the extent of biodiversity across the landscape). We could impose a fee on all kinds of monoculture. We might impose a higher fee on monoculture of crops that most people feel are being planted to excess, to the detriment of the human community at large. Sugar cane, corn, opium, cocoa and cannabis may (or may not) be examples of such crops.
The balance or ratios of the different kinds of food produced by our agricultural system would come to reflect what most people believe is a good balance. (This is assuming fees are set at the amounts that will result in the limits that the largest number of people say are about the right limits. Random surveys are an obvious choice as an instrument to discern what those limits should be.)
Cure for what ails the planet:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Sun Mar 11 2012 18:25:21 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)
Saturday, March 10, 2012
News reports missing questions about sustainability
Response to
Planet Money: Meet Claudia, The High-Tech Cow
The productivity increases are impressive, but if we look at them without any consideration of the fact that they are based on faster depletion of water, soil and petroleum, we will have a distorted view of the full implications of this technological change.
This is not a more sustainable method of food production. It is less sustainable. Which is to say, it is not sustainable.
Why not mention that these higher per cow rates of milk production are supported through the depletion of resources (soil and water) that future generations will need? I want to say, 'soil, water and petroleum' here. Human beings will have to learn to sustain a civilization without an extractive fossil fuel industry. But it may be that human beings are approaching depletion of petroleum faster than we are learning to adapt to its absence. In other words, for the sake of the stability of civilization, it may be preferable to slow the rates of extraction of resources, so that their eventual depletion can be put farther into the future, to allow more time for adaptation. The mechanism for slowing the taking of the resource (a fee for extraction) serves well as the financial incentive to industry to adapt to higher energy and materials efficiencies.
The 'learning to adapt' challenge is met most effectively through a fee mechanism.
Our current economic system functions with built-in systemic defects. Much of the water that supports the dairy industry is mined from the Ogalala Aquifer and other aquifers to grow the feed grains that are fed to the cows (and to wash the industrial dairy 'farms'). The side-effect of the industry, then, is the depletion of a limited resource (and water pollution). The defect in the system is that this pollution cost, this cost to society, is not reflected in prices. It is called an 'externality'. It is outside the cost-benefit analysis of industry.
Industries, corporations, do not pay attention to things outside the cost-benefit analysis.
Cultivating crops to feed to animals so that we can eat the animals or their products is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
'Inefficient' is a synonym for 'not productive'.
This fact is evident in the natural world: Populations of plant-eaters are always larger than populations of animal-eaters. We now have a large population of human beings, but we are trying to live as animal-eaters. This is not sustainable over the long term.
Free market forces would not drive industries toward unsustainable practices if all costs were included in the price structure. If players had to pay when they deplete water resources, petroleum and soil, then they would find ways to do business by producing less of these kinds of impacts on the Earth.
Labor productivity is not the only measure of productivity that we might be interested in. It may not be the most important, either.
When industries produce wealth, we should be able to assume that that wealth benefits humanity. That is what wealth is. It is a benefit or the ability to provide or enjoy benefits.
In the case of milk production, the product is not offering much benefit to humanity. Aside from the pleasure on our palate that we experience when we ea ice cream and cheese, and some would say when we drink milk, the benefit of the dairy industry to humanity is highly questionable.
Setting aside all those unaccounted environmental and resource depletion costs, the impact on our bodies from the excess protein and fat from milk is doing us no good at all.
We suffer higher rates of osteoporosis, obesity, breast cancer and other problems when we pretend that cow milk is food for human beings.
Fri Mar 09 2012 12:39:39 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Biodiversity as a public good
Planet Money: Meet Claudia, The High-Tech Cow
The productivity increases are impressive, but if we look at them without any consideration of the fact that they are based on faster depletion of water, soil and petroleum, we will have a distorted view of the full implications of this technological change.
This is not a more sustainable method of food production. It is less sustainable. Which is to say, it is not sustainable.
Why not mention that these higher per cow rates of milk production are supported through the depletion of resources (soil and water) that future generations will need? I want to say, 'soil, water and petroleum' here. Human beings will have to learn to sustain a civilization without an extractive fossil fuel industry. But it may be that human beings are approaching depletion of petroleum faster than we are learning to adapt to its absence. In other words, for the sake of the stability of civilization, it may be preferable to slow the rates of extraction of resources, so that their eventual depletion can be put farther into the future, to allow more time for adaptation. The mechanism for slowing the taking of the resource (a fee for extraction) serves well as the financial incentive to industry to adapt to higher energy and materials efficiencies.
The 'learning to adapt' challenge is met most effectively through a fee mechanism.
Our current economic system functions with built-in systemic defects. Much of the water that supports the dairy industry is mined from the Ogalala Aquifer and other aquifers to grow the feed grains that are fed to the cows (and to wash the industrial dairy 'farms'). The side-effect of the industry, then, is the depletion of a limited resource (and water pollution). The defect in the system is that this pollution cost, this cost to society, is not reflected in prices. It is called an 'externality'. It is outside the cost-benefit analysis of industry.
Industries, corporations, do not pay attention to things outside the cost-benefit analysis.
Cultivating crops to feed to animals so that we can eat the animals or their products is a very IN-efficient way to produce food for human beings.
'Inefficient' is a synonym for 'not productive'.
This fact is evident in the natural world: Populations of plant-eaters are always larger than populations of animal-eaters. We now have a large population of human beings, but we are trying to live as animal-eaters. This is not sustainable over the long term.
Free market forces would not drive industries toward unsustainable practices if all costs were included in the price structure. If players had to pay when they deplete water resources, petroleum and soil, then they would find ways to do business by producing less of these kinds of impacts on the Earth.
Labor productivity is not the only measure of productivity that we might be interested in. It may not be the most important, either.
When industries produce wealth, we should be able to assume that that wealth benefits humanity. That is what wealth is. It is a benefit or the ability to provide or enjoy benefits.
In the case of milk production, the product is not offering much benefit to humanity. Aside from the pleasure on our palate that we experience when we ea ice cream and cheese, and some would say when we drink milk, the benefit of the dairy industry to humanity is highly questionable.
Setting aside all those unaccounted environmental and resource depletion costs, the impact on our bodies from the excess protein and fat from milk is doing us no good at all.
We suffer higher rates of osteoporosis, obesity, breast cancer and other problems when we pretend that cow milk is food for human beings.
Fri Mar 09 2012 12:39:39 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Biodiversity as a public good
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Discourtesy blocking natural emergence of sustainability and justice
NPR Cosmos and Culture blog 13.7 - Admitting mistakes: a heroic act in science
I think it is a mistake to say (as professors K. Hickey and D. Kantarelis at Assumption College did) that this proposal ...
Maybe *I* am mistaken in thinking that this is a reasonable and practical proposal that describes real possibilities.
We could make a judgment about whether this proposal is contrary to human nature if Hickey and Kantarelis would be willing to say *what* changes in human nature would be required. How is our nature inconsistent with this proposal? What changes would be required?
Which aspect(s) of the proposal, exactly, is (are) being challenged?
After repeated requests, these professors have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to extend a professional courtesy to offer a sentence or paragraph of explanation or elaboration of their assertion.
I have just ended a three-day fast. I did the fast to protest DIS-courtesy.
This fast was not done merely to protest the discourtesy that might disrespect me or others personally. This was a protest of discourtesy that covers for or hides a serious neglect of what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal; one that might be part of a natural unfoldment of a sustainable and just human civilization on Earth.
Following this path *might* be part of a natural unfoldment of a new phenomenon in the universe (a sustainable and just global civilization), except that this natural development is forestalled by an UN-willingness to bring these ideas to a wider audience and make them part of the public discourse.
What change(s) in human nature would be required before we could create a policy of charging fees or selling permits to polluters? Or, what changes would be required in our nature before we could create a rule or law that says these fee proceeds will be shared among all people, to each an equal amount?
I'm still wondering.
(If the professors are unwilling to answer these questions, perhaps a reader here would like tto do so.)
How to make the biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a mistake to allow public discourse to be dominated by arguments about whether humans cause climate instability or about how much change can be attributed to human activities or about whether that change might be good or bad, on balance.
Public discourse ought to be focused on discovering efficient and fair ways to bring the reality about environmental impacts into line with what most people think those impacts should be.
We should be talking about what are the most effective, transparent and verifiable means for discerning the will of the people regarding the various kinds of human impacts on the environment.
We could use random surveys to learn what rates of emissions and what rates of taking of resources most people believe are acceptable. We would need to conduct many different surveys that inquire about the many different kinds of environmental impacts, but since polls of very large groups (in this case, the global population) can use relatively small sample sizes and still produce accurate results, we would likely be asked a question related to air pollution, for example, only about once or twice a year. (That's assuming 30,000 chemicals or classes of chemicals, and a sample size of 30,000.)
NPR Cosmos and Culture blog 13.7 - Admitting mistakes: a heroic act in science
I think it is a mistake to say (as professors K. Hickey and D. Kantarelis at Assumption College did) that this proposal ...
Biological Model for Politics and Economics: Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html… would require changes in human nature.
Maybe *I* am mistaken in thinking that this is a reasonable and practical proposal that describes real possibilities.
We could make a judgment about whether this proposal is contrary to human nature if Hickey and Kantarelis would be willing to say *what* changes in human nature would be required. How is our nature inconsistent with this proposal? What changes would be required?
Which aspect(s) of the proposal, exactly, is (are) being challenged?
After repeated requests, these professors have shown themselves to be completely unwilling to extend a professional courtesy to offer a sentence or paragraph of explanation or elaboration of their assertion.
I have just ended a three-day fast. I did the fast to protest DIS-courtesy.
This fast was not done merely to protest the discourtesy that might disrespect me or others personally. This was a protest of discourtesy that covers for or hides a serious neglect of what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal; one that might be part of a natural unfoldment of a sustainable and just human civilization on Earth.
Following this path *might* be part of a natural unfoldment of a new phenomenon in the universe (a sustainable and just global civilization), except that this natural development is forestalled by an UN-willingness to bring these ideas to a wider audience and make them part of the public discourse.
What change(s) in human nature would be required before we could create a policy of charging fees or selling permits to polluters? Or, what changes would be required in our nature before we could create a rule or law that says these fee proceeds will be shared among all people, to each an equal amount?
I'm still wondering.
(If the professors are unwilling to answer these questions, perhaps a reader here would like tto do so.)
How to make the biggest problems MUCH smaller:
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a mistake to allow public discourse to be dominated by arguments about whether humans cause climate instability or about how much change can be attributed to human activities or about whether that change might be good or bad, on balance.
Public discourse ought to be focused on discovering efficient and fair ways to bring the reality about environmental impacts into line with what most people think those impacts should be.
We should be talking about what are the most effective, transparent and verifiable means for discerning the will of the people regarding the various kinds of human impacts on the environment.
We could use random surveys to learn what rates of emissions and what rates of taking of resources most people believe are acceptable. We would need to conduct many different surveys that inquire about the many different kinds of environmental impacts, but since polls of very large groups (in this case, the global population) can use relatively small sample sizes and still produce accurate results, we would likely be asked a question related to air pollution, for example, only about once or twice a year. (That's assuming 30,000 chemicals or classes of chemicals, and a sample size of 30,000.)
NPR Cosmos and Culture blog 13.7 - Admitting mistakes: a heroic act in science
Monday, February 27, 2012
Moral precepts are natural law we must abide
from a comment to The Diane Rehm Show:
We could have more discussion of principle in our reporting.
All governments seem to pursue policies that involve initiating force or violence against peaceful people.
There could be more discussion about what circumstances justify use of force, with a particular emphasis on initiation of force.
The kind of damage and suffering and the deaths caused by Syrian military attacks on citizens of Syria is similar to the kind of damage, suffering and deaths caused by my own government's military actions in several foreign nations.
A basic moral precept says that it is wrong for one person to initiate violence against another person. Because we do not have such a right to initiate force as individuals, we cannot legitimately delegate that right or authority to government.
There is a way to build a sustainable and just civilization. It involves sharing natural wealth equally. Pollution fees, with proceeds going to all people, would be an example of a policy that embodies this sharing in the political and economic structures. Fees on taking natural resources, with proceeds going to all people, would embody a respect of PUBLIC property rights in society. Public or commons property rights, like other human rights, are a kind of natural law which must be respected.
A basic moral precept says that we all have an equal right to enjoy natural opportunities. Related to this right is the right to share in deciding overall limits to rates of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources. There is a related shared duty to create systems of governance that result in actual limits that are in accord with, that are consistent with, the will of the people. We have to start talking about basic moral precepts if we are to carry out our most fundamental political responsibilities.
How to make the big problems much smaller
Minimum Wage vs. Minimum Income
We could have more discussion of principle in our reporting.
All governments seem to pursue policies that involve initiating force or violence against peaceful people.
There could be more discussion about what circumstances justify use of force, with a particular emphasis on initiation of force.
The kind of damage and suffering and the deaths caused by Syrian military attacks on citizens of Syria is similar to the kind of damage, suffering and deaths caused by my own government's military actions in several foreign nations.
A basic moral precept says that it is wrong for one person to initiate violence against another person. Because we do not have such a right to initiate force as individuals, we cannot legitimately delegate that right or authority to government.
There is a way to build a sustainable and just civilization. It involves sharing natural wealth equally. Pollution fees, with proceeds going to all people, would be an example of a policy that embodies this sharing in the political and economic structures. Fees on taking natural resources, with proceeds going to all people, would embody a respect of PUBLIC property rights in society. Public or commons property rights, like other human rights, are a kind of natural law which must be respected.
A basic moral precept says that we all have an equal right to enjoy natural opportunities. Related to this right is the right to share in deciding overall limits to rates of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources. There is a related shared duty to create systems of governance that result in actual limits that are in accord with, that are consistent with, the will of the people. We have to start talking about basic moral precepts if we are to carry out our most fundamental political responsibilities.
How to make the big problems much smaller
Minimum Wage vs. Minimum Income
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
When will there be some reporting about equal sharing of natural wealth?
The NPR Ombudsman invites input from listeners about what is not being reported.
An equal sharing of natural wealth would mean a dampening of the boom and bust of the 'business cycle'. Respect of public property rights along with private property would mean a stable and sustainable civilization. The arc of civilization, thrive and collapse, would no longer threaten social and ecological health.
Equal sharing of natural wealth is consistent with natural law, as described by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine...
Equal sharing of natural wealth means economic externalities are no longer a problem. Our economy should not be giving us incentive to do harm by showing us lower prices for the most environmentally harmful choices. Fees on pollution and other environmental impacts will cause us to see the true costs of our decisions. Prices need to tell us the truth about real costs.
When will news reports about wealth disparity and poverty mention the fact that equal sharing of natural wealth makes those problems smaller?
When will reports about pollution and resource scarcity mention that fees on putting pollution and taking resources would promote sustainability in the most efficient and fair way?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Mon Feb 20 2012 01:04:04 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
An equal sharing of natural wealth would mean a dampening of the boom and bust of the 'business cycle'. Respect of public property rights along with private property would mean a stable and sustainable civilization. The arc of civilization, thrive and collapse, would no longer threaten social and ecological health.
Equal sharing of natural wealth is consistent with natural law, as described by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine...
Equal sharing of natural wealth means economic externalities are no longer a problem. Our economy should not be giving us incentive to do harm by showing us lower prices for the most environmentally harmful choices. Fees on pollution and other environmental impacts will cause us to see the true costs of our decisions. Prices need to tell us the truth about real costs.
When will news reports about wealth disparity and poverty mention the fact that equal sharing of natural wealth makes those problems smaller?
When will reports about pollution and resource scarcity mention that fees on putting pollution and taking resources would promote sustainability in the most efficient and fair way?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Mon Feb 20 2012 01:04:04 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Current system produces perverse incentives
Spain's jobless benefits bogged down by fraud
Before the end of this story, I knew that there would be no mention of an alternative public policy that would avoid the downsides of the policy described.
There is nothing more predictable than that NPR reporting (and mainstream media generally) includes significant blindspots regarding sharing of natural wealth, public property rights and economic externalities. These topics are not mentioned in news reports.
When people are paid for their unemployed status, they have an economic incentive to be less productive. This is not good for them nor is it good for society (for us). They have incentive to hide or obfuscate their employment status. This is a perverse incentive. A society that encourages people to be open about their employment status is one where there is generally more awareness among members about the experience and abilities of their fellows.
If we respected natural law enough to share natural wealth equally, we might not feel a need for government programs aimed at poverty reduction, since no person would live with the threat of abject poverty.
Equal sharing of natural wealth does not cause people to want to avoid productive work.
Why no mention of that fact in a story such as this?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Before the end of this story, I knew that there would be no mention of an alternative public policy that would avoid the downsides of the policy described.
There is nothing more predictable than that NPR reporting (and mainstream media generally) includes significant blindspots regarding sharing of natural wealth, public property rights and economic externalities. These topics are not mentioned in news reports.
When people are paid for their unemployed status, they have an economic incentive to be less productive. This is not good for them nor is it good for society (for us). They have incentive to hide or obfuscate their employment status. This is a perverse incentive. A society that encourages people to be open about their employment status is one where there is generally more awareness among members about the experience and abilities of their fellows.
If we respected natural law enough to share natural wealth equally, we might not feel a need for government programs aimed at poverty reduction, since no person would live with the threat of abject poverty.
Equal sharing of natural wealth does not cause people to want to avoid productive work.
Why no mention of that fact in a story such as this?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Monday, February 20, 2012
Boom and Bust, Arc of Civilization are Linked
Adapted from a comment on the Greek debt reporting.
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the machinations of the financial world, but my understanding is that US banks lent their expertise at obfuscation, learned while bundling the multitudes of tiny slices of crappy mortgage loan debt, (they sold their expertise, I should say) to those who wanted to obfuscate the financial state of Greece so that, even beyond the point where Greece was in a good position to be borrowing more money, people could still believe or claim that more lending is appropriate.
So maybe there is plenty of blame to go around.
We in the US are borrowing much still, even after the point where we have saddled the next generation with an enormous debt -- to China and other bond-holders.
Our president said he would cut the deficit by half (grow the debt more slowly), but we've doubled the deficit, instead, I think.
As goes the economy, so goes civilization. The boom and bust of the business 'cycle' is the same phenomenon as the thriving and collapse of civilization, but seen at a different scale, a different magnitude.
We are heading for collapse of our global civilization. But there is a solution for this instability.
The natural rights of man can provide a basis for a sustainable and just society.
We are almost completely neglecting commons or public property rights, which Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and John Locke all referred to in one form or another. (Joseph Mazor has compiled references to these writers where they have asserted a need to respect the right of the people to have access to natural wealth. Mazor explains that we all have equal claim to the right to enjoy natural opportunities.)
If we accept that we have a political right to share in deciding limits to levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources, then it follows that actual limits should reflect what the people say they should be. To know what the people say on the topic of limits to various kinds of human impacts, we could take a random survey.
If we believe that we have equal right to enjoy the benefits of natural wealth, then to the extent that some would take (and benefit from) resources more than others, those who take more ought to pay some compensation to those who take less. An effective, efficient way to carry out a policy aimed at achieving this would be to charge a fee to those who take, and give the proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount.
Instability of the economic system is reduced. Upswings in economic activity are automatically dampened because, as demands for natural resources increase in an expanding economy, the limited number of permits available will cause the price of permits to increase. This price increase will tend to dampen economic activity and prevent overheating.
On the other hand, a shrinking economy will maintain its vital functions because all citizens will be receiving an income from their shared natural wealth stipend. Business contractions will be moderated by the fact that all people will maintain some significant level of confidence in their ability to spend money. No one will entirely stop spending. The most essential goods and services would continue to be produced, since we would all have our public property or natural wealth dividend to protect and insulate us from abject poverty.
With less economic hardship associated with loosing a job, (since our job would no longer be our sole source of income) we could eliminate government regulation of the hiring and firing process. We would not need government stimulus or jobs programs.
We could be more selective in our choice of employment. Time spent at gainful employment might decrease, leaving more time available for other pursuits. The pay for the most difficult jobs would increase.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the machinations of the financial world, but my understanding is that US banks lent their expertise at obfuscation, learned while bundling the multitudes of tiny slices of crappy mortgage loan debt, (they sold their expertise, I should say) to those who wanted to obfuscate the financial state of Greece so that, even beyond the point where Greece was in a good position to be borrowing more money, people could still believe or claim that more lending is appropriate.
So maybe there is plenty of blame to go around.
We in the US are borrowing much still, even after the point where we have saddled the next generation with an enormous debt -- to China and other bond-holders.
Our president said he would cut the deficit by half (grow the debt more slowly), but we've doubled the deficit, instead, I think.
As goes the economy, so goes civilization. The boom and bust of the business 'cycle' is the same phenomenon as the thriving and collapse of civilization, but seen at a different scale, a different magnitude.
We are heading for collapse of our global civilization. But there is a solution for this instability.
The natural rights of man can provide a basis for a sustainable and just society.
We are almost completely neglecting commons or public property rights, which Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and John Locke all referred to in one form or another. (Joseph Mazor has compiled references to these writers where they have asserted a need to respect the right of the people to have access to natural wealth. Mazor explains that we all have equal claim to the right to enjoy natural opportunities.)
If we accept that we have a political right to share in deciding limits to levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources, then it follows that actual limits should reflect what the people say they should be. To know what the people say on the topic of limits to various kinds of human impacts, we could take a random survey.
If we believe that we have equal right to enjoy the benefits of natural wealth, then to the extent that some would take (and benefit from) resources more than others, those who take more ought to pay some compensation to those who take less. An effective, efficient way to carry out a policy aimed at achieving this would be to charge a fee to those who take, and give the proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount.
Instability of the economic system is reduced. Upswings in economic activity are automatically dampened because, as demands for natural resources increase in an expanding economy, the limited number of permits available will cause the price of permits to increase. This price increase will tend to dampen economic activity and prevent overheating.
On the other hand, a shrinking economy will maintain its vital functions because all citizens will be receiving an income from their shared natural wealth stipend. Business contractions will be moderated by the fact that all people will maintain some significant level of confidence in their ability to spend money. No one will entirely stop spending. The most essential goods and services would continue to be produced, since we would all have our public property or natural wealth dividend to protect and insulate us from abject poverty.
With less economic hardship associated with loosing a job, (since our job would no longer be our sole source of income) we could eliminate government regulation of the hiring and firing process. We would not need government stimulus or jobs programs.
We could be more selective in our choice of employment. Time spent at gainful employment might decrease, leaving more time available for other pursuits. The pay for the most difficult jobs would increase.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Response to 'Beyond Modernity: Thoughts we might consider'
My comment to NPR 13.7 Blog: Beyond Modernity: Thoughts we might consider
Stu Kauffman wrote:
If we want an economy that does not grow in respect to certain physical quantities (such as the rates of cutting of forests or of taking of fish from the sea, or the extent of monoculture or of paving on the Earth, etc.) we can define those physical quantities that reflect acceptable limits, then issue permits for just those impacts that most people would say are acceptable. We could auction these permits in a free market. Such a system would define limits to the overall size of the human economy in real terms and in a way consistent with our democratic principles.
The proceeds from sale of the permits would be a monetary representation of the value of natural resource wealth, which is best understood as belonging to all (because we all have an equal right to use these resources). The money collected should be shared equally among all members of the human community.
We could end extreme poverty throughout the world. Estimates of the value of natural resources suggest that sharing this wealth would mean about $20 or more per person, per day, for everyone on Earth.
As prices increase for those goods and services produced through use of natural resources, we will reduce our consumption of the more resource-intensive products.
Businesses would modify production methods towards greater resource efficiency. Some enterprises that offer little value in relation to resources used will go out of business, while opportunities (and profits) will grow for those who produce value at little or no cost to the environment.
With equal sharing of fee proceeds, we will be assured that those on the low end of the income distribution spectrum will have the wherewithal to acquire that which is essential for living their lives. The most vital functions of the economy would be buffered, as it were, against the more severe effects of an economic downturn.
The need to limit humans' impact on the environment and the need to create a more egalitarian society can both be served through a change in our political and economic paradigms, toward a respect of PUBLIC or COMMONS property rights. The fact that we are currently living in a society that is neither sustainable nor equitable reflects the fact that we have thus far failed to respect this side of the property rights coin.
Moral principle is a kind of natural law.
Natural Law Requires Respect of PUBLIC Property Rights, Too: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Stu Kauffman wrote:
If we thought together, what would we want for a world civilization?...
...We are millennia beyond the early Bronze Age, on a crowded planet we despoil. At some soon point we must evolve to zero GDP growth with respect to using planetary resources, at sufficient wealth, well distributed, to be "enough" in a thriving global economy enlivened by thriving global cultures.
To transform beyond modernity, we must evolve, including the power structure of our capitalist world. No one gives up power willingly. Unless? Unless: i. By necessity on a finite planet. ii. A new and commanding vision is wrought of what we can become, what magic we can co-create, altering our ethical view of our lives and what form of civilization might best serve our humanity.
If we want an economy that does not grow in respect to certain physical quantities (such as the rates of cutting of forests or of taking of fish from the sea, or the extent of monoculture or of paving on the Earth, etc.) we can define those physical quantities that reflect acceptable limits, then issue permits for just those impacts that most people would say are acceptable. We could auction these permits in a free market. Such a system would define limits to the overall size of the human economy in real terms and in a way consistent with our democratic principles.
The proceeds from sale of the permits would be a monetary representation of the value of natural resource wealth, which is best understood as belonging to all (because we all have an equal right to use these resources). The money collected should be shared equally among all members of the human community.
We could end extreme poverty throughout the world. Estimates of the value of natural resources suggest that sharing this wealth would mean about $20 or more per person, per day, for everyone on Earth.
As prices increase for those goods and services produced through use of natural resources, we will reduce our consumption of the more resource-intensive products.
Businesses would modify production methods towards greater resource efficiency. Some enterprises that offer little value in relation to resources used will go out of business, while opportunities (and profits) will grow for those who produce value at little or no cost to the environment.
With equal sharing of fee proceeds, we will be assured that those on the low end of the income distribution spectrum will have the wherewithal to acquire that which is essential for living their lives. The most vital functions of the economy would be buffered, as it were, against the more severe effects of an economic downturn.
The need to limit humans' impact on the environment and the need to create a more egalitarian society can both be served through a change in our political and economic paradigms, toward a respect of PUBLIC or COMMONS property rights. The fact that we are currently living in a society that is neither sustainable nor equitable reflects the fact that we have thus far failed to respect this side of the property rights coin.
Moral principle is a kind of natural law.
Natural Law Requires Respect of PUBLIC Property Rights, Too: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Our political process must limit harm to the environment
Comment to: 'How Private Equity Firms Work' - Talk of the Nation
We don't see much reporting (or any reporting) in the mainstream media about systemic flaws in our economic system.
It is a failure of public policy that makes harmful practices profitable for industry.
If putting pollution or taking natural resources causes harm to others (either because air and water quality is decreased or because resources are made unavailable to others) then it makes sense to charge a fee to those who cause the harm.
In a democratic society, fees would be set high enough so that most people would agree that the rates of taking of resources and rates of putting pollution are within acceptable limits.
This is a systemic flaw (to allow these side-effects of economic activity to go uncompensated) because it means that prices give false information about true costs. We do things that cause pollution and other kinds of environmental degradation *more* than what we would do if these environmental impacts were reflected in prices.
Resolving this systemic defect through fees on pollution and on the taking of natural resources would mean that efforts by corporations to seek to reduce costs would cause them to try to reduce environmental harm. With the current system, there is often a conflict (always a conflict) between what is good for the corporation and what is good for the larger community.
Is Civilization a Success or a Failure or is it Too Soon to Tell?
We don't see much reporting (or any reporting) in the mainstream media about systemic flaws in our economic system.
It is a failure of public policy that makes harmful practices profitable for industry.
If putting pollution or taking natural resources causes harm to others (either because air and water quality is decreased or because resources are made unavailable to others) then it makes sense to charge a fee to those who cause the harm.
In a democratic society, fees would be set high enough so that most people would agree that the rates of taking of resources and rates of putting pollution are within acceptable limits.
This is a systemic flaw (to allow these side-effects of economic activity to go uncompensated) because it means that prices give false information about true costs. We do things that cause pollution and other kinds of environmental degradation *more* than what we would do if these environmental impacts were reflected in prices.
Resolving this systemic defect through fees on pollution and on the taking of natural resources would mean that efforts by corporations to seek to reduce costs would cause them to try to reduce environmental harm. With the current system, there is often a conflict (always a conflict) between what is good for the corporation and what is good for the larger community.
Is Civilization a Success or a Failure or is it Too Soon to Tell?
Friday, January 20, 2012
What kind of capitalist?
Adapted from a comment on: Vulture Capitalism'? How Private Equity Firms Work
We don't see much (or any) reporting in the mainstream media about systemic flaws in our economic system.
A failure of public policy makes harmful practices profitable for industry.
If putting pollution or taking natural resources causes harm to others (either because air and water quality is decreased or because resources are made unavailable to others) then it makes sense to charge a fee to those who cause the harm.
In a democratic society, fees would be set high enough so that most people would agree that the rates of taking of resources and rates of putting pollution are within acceptable limits.
This is a systemic flaw (to allow these side-effects of economic activity to go uncompensated) because it means that prices give false information about true costs. We do things that cause pollution and other kinds of environmental degradation *more* than what we would do if these environmental impacts were reflected in prices.
Resolving this systemic defect through a fee on pollution or on the taking of natural resources would mean that efforts by corporations to reduce costs and increase profits would include efforts to reduce environmental harm. Rather than a conflict between what is good for the corporation and what is good for the larger society, there would be a coincidence. No more pathological trade-off between what is good for the corporation vs. what is good for society. Rather than seeking profit at the expense of the social good and healthy planet, we would have profit-seeking in accord with the social good and environmental health.
If proceeds from environmental impact fees are shared equally among all the world's people, no one would live in abject poverty. The economic hardship that comes with loss of a job would be less severe, since work income would be only part of a person's total income. All people would be more able to seek and hold jobs that offer them a sense of meaning and purpose, since the economic security that comes from an equal sharing of natural resource wealth would allow people more freedom to decline jobs or work fewer hours at jobs that do not contribute this sense of purpose.
Natural Law Requires Respect of Public Property Rights, Too
Systemic Flaws are Not Reported
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
How much time do we have?
Adapted from a comment on: The Doomsday Clock: Can Artists Save The World?
at 1/21/2010 5:53 PM EST
With about two hundred thousand (or a couple of million) years of experience with song and dance and call and response bringing us together, it is easy to feel agape or a sense of connectedness with others on seeing such joy and exuberance in those vids.
If we are to develop our moral sense sufficient to restrain the destructive power that we now possess that flows from our ability to understand and manipulate the material world, we might do well to recognize moral principle as natural law governing social interaction. We may come to see that a close examination of moral principles is necessary simply from the standpoint of survival. When we consciously engage our moral sense, we exercise it more fully.
Just as there are consequences when we disregard other kinds of natural law, (such as when we disregard the law of gravity which governs the interaction of massive bodies and are injured in a fall), there are consequences when we disregard the laws that govern social interaction.
If we pretend to ourselves and to others that it is a legitimate use of government to threaten to destroy a city, (even in the face of the fact that governments get their power from the people, and no person has any moral authority to threaten to destroy a city), then we are violating a basic moral precept that no person has authority to give or delegate a power to others which they do not possess themselves http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
If we persist in this error and continue to hold nuclear arsenals, then we will eventually experience severe adverse consequences of this serious moral lapse. There is a basic fact about threats: they remain effective only if they are occasionally backed up with action. Although there is usually, (always), a time-lag between the moment that basic laws of nature are disregarded and the moment that the harmful impact of our error is made manifest, there can be no doubt that the workings of the basic laws of nature are inexorable. (The truth will out.)
If we resolve to abide by moral principles in the political and economic realms, we will not only end the practice of maintaining nuclear arsenals, (we might instead use the fissile material to generate electricity, thereby making it unavailable as a weapon of war, while also reducing our desire to burn coal and oil toward such end), we would also end the systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights.
Property rights are a subset of human rights, which we MUST respect to be in accord with the golden rule, (a universally accepted moral principle).
We have a well-developed sense of private property rights, which is reflected in our culture and in our political and economic systems.
Less well developed is our sense of public property rights. We believe that we all own the air and water, (and some would say other natural resources). We all have an equal right to use them and we have, collectively, a right to stop others from taking too much or messing them up. (This is intrinsic to the concept of ownership.)
But when industries take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit, we do not require that they pay a fee to the people, the owners of the resources, as compensation for the damage done or value taken. There is a thorough, systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights. There is no compensation paid by users of these resources to the owners, (the people at large); nor is there an effective mechanism whereby the overall rates of taking of resources and levels of pollution are kept within limits acceptable to the people at large. (The idea that we have a collective right to limit environmental impacts--and basic democratic principles--would appear to dictate that actual environmental impacts ought to be kept within such limits.)
A public property rights paradigm would mean an end to extreme poverty in the world, and could provide the foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Biodiversity as a Public Good
at 1/21/2010 5:53 PM EST
With about two hundred thousand (or a couple of million) years of experience with song and dance and call and response bringing us together, it is easy to feel agape or a sense of connectedness with others on seeing such joy and exuberance in those vids.
If we are to develop our moral sense sufficient to restrain the destructive power that we now possess that flows from our ability to understand and manipulate the material world, we might do well to recognize moral principle as natural law governing social interaction. We may come to see that a close examination of moral principles is necessary simply from the standpoint of survival. When we consciously engage our moral sense, we exercise it more fully.
Just as there are consequences when we disregard other kinds of natural law, (such as when we disregard the law of gravity which governs the interaction of massive bodies and are injured in a fall), there are consequences when we disregard the laws that govern social interaction.
If we pretend to ourselves and to others that it is a legitimate use of government to threaten to destroy a city, (even in the face of the fact that governments get their power from the people, and no person has any moral authority to threaten to destroy a city), then we are violating a basic moral precept that no person has authority to give or delegate a power to others which they do not possess themselves http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
If we persist in this error and continue to hold nuclear arsenals, then we will eventually experience severe adverse consequences of this serious moral lapse. There is a basic fact about threats: they remain effective only if they are occasionally backed up with action. Although there is usually, (always), a time-lag between the moment that basic laws of nature are disregarded and the moment that the harmful impact of our error is made manifest, there can be no doubt that the workings of the basic laws of nature are inexorable. (The truth will out.)
If we resolve to abide by moral principles in the political and economic realms, we will not only end the practice of maintaining nuclear arsenals, (we might instead use the fissile material to generate electricity, thereby making it unavailable as a weapon of war, while also reducing our desire to burn coal and oil toward such end), we would also end the systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights.
Property rights are a subset of human rights, which we MUST respect to be in accord with the golden rule, (a universally accepted moral principle).
We have a well-developed sense of private property rights, which is reflected in our culture and in our political and economic systems.
Less well developed is our sense of public property rights. We believe that we all own the air and water, (and some would say other natural resources). We all have an equal right to use them and we have, collectively, a right to stop others from taking too much or messing them up. (This is intrinsic to the concept of ownership.)
But when industries take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit, we do not require that they pay a fee to the people, the owners of the resources, as compensation for the damage done or value taken. There is a thorough, systematic neglect of PUBLIC property rights. There is no compensation paid by users of these resources to the owners, (the people at large); nor is there an effective mechanism whereby the overall rates of taking of resources and levels of pollution are kept within limits acceptable to the people at large. (The idea that we have a collective right to limit environmental impacts--and basic democratic principles--would appear to dictate that actual environmental impacts ought to be kept within such limits.)
A public property rights paradigm would mean an end to extreme poverty in the world, and could provide the foundation for a sustainable and just civilization.
Biodiversity as a Public Good
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)