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 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