c-institute - Tumblr blog

c-institute · 5 years

Text

Growing to death: A punctuated extinction (part 3 of 3)

Fortunately, we have an increasing number of systemic-oriented movements challenging the mechanical minded, offering counter hegemonic options for a new social ecology4. The essence of such new social networks must reinforce as its primary function, the vitality of true systemic integration underlying a “one-earth lifestyle”1, 5. Should we remain unwilling to make needed variations to our excessive consumption, then we must be reminded that we are dealing with natural complex adaptive systems, and that adjustments will eventually and finally be thrust upon us, via nature’s own regulatory response1, should we not adopt a managed process by design5. The rapidity of our ecosystem changes5, should have alerted us into immediate action. Instead, all countries and nations are still instructed to pursue goals of constant growth, as opposed to seeking well-being5 (a key tenet of a new social ecology)1. Astute critics decries our selfishness, individualism and greed that drive consumption and acquisitiveness6. Others warn of problems arising from the expansion of the machine civilization, urging we end wars and human misery7. These holistic insights recognise our classic economic and development as flawed7, warning of the unopposed movement toward the “robotisation of the individual”7.

Today, this view of humanity is a reality, where we are seen and treated as consuming machines6 constantly having to pay taxes to governments, and profits to corporations. Mechanical leadership across both public and private sector fear a re-awakening in valuing how powerful we are as individuals who form collectives. As individuals we form the backbone of societies and thus expect to be governed by accountable and responsible persons, since it is the condition of basic freedom that we be ruled by an authority that we control6. In modern day acquisitive societies, both governments and corporations have a fixed interest in constantly promoting the accumulation of things – the one require citizens to pay taxes; the other demand profits. The chief mechanism of the acquisitive society promises “unfettered freedom” to the successful or strong, whilst the rest of us must strive toward this elusive goal6. This absorbing vision of infinite expansion, vaporise our moral fabric6, since we do not become religious or wise or artistic as these domains imply knowing and accepting limits. Instead, we wish to dominate and change the face of nature6. These warnings uttered almost 100 years ago has become our reality, and serve as a powerful exemplar of our negligence. Our destructive development models have taken us to the precipice of a self-induced extinction (Anthropocene). Institutional leaders continue to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to our greatly flawed development path1. It speaks to the alluring power of consumption cartels, distracting us with our own vanity, and numbing our intellect by occupying us with irrelevant gadgets1, 6, 8.

Ironically, capital owners and industrialists retain models that plunder our GPG’s, whist indigenous peoples are trying to preserve it8. A power dynamic, evident between Rich-Poor or North-South that underlie exploitative themes that resist adoption of systemic lifestyles1, 6, and instead opt for congruence of self-interest8. It is fortuitous that we have so many movements speaking up, and who are committed to free us from the mechanistic leadership punting the fraud of “compete-or-die” logic9.

References:

1. Udemans, F., 2008, The golden thread: escaping socio-economic subjugation, an experiment in applied complexity science, Authorhouse UK;

2. Smith, J.W., 1989, The World’s Wasted Wealth: the political economy of waste, New World’s Press, 1989, pp.44,45;

3. Turner, G., and Alexander, C., 2014, The Guardian: Limits to growth was right. New research shows we’re nearing collapse;

4. Tokar, B., 2008, On Bookchin’s Social Ecology and its Contributions to Social Movements; Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 19, Number 1;

5. Randers, J., 2012, The Real Message of The Limits to Growth, A Plea for Forward-Looking Global Policy, GAIA, 21/2, 2012: 102;

6. Tawney, R.H., 1920, The Acquisitive Society, Quotes taken from the 1920 edition (http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/33741), published by Harcourt, Brace and Company; and, Tawney, R.H., 1960, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Tawney;

7. Brown, H., 1954, The challenge of man’s future, Engineering and Science Vil.17 (6), pp.22-32, Caltech office of Relations; http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:17.6.brown; Available: Folinsbee, R. E., and Leech, A.P., 1974, Energy – Challenge of man’s future (Part I), Journal of the Geological Association of Canada, Vol. 1 (1);

8. Quinn, S., 2018, Global Species Extinction: Humans Are Now the Asteroid Hitting the Earth, Indigenous populations are taking the lead in protecting the environment, Global Research, July 31, 2018;

9. Dawson, J., Jackson, R., Norberg-Hodge. H., 2010, Economic Key: Gaian Economics – living well within planetary limits, Permanent Publications, First edition, © 2010, Gaia Education, ISBN 978185623056 8;

10. Grossi , G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A., Williams, A.G., 2018, Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies, Animal Frontiers: Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2019, Pages 69–76, https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy034; 

11. Mottet, A., and Steinfeld, H., 2018, Cars or livestock: which contribute more to climate change? FAO Tuesday, 18 September 2018 08:36 GMT;

12. Cornes, R. and Sandler T., 1996, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

13. Kocks, A., 2005, The Financing of UN Peace Operations – An Analysis from a Global Public Good Perspective, INEF Report, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden der UniversitätDuisburg-Essen / Campus Duisburg, Heft 77;

14. Chen, L ; Evans, T. & Cash, R., 1999, Health as a Global Public Good, In: Global Public Goods: International Co-operation in the 21st Century, Kaul, I; Grunberg, I & Stern, M (Ed.), New York: Oxford University Press; Cornes, R. and Sandler T., 1996, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Sandler, T., 1997, Global Challenges: An Approach to Environmental, Political and Economic Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: chapter 5;

15. Global footprint network, 2019, (https://www.footprintnetwork.org);

#fuadudemans; c-institute; thegoldenthread; universality; Economics; Socio-economics; Poverty&Wealth; self development; cyberiagroup;#complexity science #ecology

0 notes

c-institute · 5 years

Text

Growing to death: A punctuated extinction (part 2 of 3)

The extravagant lifestyles that consumers are “required” to pursue, are allied to constant growth models. A model that demand compulsive consumption to be supremely pervasive, despite it being scientifically impossible (since it breaches both first and second laws of thermodynamics). It is must therefore be anti-leadership that continue to direct us to chase impossible lifestyles?

We are bombarded across media platforms, to pursue the unattainable – a misdirection that keep us occupied, whilst surreptitiously ensuring we remain unthinking gluttonous consuming machines. This elaborate ruse covers factory-styled value chains that are end-to-end, from: manufacturers, retailers, advertisers, financiers, advisors, and consumers - all being equally blind and daft to believe in continuous growth? The global focus upon constant growth (e.g. GDP of nations), are relentlessly pursued by destroying Global Public Goods (GPG’s). A global public good (GPG) is a good that can be used, but not be destroyed for future generations – more exactly, a GPG has 2 key properties: (1) non-rival and (2) non-excludable12. Non-rival imply consuming the good by one person, does not diminish obtainability of the good for consumption by another. Non-excludable imply none can be excluded from using the good. If both requirements are completely satisfied, a public good is said to be pure13. Typical examples of GPG’s include the earth’s air, water, oceans, forests, animals, space, GPS, etc. Importantly, GPG’s are known to be a poorly managed global problem14.

All of these “free” vitally, inter-locked life-sustaining resources continue to be abused by inward and selfish leadership, unwilling to grasp the true cost of “big-is-better” developmental premise. To put it bluntly, even if each human on earth, theoretically had sufficient financial capital to afford a “1%-lifestyle”, the direct impact upon GPG’s would result in ecological collapse. In other words, our physical and finite planet, does not have the resource capacity to sustain it. Sadly, very few leaders are willing to admit this since all of humanity, from City to Village, are still sold a lifestyle that can only end in devouring the planet4. The opulent, hi-tech lifestyles we are “required” to pursue under continuous consumption models, have inherent threats, like: defying earths limits; increase inequality; increase poverty and oppression; and most vitally - destroying the planet’s ability to sustain complex life4. So, our mechanistic leadership across public and private sphere’s endorse corrosive development models that murder living systems (ecosystem). As an example, if everyone in the world today could enjoy a lavish lifestyle, then we would need 5 planets (5 earths)14, to support it. Planetary viability (earth’s survival) requires us to change the thinking from the dominant mechanical stupidity, to systemic enlightenment1, for this is the only way to fundamentally change our relationship with one another and the ecosystem.