I imagine this taking place at a meeting house downtown. Much like town meetings in Vermont, or City council meetings across the country. People would propose things they'd like to see in the community and then there would be discussion. This discussion would result in an organized boycott by a whole community on some products while welcoming other products.
Someone would look down through their bifocals and see that the next item on the list is "halloween decorations." The discussion that ensues always asks the following questions.
To what level will consuming this way make us happy?
To what level will it make us healthy?
Is there anything else we can use instead for the same purpose?
Is this product sustainable?
Where is this product from?
What are the social costs or benefits of the product?
Can we afford to purchase and maintain the good?
The discussion on Halloween decorations yields the following conclusions in Montpelier VT. (numbers don't coincide with questions above)
1 Most of these products are highly disposable, unsustainable, and look phony.
2 The plastics and rubbers of the kids costumes contribute to toxicity at the point of production.
3 The festive look of the town when decorated makes us kind of happy, especially the kids.
4 The decorations do not contribute to our health much at all.
5 Carving pumpkins is a wonderful tradition that contributes to local farmers, gives us time with kids, and makes the town look great. There is nothing stopping us from making the pumpkins into pies afterwards, or composting them. The candles however produce toxic outputs and are made from unrenewable petroleum resources. Maybe they could be replaced with beeswax candles, or efficient light bulbs.
6 We can use durable, reusable products instead of disposable ones. Like cloth streamers that we can store in a box somewhere, or sheets for a ghost costume, or whatever else.
7 halloween lights, like christmas lights are nice looking, but use electricity.
8 the electricity comes from hydroQuebec which displaced native peoples, drowned Elk herds, and toxified the ecosystem with mercury. Supporting them is not in the interest of health and happiness. We can use more efficient halloween lights, leave them on for less time, and do without them.
9 Halloween candy is always individually wrapped, is there anything we can do...
Then the list of conclusions would be brought to the costume shop in advance so they could prepare to provide that which the consumers demanded. The request for beeswax candles would be brought to the candle shop, the request for pumpkins to the farmers who might grow pumpkins that you could eat as well as carve, and storage space would be arranged for the city's own Halloween decorations. Group Thrift meetings across the country.
Another example could be if a neighborhood composed a list of all their tools, and instead of each person buying the tools individually which they would only use once, the tools would be shared freely in a library system.
Another example could be if a city had a vacant store front, there could be a meeting to decide what sort of business would be supported there. Another restaurant? A boutique? A laundramat? Once a conclusion is reached which might include a list of different options, applicants would vie for the spot in the city. Based on the above principles, the city (an official or a committee) would choose one of the candidates and Voila! People decide rather than react.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Fallacy of Profit
"To a point, the lives of the people may be improved by the additional consumption of resources such as food, shelter, clothing, education, and entertainment. We recognize, however, that the benefits of continuously increased rates of consumption are rendered asymptotically toward zero when evaluated at the current scale."
I would like to reiterate this paragraph from the post below entitled "Revolution Time." The subsistence Economy argument is based on four pillars. Each is a recognition of our current flawed system and is a strong criticism of same.
The four pillars are:
Free trade is controlled by producers.
Free trade exploits the land.
Free trade causes social inequity.
Free trade produces useless goods and services that do not contribute to health or happiness.
Allow my to explain the quote above. I didn't say that consumption is a bad thing. All I said was that there is an inflection point beyond which additional consumption does not yield a benefit. I would never seek to deny additional consumption to someone who is going hungry or to someone who is cold. In math, an asymptote is a line which a graph never crosses, but comes infinitely closer to by infinite divisions of the distance between the graph and the asymptote. What I meant by the benefits of additional consumption being "rendered asymptotically toward zero when evaluated at the current scale," was that consuming one more bag of doritos makes so little of a difference in welfare of a person who is already fed, that the benefit is very nearly zero.
The logical next question is, "then how do we justify additional consumption? Do the benefits to one consumer outweigh the social and environmental costs of the good?" The answer is no, the benefit to the consumer does not justify the degradation of land and people. This is why I believe that free trade is not as much of an interaction between consumers and producers as it is a tool used by producers to make profit while hiding the true costs from consumers.
The joke is on the CEO's as well as all of us though, because making another five thousand bucks a year doesn't make them any happier or healthier. You might ask why my emphasis is on Health and happiness. This is because those are the only two things in life that actually matter. And I don't mean that the only thing worth pursuing is one's own health and happiness, I mean that the only thing that matters is working towards health and happiness for all, including the land.
Profit, to a point contributes to health and happiness. The food, health care, shelter, education you can buy with increased money is a boon, but there is a point where even buying these necessities becomes asymptotic. My friend Jeremy's mom has an internship in California where she is given sixty dollars a day for food alone. If she doesn't spend it all it just goes back to the company. She could be eating lobster, steak and dinosaur eggs for every meal with that much money. Does it benefit her? Is she inclined to eat an unhealthy amount? Is she stressed out by all the options? Does she feel guilty and spoiled? What does she think when she sees panhandlers on the street? She has to tell them she has no cash, but she then walks into a store and uses her magical charge card to eat a pound of moon chocolate.
So the fallacy of profit is that profit does not buy happiness. It can't really buy health either. Fancy gym memberships, personal trainers, diet books, organic food, they all cost money, but what really makes you healthy is self respect, self control, and self motivation. Those things are free.
I would like to reiterate this paragraph from the post below entitled "Revolution Time." The subsistence Economy argument is based on four pillars. Each is a recognition of our current flawed system and is a strong criticism of same.
The four pillars are:
Free trade is controlled by producers.
Free trade exploits the land.
Free trade causes social inequity.
Free trade produces useless goods and services that do not contribute to health or happiness.
Allow my to explain the quote above. I didn't say that consumption is a bad thing. All I said was that there is an inflection point beyond which additional consumption does not yield a benefit. I would never seek to deny additional consumption to someone who is going hungry or to someone who is cold. In math, an asymptote is a line which a graph never crosses, but comes infinitely closer to by infinite divisions of the distance between the graph and the asymptote. What I meant by the benefits of additional consumption being "rendered asymptotically toward zero when evaluated at the current scale," was that consuming one more bag of doritos makes so little of a difference in welfare of a person who is already fed, that the benefit is very nearly zero.
The logical next question is, "then how do we justify additional consumption? Do the benefits to one consumer outweigh the social and environmental costs of the good?" The answer is no, the benefit to the consumer does not justify the degradation of land and people. This is why I believe that free trade is not as much of an interaction between consumers and producers as it is a tool used by producers to make profit while hiding the true costs from consumers.
The joke is on the CEO's as well as all of us though, because making another five thousand bucks a year doesn't make them any happier or healthier. You might ask why my emphasis is on Health and happiness. This is because those are the only two things in life that actually matter. And I don't mean that the only thing worth pursuing is one's own health and happiness, I mean that the only thing that matters is working towards health and happiness for all, including the land.
Profit, to a point contributes to health and happiness. The food, health care, shelter, education you can buy with increased money is a boon, but there is a point where even buying these necessities becomes asymptotic. My friend Jeremy's mom has an internship in California where she is given sixty dollars a day for food alone. If she doesn't spend it all it just goes back to the company. She could be eating lobster, steak and dinosaur eggs for every meal with that much money. Does it benefit her? Is she inclined to eat an unhealthy amount? Is she stressed out by all the options? Does she feel guilty and spoiled? What does she think when she sees panhandlers on the street? She has to tell them she has no cash, but she then walks into a store and uses her magical charge card to eat a pound of moon chocolate.
So the fallacy of profit is that profit does not buy happiness. It can't really buy health either. Fancy gym memberships, personal trainers, diet books, organic food, they all cost money, but what really makes you healthy is self respect, self control, and self motivation. Those things are free.
Friday, March 28, 2008
100 Years...
Anaconda Mining company made a big mess with their copper mine in Butte, Montana. The open pit mine that exists today under the name "Berkeley Pit" is deeper than you can imagine. The toxic water in it is deep enough to cover the empire state building, and toxic enough to kill a flock of geese that landed on it years ago.
The city of Butte no longer fetches its pails of water from its own aquifer, the water is too toxic, since the water in the Pit is actually the Aquifer exposed like blood welling up in a wound. The copper operation was enough to provide the bulk of the copper our nation used to fight WWII and the wire produced from it helped enable the electrification of the country. The process caused the highest priority Superfund Site in the country. The stretch of river from Butte to Missoula is obstructed by only one flimsy dam at Milltown, not far upstream from Missoula.
The Milltown dam was engineered with logs and not very strong. Years ago it ceased to produce a useful amount of power and its turbines barely cranked out enough to keep the booth on the dam lit up at night. This dam, like all dams, was destined to break in a flood event releasing all the water backed up in the reservoir and all the sediment stored up behind the dam. The difference with the Milltown dam, was that the sediment behind the dam was filled with heavy metals, copper, and arsenic that had made its way downstream from Butte. A flood that bashed all of this directly into Missoula would have contaminated our aquifer as well.
Instead, the Dam was removed today! It's been an ongoing process that has taken years, to dredge the poisons out, store them, pile them or otherwise dispose of them, and to divert the water, and who knows what else.
The Backhoes broke open a channel alongside the remaining portion of the dam and the waters flowed free for the first time in 100 years.
"100 years" an old man said to himself as he watched from the crumbly bank. He then turned around and mysteriously turned away.
"People in future generations will never know this dam was here." Ashley said and mysteriously walked away.
Monday, March 24, 2008
1, 2, Tie My Shoe?
I sat downtown today with my faithful hound, Lyra and read Timequake by Kurt Vonnegut. It was very satisfying and well written. It made me laugh and it reaffirmed my own Luddite point of view. It was forty one degrees outside and windy. My kept warm enough and got to talk to lots of folks.
Eventually Lyra howled at me, "Thomas Abraham Peppergrass, it is time for us to go!" So we walked East on Main street back towards Mount Jumbo and home. It was very sunny and excellent to be outside. Finally walking with the wind gave some relief from the hours, of hand biting breezes.
Lyra and I passed by the Missoula Children's Theater, and who should be coming out of it, but a real live child! She said to her pop, "One, Two, tie my shoe..."
"What happened to buckle my shoe?" I wondered aloud. I felt like something would be lost from this fine nation if, like record players, shoe buckles were completely forgotten. I didn't correct the lassie, but I did ponder what I had witnessed. I decided that the only course of action was to acquire some buckled shoes, and wear them around. Maybe a tricorn' hat. As I mused about my possible costume, another visitor to the theater left the parking lot.
This visitor was a red behemoth, with the capacity to haul an entire swing ensemble on its vast platform. The band composed of dandy-shirted, arm-banded old fashioned horn players would have had to update their style in order to match the vintage of the vehicle they rode in. Perhaps if they all had chrome instruments, black plastic jackets with fireball music notes shooting up the sleeves, mirror shades, and rocket boots would have sufficed to blend the appearence of the band with racing striped, molded, tasteless body of the beast in front of me. The truck was so tall, that the sunshine ricocheting off the roof would blind only the birds. It was red, the coolest color by all accounts, except for its sweet gray stripes like those on an electric badger's armored futuristic coat. It was so bulky that the little old lady inside appeared to be at its mercy as it rolled out through the narrow gap onto the one way street. Towering above its hood, were two gaping air intakes, presumably necessary for the jet engine which powered the thing at a whopping fourteen gallons to the mile, but what a mile.
I couldn't believe that the lady driving it looked perfectly serious! It wasn't like a group of highschoolers riding a limousine for the prom, that shout out the windows and laugh at themselves for the sheer novelty of it. Calmly as a Hell's Angel on a hog, she managed the machine with her sunglasses and hairdo adorning her like two parts of a puzzle, the only part of which that was missing, being a similarly dressed man to clutch onto from behind. But no wind touched her except that being spewed over the famously wasteful engine to warm her, without direct input from the actual sun.
As amazed as I was by this lumbering shit-car, I had to laugh out loud! It was almost like laughing at a funeral, I think, like how did this happen? How did someone come up with that thing and why did someone buy it? But then I got a hold of myself and looked around, a line of vehicles had formed behind the first as it pulled away. Pickup truck, after pickup truck, after pickup truck. Some were as big as the first. I watched one of them reverse out of a parking spot,and nearly get stuck like a couch in a stairwell because the parking lot wasn't designed to accomadate these things. It was designed to allow people to come see the theater, riding in vehicles, not on the backs of the usual suspects from the line-up in the police station after the leveling of Tokyo.
Here I was wishing I had buckles on my shoes and I stumbled on a Missoula Pickup Truck Society meeting.
"One person per truck, people. That's right. That's the way we like it. Keep it moving, now. Thats it."
Talk about tragedy of the commons. Why is it that even though I try so hard, everyone else is attempting to destroy what I work and live for? C'est la Vie.
Eventually Lyra howled at me, "Thomas Abraham Peppergrass, it is time for us to go!" So we walked East on Main street back towards Mount Jumbo and home. It was very sunny and excellent to be outside. Finally walking with the wind gave some relief from the hours, of hand biting breezes.
Lyra and I passed by the Missoula Children's Theater, and who should be coming out of it, but a real live child! She said to her pop, "One, Two, tie my shoe..."
"What happened to buckle my shoe?" I wondered aloud. I felt like something would be lost from this fine nation if, like record players, shoe buckles were completely forgotten. I didn't correct the lassie, but I did ponder what I had witnessed. I decided that the only course of action was to acquire some buckled shoes, and wear them around. Maybe a tricorn' hat. As I mused about my possible costume, another visitor to the theater left the parking lot.
This visitor was a red behemoth, with the capacity to haul an entire swing ensemble on its vast platform. The band composed of dandy-shirted, arm-banded old fashioned horn players would have had to update their style in order to match the vintage of the vehicle they rode in. Perhaps if they all had chrome instruments, black plastic jackets with fireball music notes shooting up the sleeves, mirror shades, and rocket boots would have sufficed to blend the appearence of the band with racing striped, molded, tasteless body of the beast in front of me. The truck was so tall, that the sunshine ricocheting off the roof would blind only the birds. It was red, the coolest color by all accounts, except for its sweet gray stripes like those on an electric badger's armored futuristic coat. It was so bulky that the little old lady inside appeared to be at its mercy as it rolled out through the narrow gap onto the one way street. Towering above its hood, were two gaping air intakes, presumably necessary for the jet engine which powered the thing at a whopping fourteen gallons to the mile, but what a mile.
I couldn't believe that the lady driving it looked perfectly serious! It wasn't like a group of highschoolers riding a limousine for the prom, that shout out the windows and laugh at themselves for the sheer novelty of it. Calmly as a Hell's Angel on a hog, she managed the machine with her sunglasses and hairdo adorning her like two parts of a puzzle, the only part of which that was missing, being a similarly dressed man to clutch onto from behind. But no wind touched her except that being spewed over the famously wasteful engine to warm her, without direct input from the actual sun.
As amazed as I was by this lumbering shit-car, I had to laugh out loud! It was almost like laughing at a funeral, I think, like how did this happen? How did someone come up with that thing and why did someone buy it? But then I got a hold of myself and looked around, a line of vehicles had formed behind the first as it pulled away. Pickup truck, after pickup truck, after pickup truck. Some were as big as the first. I watched one of them reverse out of a parking spot,and nearly get stuck like a couch in a stairwell because the parking lot wasn't designed to accomadate these things. It was designed to allow people to come see the theater, riding in vehicles, not on the backs of the usual suspects from the line-up in the police station after the leveling of Tokyo.
Here I was wishing I had buckles on my shoes and I stumbled on a Missoula Pickup Truck Society meeting.
"One person per truck, people. That's right. That's the way we like it. Keep it moving, now. Thats it."
Talk about tragedy of the commons. Why is it that even though I try so hard, everyone else is attempting to destroy what I work and live for? C'est la Vie.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Article I
Economists would argue that our economic system is already functional. It is allegedly guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand, to maximize welfare for all. It is nearer the truth to say that market forces resemble Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons," where a shepherd increasing his flock by one animal reaps the benefit of +1 and all other shepherds using the same pasture suffer a grass shortage of only -1/total number of shepherds. Rational shepherds will all increase their flocks, until there is no recourse for the environmental degradation.
To remedy this inequity, Hardin recommended mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. If society agrees that exploitation of a certain common resource is a problem, then the democratic method can yield an agreeable punitive solution. A threatened population of Elephants for example becomes protected by law, and then arise the poachers, members of society who never agreed to the coercion. The mutual nature of Hardin's coercion will never be palatable for one and all. While this concept works to limit access to resources that are indeed limited, i.e. parking permits for a parking lot with limited parking spaces, it does not limit the desire to exploit these resources that is inherent in people's rational minds. Only those who do not profit from access to a resource will forgo their right to it.
Under Subsistence Economy, there must be new ethics to replace this "rationality".
(1) Dessert.
It is imperative that the ideal economic system be built on the belief that all those participating in or affected by that economy deserve a subsistence level of wealth and no more. There should be consequences for those who rise above the subsistence level, and help for those who fall below.
(2)Recognition of All Things as Common Resources.
All things are connected. All people own an equal share of the earth. All species have a right to continued existence. All natural processes have a right to continued existence. This includes but is not limited to the singularly human ecosystems such as cities, as well as the wilder examples, if any exist that are indeed wilder. The negative effects of resource extraction are spread across all people and all points on the globe. The positive effects of said extraction should be distributed similarly.
(3)Replacement Ethic.
It follows from the belief in all things as common resources that no single member of a subsistence economy has the luxury of consumption without bearing the responsibility of equal contribution.
(4) Price Reflects Cost.
Money itself is only the tool to relate the value of all goods and services to each other. It follows from the replacement ethic, that when money is exchanged for a good or service, the consumer absorbs the responsibility for all the costs of its production by way of replacing what was lost. An item that harms livelihoods should cost enough to compensate those who lost their livelihoods. One that harms forests should contain the cost of rehabilitating that forest.
(5) Thrift.
There remains a distinction between consumption and subsistence. Subsistence is the acquisition of enough material wealth to be happy and healthy. Consumption is the use of resources above and beyond a subsistence level. In an ideal economy, each member would exercise thrift, a rate of consumption that maintains satisfaction, health, and happiness and no more.
(6)Technology
Technological advances have long claimed to be for the benefit of all, but it is clear that those who profit from technology, develop it, and then create a demand for it rather than technological innovation springing from public demand. In a subsistence economy, technology will be developed in response to public demand.
(7) Trade
The purpose of trade will be to enable subsistence in places where local production does not suffice, not to make a profit. There will never be a bottle of Vermont maple syrup in New York because this inane trade contributes neither to the health, nor the happiness of the people. Much like with the development of new technology, it is often the case that trade is the impetus for consumer demand. For example, before coffee was shipped all over the world and no one knew about it, there was no demand for it and now it is a highly competetive market built on the exploitation of people and land.
To remedy this inequity, Hardin recommended mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. If society agrees that exploitation of a certain common resource is a problem, then the democratic method can yield an agreeable punitive solution. A threatened population of Elephants for example becomes protected by law, and then arise the poachers, members of society who never agreed to the coercion. The mutual nature of Hardin's coercion will never be palatable for one and all. While this concept works to limit access to resources that are indeed limited, i.e. parking permits for a parking lot with limited parking spaces, it does not limit the desire to exploit these resources that is inherent in people's rational minds. Only those who do not profit from access to a resource will forgo their right to it.
Under Subsistence Economy, there must be new ethics to replace this "rationality".
(1) Dessert.
It is imperative that the ideal economic system be built on the belief that all those participating in or affected by that economy deserve a subsistence level of wealth and no more. There should be consequences for those who rise above the subsistence level, and help for those who fall below.
(2)Recognition of All Things as Common Resources.
All things are connected. All people own an equal share of the earth. All species have a right to continued existence. All natural processes have a right to continued existence. This includes but is not limited to the singularly human ecosystems such as cities, as well as the wilder examples, if any exist that are indeed wilder. The negative effects of resource extraction are spread across all people and all points on the globe. The positive effects of said extraction should be distributed similarly.
(3)Replacement Ethic.
It follows from the belief in all things as common resources that no single member of a subsistence economy has the luxury of consumption without bearing the responsibility of equal contribution.
(4) Price Reflects Cost.
Money itself is only the tool to relate the value of all goods and services to each other. It follows from the replacement ethic, that when money is exchanged for a good or service, the consumer absorbs the responsibility for all the costs of its production by way of replacing what was lost. An item that harms livelihoods should cost enough to compensate those who lost their livelihoods. One that harms forests should contain the cost of rehabilitating that forest.
(5) Thrift.
There remains a distinction between consumption and subsistence. Subsistence is the acquisition of enough material wealth to be happy and healthy. Consumption is the use of resources above and beyond a subsistence level. In an ideal economy, each member would exercise thrift, a rate of consumption that maintains satisfaction, health, and happiness and no more.
(6)Technology
Technological advances have long claimed to be for the benefit of all, but it is clear that those who profit from technology, develop it, and then create a demand for it rather than technological innovation springing from public demand. In a subsistence economy, technology will be developed in response to public demand.
(7) Trade
The purpose of trade will be to enable subsistence in places where local production does not suffice, not to make a profit. There will never be a bottle of Vermont maple syrup in New York because this inane trade contributes neither to the health, nor the happiness of the people. Much like with the development of new technology, it is often the case that trade is the impetus for consumer demand. For example, before coffee was shipped all over the world and no one knew about it, there was no demand for it and now it is a highly competetive market built on the exploitation of people and land.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Revolution Time
I'm tempted to shave my mohawk to look like one of the soldiers in Viet-Nam who refused to fight, or to grow out a revolutionary war era pony tail- either way, a style that was popular during an epoc of this country's history in which I can actually maintain some pride.
Where's Ethan Allen when you need him to wittily say whatever it was he said when he captured Ticonderoga without firing a single shot? This time however, Allen would mumble some brilliance while wielding his saber on Wall Street. Me and the other Green Mountain Boys, would cluck to each other like turkeys from the rooftops and phone booths, glaring around with muskets glinting dully in the hazy New York street lights.
When the offices are deftly seized and the CEO's hog tied, and hoisted into trees in central park, we'd read them the following letter:
Dispell your spiderweb of tyranny over the third world, and over the livelihoods thereon depending. We the people find the current economic system to be guilty of the atrocities of: lack of transparency, criminal exploitation of people and land to externalize costs, excessive production of disposable, unsustainable, useless, or otherwise despicable consumer goods, promoting the erosion of the American character, and the organization of a united front to keep people dissatisfied with their lives through the use of advertisement and manipulation. We the people hold this system culpable for these evils and as such we find it unconstitutional.
To a point, the lives of the people may be improved by the additional consumption of resources such as food, shelter, clothing, education, and entertainment. We recognize, however, that the benefits of continuously increased rates of consumption are rendered asymptotically toward zero when evaluated at the current scale. A decline in happiness since the mid 20th century coincides with the beginning of the current consumer explosion. We hold this decline to be evident of a flawed and exploitative consumer cycle that harms all involved, including those responsible for its intentional and conspiratory perpetuation.
The current system is a linear material path from resource extraction to production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. A Firm is an entity whose sole purpose is the maximization of profit. Firms exist at the producer end of the linear material path, and consumers exist on the other. Since consumers contrast from firms in that consumers as a whole have no unified objectives. This leads to a definitive action driven by the firms, to which consumers can only react on the other end of the linear material path like holding onto a cracking whip. This paradigm must be changed, both ends of the path must have a purpose. A firm will from here on be defined as an entity whose purpose is to produce goods and services with equity, for the benefit of all. Consumers will be defined as unified participants in an economic system who trade consciensciously to meet the needs for which their own production does not suffice.
The purpose of any economic system should be to allocate resources in a way benefitting all the people dependent on it or affected by it. In this moral requirement, our economy has miserably failed. Communities should produce what they can for themselves and trade for the rest. The ideal system is one in which a partnership of producers and consumers works to meet the material needs of the people while observing high standards of equity, sustainability and thrift.
This system will be called a Subsistence Economy, built on increased equity, sustainability, and emphasis on deconstruction of the differences between producers and consumers in recognition of interdependence. Whereas our current system is controlled primarily by the producers, a subsistence economy will also include additional control points of equal power: (1) an organised and deliberate consumer force to make informed decisions about what will benefit them the best, (2) a representative force from the sector of people who live upon the land whereon resource extraction takes place, and (3) a representative group of workers from each stage of production (4) experts in natural science, (5) all others who care to speak. These people will meet in a regulated method wherein each person has equal sway.
Where's Ethan Allen when you need him to wittily say whatever it was he said when he captured Ticonderoga without firing a single shot? This time however, Allen would mumble some brilliance while wielding his saber on Wall Street. Me and the other Green Mountain Boys, would cluck to each other like turkeys from the rooftops and phone booths, glaring around with muskets glinting dully in the hazy New York street lights.
When the offices are deftly seized and the CEO's hog tied, and hoisted into trees in central park, we'd read them the following letter:
Dispell your spiderweb of tyranny over the third world, and over the livelihoods thereon depending. We the people find the current economic system to be guilty of the atrocities of: lack of transparency, criminal exploitation of people and land to externalize costs, excessive production of disposable, unsustainable, useless, or otherwise despicable consumer goods, promoting the erosion of the American character, and the organization of a united front to keep people dissatisfied with their lives through the use of advertisement and manipulation. We the people hold this system culpable for these evils and as such we find it unconstitutional.
To a point, the lives of the people may be improved by the additional consumption of resources such as food, shelter, clothing, education, and entertainment. We recognize, however, that the benefits of continuously increased rates of consumption are rendered asymptotically toward zero when evaluated at the current scale. A decline in happiness since the mid 20th century coincides with the beginning of the current consumer explosion. We hold this decline to be evident of a flawed and exploitative consumer cycle that harms all involved, including those responsible for its intentional and conspiratory perpetuation.
The current system is a linear material path from resource extraction to production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. A Firm is an entity whose sole purpose is the maximization of profit. Firms exist at the producer end of the linear material path, and consumers exist on the other. Since consumers contrast from firms in that consumers as a whole have no unified objectives. This leads to a definitive action driven by the firms, to which consumers can only react on the other end of the linear material path like holding onto a cracking whip. This paradigm must be changed, both ends of the path must have a purpose. A firm will from here on be defined as an entity whose purpose is to produce goods and services with equity, for the benefit of all. Consumers will be defined as unified participants in an economic system who trade consciensciously to meet the needs for which their own production does not suffice.
The purpose of any economic system should be to allocate resources in a way benefitting all the people dependent on it or affected by it. In this moral requirement, our economy has miserably failed. Communities should produce what they can for themselves and trade for the rest. The ideal system is one in which a partnership of producers and consumers works to meet the material needs of the people while observing high standards of equity, sustainability and thrift.
This system will be called a Subsistence Economy, built on increased equity, sustainability, and emphasis on deconstruction of the differences between producers and consumers in recognition of interdependence. Whereas our current system is controlled primarily by the producers, a subsistence economy will also include additional control points of equal power: (1) an organised and deliberate consumer force to make informed decisions about what will benefit them the best, (2) a representative force from the sector of people who live upon the land whereon resource extraction takes place, and (3) a representative group of workers from each stage of production (4) experts in natural science, (5) all others who care to speak. These people will meet in a regulated method wherein each person has equal sway.
Adam McCullough
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Trash
http://science.howstuffworks.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch.htm
Above is a link. You should use it. Then read. Then... cry?
Above is a link. You should use it. Then read. Then... cry?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
A Disturbance in the Force
I was walking my dog today on Mount Jumbo. I looked up the hill, over the tops of the yellow grass flowers and saw a line of deer bounding across a draw with great speed. The animals were spooked, not looking back and urgently jumping like gazelles in a game of follow the leader. As far as I know deer don't run recreationally, especially in the winter, when energy is low, food is scarce and in high demand. A deer running in winter probably has a good reason.
I thought that if I kept watching I'd see the culprit that scared them.
Sure enough, an sixteen legged beast trundled into view a few seconds later. It was composed of a canine, and four hikers way up in the distance above me. They had hiked up to the crown of mount Jumbo even though its closed in the winter.
Why is it closed in the winter? So hikers don't disturb ungulates that overwinter there.
I guess these folks didn't get the memo. They probably never even saw the deer that they frightened.
I walk my dog on Mount Jumbo every day, and I see the deer most every time. They spend a lot of the time grazing on the snowless South facing slope of the small mountain, so whenever I see them I take Lyra and turn back, for fear of disturbing them. I do it out of respect and out of a sense of duty. I think Lyra would chase the deer if she got the chance.
When I saw the deer running they were leaving their favored grazing spot. These careless hikers had scared them away from it. I hope they find enough food elsewhere, or wait until the hikers leave then go back.
I thought that if I kept watching I'd see the culprit that scared them.
Sure enough, an sixteen legged beast trundled into view a few seconds later. It was composed of a canine, and four hikers way up in the distance above me. They had hiked up to the crown of mount Jumbo even though its closed in the winter.
Why is it closed in the winter? So hikers don't disturb ungulates that overwinter there.
I guess these folks didn't get the memo. They probably never even saw the deer that they frightened.
I walk my dog on Mount Jumbo every day, and I see the deer most every time. They spend a lot of the time grazing on the snowless South facing slope of the small mountain, so whenever I see them I take Lyra and turn back, for fear of disturbing them. I do it out of respect and out of a sense of duty. I think Lyra would chase the deer if she got the chance.
When I saw the deer running they were leaving their favored grazing spot. These careless hikers had scared them away from it. I hope they find enough food elsewhere, or wait until the hikers leave then go back.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Tonight the Bus, Tomorrow the World
My band, Babaganoush, is going to play tonight on the U-dash bus. It leaves from campus at 7:00 and on board will be Drew the banjoist, Doug the guitarist, Erin the fiddle player and yours truly. Our good friend Courtney will be driving the bus, maybe she'll try to pump the brakes in time with the music.
We play all traditionals and originals except for a cover of Old Crow Medicine Show's Wagon Wheel. All the songs I've written for the band are supposed to make some sort of point about the world. Much like this blog, they revolve around environmentalism, but they are still fun. What better place to play than on one of the great solutions to climate change: public transportation!
Garrett Hardin said in Tragedy of the Commons, that the Tragedy is a problem to which there is no technological solution, but will rather be solved by cultural change. I hope for Babaganoush to be a part of that change. Is there a bicycling W. MT tour in our future? I hope so.
Also introducing my friend, Kindra's blog. Kindra is studying Anthropology and Spanish with a minor in Native American Studies at UM, but she's spending the semester in Valparaiso, Chile, a beautiful city by the sea, but if you want to hear more about it check Kindra out at
www.ungulatedreams.blogspot.com
We play all traditionals and originals except for a cover of Old Crow Medicine Show's Wagon Wheel. All the songs I've written for the band are supposed to make some sort of point about the world. Much like this blog, they revolve around environmentalism, but they are still fun. What better place to play than on one of the great solutions to climate change: public transportation!
Garrett Hardin said in Tragedy of the Commons, that the Tragedy is a problem to which there is no technological solution, but will rather be solved by cultural change. I hope for Babaganoush to be a part of that change. Is there a bicycling W. MT tour in our future? I hope so.
Also introducing my friend, Kindra's blog. Kindra is studying Anthropology and Spanish with a minor in Native American Studies at UM, but she's spending the semester in Valparaiso, Chile, a beautiful city by the sea, but if you want to hear more about it check Kindra out at
www.ungulatedreams.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
