SOCIAL ECOLOGY....A NEW MORALITY?
Comments
MARCH 2010
Hello to you, and Welcome
لا ومرحبا بكم في مجموعات من القراء في جميع أنحاء العالمأه
سلام و خوش آمدید به این گروه از خوانندگان در سراسر جهان
สวัสดีและยินดีต้อนรับสู่กลุ่มของผู้อ่านทั่วโลก .......
Hallo en Welkom bij de groepen van lezers over de hele wereld .......
Hallo und Herzlich Willkommen zu den Gruppen von Lesern in der ganzen Welt .
Bonjour et Bienvenue aux groupes de lecteurs à travers le monde .......
Γεια σας και Καλώς ήρθατε στις ομάδες των αναγνωστών σε όλο τον κόσμο .......
Hello dan Selamat datang di kelompok-kelompok pembaca di seluruh dunia .......
Hello dan Selamat datang di kumpulan-kumpulan pembaca di seluruh dunia .......
Olá e Bem vindo ao grupo de leitores em todo o mundo .......
Hola y bienvenida a los grupos de lectores en todo el mundo .......
Здравствуйте и добро пожаловать в группы читателей по всему миру .......
Привіт і ласкаво просимо до групи читачів по всьому світу .......
Hello ve dünya geneUlinde okuyucuların gruplarına ....... Hoşgeldiniz
Hej och välkommen till grupper av läsare över hela världen .......
Australia: Sydney, Adelaide, Canberra, University of Melbourne;
Bangladesh: Dhaka
Brazil: Rio de Janeiro
Canada - Calgary; Laval, Toronto; Ottawa,Queens University, Ontario;
China - Beijing, Putian, Shanghai;Changdou; Hebei;
Fiji - Suva
France - Paris,Clermont Ferrand.
Germany - Frankfurt, Karlsruhe, Kassel.
Greece - Athens, Volos,Larissa, Karditsa.
Holland - Amsterdam
Hungary - Budaors
India: Nashik; Banaras Hindu University
Israel: Tel Aviv
Japan - Nagano, Tokyo, Hino,Sapparo
Latvia - Riga
Norway: Bergen
Romania: Bucharest, Mioveni Russia- Moscow, Volgorod, Irkukst
Samoa
Serbia, University of Belgrade
South Africa: University of Venda; University of Witwatersrand;
Sweden, Stockholm, Uppsala
Taiwan: Taipei
UK: London, Birmingham, Bristol, Perth, Fife;Staffordshire; University of Westminster.
Ukraine -Kiev; Kiselev; Finland; Estonia; Lithuania
USA - groups in Seattle; in Texas; in California; University of Georgia, University of Florida, Stetson University,
Florida; Episcopal High Schools, Florida; Florida International University; Claremont Colleges; Dominican University;
Pennsylvania State University; Merrimack Education Centre in California; Baruch College,New York; Brentwood
School District in New York; Loyola University, Chicago; Green Mountain College, Vermont.
Venezuela - Caracas
Pakistan,
Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia.
Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Namibia
2009: many readers were from the countries of South America, in particular Venezuela and Bolivia, but now, 2010,
readers seem to be based in the Northern hemisphere. There are a regular set of readers in Moscow; in Beijing. But
by far, most readers are from all parts of the USA. And some are via AMAZON.COM. More people in Africa,
particularly South Africa, are studying the web site.
If you have come across the site by accident, as part of your surfing, then please spend a little
time, reading it. Go to the home page for a presentation of what it is about, and to the Summary for the key points.
But I would very much like you to read the discourse from beginning to end, because the conclusions supporting
social ecology are based on the principles of social interdependence and social epistemology, established at
the start. I realise that the discourse is complicated. But it is an integrated text whereby arguments are presented to
support the thesis that we are all interdependent organisms forming extended ecological communities. It is best read
in sections. Please visit and read every week.
When you have read the discourse, please submit your comments via the website email:
hmr@kelvynrichards.com.
I am busy adding my own comments and updates every week. Please visit and read every week.
Recent Revisions: February, 2010:
DISCOURSE..........Title Page, Phenomenology; Social Interaction; Symbolic Interaction; Social Epistemology;
COMMENTS..........BLOG: Credit Crisis; Direct Democracy.
Recent Updates 2010:
CONFLICTS........... Catastrophe in Haiti; Crisis Watch; Northern Ireland; Fiji.
DEVELOPMENT.....Copenhagen 2009
COMMENTS....... Social Ecology - an Australian Perspective; Credit Crisis 2009? CSR: The dangers of tobacco
and cigarettes. The dangers of Asbestos and the MAA center; mobile phones and distracted drivers. COP15,
Copenhagen 2009. Wealth: Inequality in UK; hunger and poverty in the USA.
As supporters of Social Ecology, we want as many readers as possible- 37,770 readers, March 6th, 2010 and I
would ask you to refer this site to as many of your colleagues and friends and students and family as you can.
Your referrals have successfully generated 125,906 hits so far.
Please Note: This is intended to be an open access site.
If you are able, and have the time, translate it for your communities - but
with reference to www.kelvynrichards.com
Feel free to download it to your Kindle, e-reader, or i-Pad, as an open
text for further study.
SOCIAL ECOLOGY AS FUTURE STORIES: AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE
Professor Stuart B. Hill, s.hill@uws.edu.au
School of Education, University of Western Sydney, 2008
This is a very personal account of social ecology. In this essay I will endeavour to discuss what social ecology means to me at this moment, place it within
the vast smorgasbord of frameworks for understanding and action, share some critical moments in my evolving love affair with it, and talk boldly about where I
believe it can make important contributions to our future, from the individual level to that of the species, and from the local to the global.
Social Ecology at UWS. First let me say that social ecology at UWS is significantly different from the usual textbook descriptions, which invariably refer
only to the writings of Murray Bookchin (e.g., Eckersley 1992, Merchant 1994). Marshall (1992), however, notes that the American ecologist E.A.Gutkind
(1954) was the first to refer to social ecology in a publication, [it was also a term used by Sir Julian Huxley in a talk at the University of Southampton in 1962:
and included in a collection of his essays, 1964] although Bookchin was the first person to develop it into a field of study with a set of principles. These,
which I broadly embrace, include unity in diversity and complexity, spontaneity, complementary and mutualistic rather than hierarchical relationships, active
participatory democracy and bioregionalism. Although Bookchin has written a lot about a lot of things, he is most known for his dislikes - notably hierarchical
systems, mysticism, primitivism, postmodernism and deep ecology (Bookchin 1995). At UWS, we tend to be much less judgemental in these areas. Bookchin
[who died in 2006] was a passionate ecoanarchist and ecolibertarian who was eager to warn people about the dangers of most aspects of our current society
and to provide us with a critical view of our political history (Bookchin 1982). His central historical position was that domination of nature has its roots in the
domination of humans by other humans, first on the basis of age and gender, and later also race and class . Whatever their origins, because all of these
'dominations' have been systematically institutionalised and integrated into most cultures, an acknowledgment of our interdependent relationships with
nature, and of the need for the promotion of non-hierarchical cultures, is particularly challenging. Despite the difficulties of fully understanding Bookchin's
position (Biehl 1998, Clark 1997, Watson 1996, see also many papers in Light 1998 for a philosophical and historical analysis of Bookchin's social ecology),
he has enjoyed a significant following, particularly in the New England States where he has inspired students at Goddard College in Montpellier, Vermont, at
which degrees in social ecology have been offered since the 1970s.
For me, as for most staff and students at UWS, finding social ecology was like finding home, a home that many of us had almost given up believing might
really exist, having had to settle for so much less for so long. This unwillingness to settle for less and a passion to go further, particularly in our understanding
and action relating to sustainability and change, is for me one of the most attractive features of social ecology at the University of Western Sydney. This is
partly enabled by social ecology's integration of the personal, social, environmental and 'spiritual/unknown' (discussed below) in most of its teaching and
research. I was also attracted by its emphasis on experiential learning, participatory action research and other qualitative methodologies, its recognition of
the importance of context, and its acknowledgment of diverse ways of knowing (including women's and aboriginal ways), the importance of diversity and of
learning to collaborate across difference, of working for equity and social justice, particularly in relation to issues of power, gender and race, and of learning
how to work with and design complex mutualistic systems, recognising chaos as an important precondition for creativity, development and coevolution, and
not something to be quickly controlled and simplified.
Social ecology brings together so many poles that rarely meet: the arts and sciences; critical thinking, reflexivity, passion and intuition; rationality and
spirituality; the stories of the ancients, systems theory and chaos theory; plus an extensive list of disciplines. Social ecology is a transdisciplinary metafield
that is particularly informed by ecology, psychology and health studies, sociology and cultural studies, the creative arts, holistic sciences, appropriate
technology, post-structuralism and critical theory, ecofeminism, ecopolitics, ecological economics, peace and futures studies, applied philosophy and
spirituality.
Minimal Competencies for Working as a Social Ecologist. Thus, to work effectively as a social ecologist one requires competencies in a number of
areas that are rarely grouped together in educational programs, particularly at the tertiary level. These include, I believe, certain minimal understandings in
the following four areas.
1. Personal: what it means to be fully alive as a member of our species and of one's communities, and as an active, responsible and creative partner in
relationships (Shem & Surrey 1998), how our bodies and minds work (see especially the ecological epistemology provided by Bateson, 1972; also Harries-
Jones, 1995), how we learn and develop, the relationships between the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual, between organism and environment (and
sense of place), self, others and society, and physiology and psychology.
2. Social: including the nature of our various institutional structures, instruments and processes (politics, economics, religion, the arts, science and
technology, education etc.), and our history, particularly our psychosocial history (see especially deMause, 1982, for a challenging view of this).
3. Ecological: biodiversity (Dale & Hill 1996), biophysical processes, time and space, niches, roles and multifunctionality, limits and thresholds, non-
linearity and cycles, mutualism and synergy, ecological succession and coevolution, and self-regulation and maintenance.
4. Processes of Change: relations between personal, social and environmental change, the driving and restraining forces and how to strengthen and
add to the former, and weaken and remove the latter (Lewin, 1935), how to work with 'memes' (Beck & Cowan, 1996), imagination, creativity and visioning,
collaborative inquiry (Heron, 1996), participatory action research (Reason, 1994), soft systems methodology (Checkland & Scholes 1990) and mutuality or the
'we' as Shem and Surrey (1998) refer to it.
In gaining understanding and competence in each of these areas it is necessary to have opportunities to learn through personal experience and through
exposure to mixed outcome case studies and diverse models.
Definition. Because of the richness referred to above, it is difficult to find a definition of social ecology that is widely accepted within the Hawkesbury
community, partly because the parts of it that are emphasised by each individual vary with their current interests and contexts. For me, at the moment, it is
concerned particularly with 'the study and practice of personal, social and ecological sustainability and progressive change based on the critical
application and integration of ecological, humanistic, community and 'spiritual' values'. I am aware that all of these terms are hotly contested. However, I am
choosing to use them, with some degree of discomfort, until I find better ways to describe my position.
Inclusion of the Personal, Social and Ecological. Such a condensed definition needs some explanation. Let me say first, however, that by stating my
latest provisional thinking on the values that I consider central to social ecology I am hoping to encourage others to do likewise, partly to help me to further
develop my own understanding. I am making the following statements not to say that this is how it is or must be, but rather that this is how it seems to me at
this moment in time. It is my current story, my collection of narratives that make some sense of my experiences as a social ecologist. Working with such
embodied stories is also central to my practice as a social ecologist.
The first and, for me, most important point is the explicit inclusion of the personal, emphasising our relational self (Shem & Surrey 1998). Most comparable so-
called holistic frameworks for sustainability and change use as their three main categories economics, society and the environment. I believe that this
privileging of economics, as being more important than all of our other social constructions; more important, for example, than politics, religion, the arts,
science and technology, education, systems of values and ethics -- is part of our problem. It helps to perpetuate a narrow monetary system of values and
decision-making; and, by doing this, it concentrates power in the hands of those with large amounts of money. A broader and more diverse base for decision-
making would be more compatible with, and supportive of, a participatory democracy. Also, the common neglect of the personal supports the widespread
perception that our problems can only be solved by heroes (mythologised rather than real people), particularly politicians and scientists, rather than problem
solving (and, more importantly, prevention) being a collaborative project that requires all of our contributions. Money, along with our other institutional
structures, instruments and processes is, I believe, better regarded as a 'tool' that needs to be designed/redesigned and used wisely to help us to implement
our values. Such tools need to be subservient to and supportive of our collective broader values, and not the other way round. Taking such an approach
would cause us to pay much more attention to the development and clarification of our values and to their centrality in our day-to-day discourse, decision-
making and action. So many of the crises reported in the news each day provide clear feedback that most of our institutional structures, instruments and
processes are in urgent need of redesign. Yet there is an enormous resistance to acknowledging this, and to embarking on the necessary task of transformation.
My own vision of a preferable society, based on my present limited level of understanding, would have the following features. A right to meaningful work and
access to the ingredients needed to construct healthy and creative lives would gradually replace our current view of 'labour' as a cost to be minimised and
even eliminated. This might help us to recognise this current dominant attitude as just one expression of our enslavement to a manipulated, deceptively
simple economic bottom line (when the absolute bottom line is bio-ecological). With a more widespread recognition of the importance of ecological limits
and opportunities, solar and appropriate technologies could be emphasised and non-renewable resources conserved for higher priorities than running cars
and heating houses. The need to conserve the rich biodiversity with which we share this amazing planet would be much easier to understand. This contrasts
with our current oversimplified division of nature into resources to be managed and sold for profit, and pests to be eliminated with the vast chemical arsenal
that we have assembled to, tragically usually non-specifically, eliminate life. What is most puzzling about this situation is that most people seem to assume
that they are somehow immune to these non-specific attacks. We should expect, rather than be surprised by, the common increases in degenerative diseases,
immune system breakdown and associated behavioural problems. Indeed, these should be regarded as indicators to be responded to at the causal level,
rather than as new 'enemies' to be subjected to the same faulty thinking and overkill technologies that got us into this mess in the first place. Most of the new
biotechnology 'solutions' are sadly being conceived within this same deceptively simple construction of nature. This time, however, the ability of naively
reconstructed organisms to multiply themselves and conduct their own 'experiments' could lead to much greater crises than our naive physical and chemical
experiments.
Norgaard's (1994) co-evolutionary framework for sustainable development and change similarly stresses the importance of values. It also highlights the
tendency of our overemphasis on powerful institutional structures, such as global economics and the trans-national corporations that it serves, together with
certain powerful technologies, to colonise and compromise our values, diverse knowledge systems, and the health of our environment, our communities, our
relationships and ourselves. He argues that genuine sustainable development requires a tick in each of these areas without such compromise.
My experience of working with a diverse range of populations over the past 30 years has led me to conclude that situation improvement projects are most
effective and sustainable when they work in an integrated way with the personal, social, ecological and 'spiritual'. Such a framework is most conducive to
participation, collaboration, personal development and creativity, responsibility and ownership, and a sense of place, purpose and meaning (Hill 2003).
Thus, for me the difference between highlighting the personal or economic is far from trivial. It has important consequences, not least of which is the
imperative for developing the competencies noted above in each of these four broad areas, and an understanding of the ways in which they are interrelated.
Sustainability and Progressive Change. I regard these two concepts very broadly. For example, at the personal level I regard most psychotherapy as
being concerned with sustainability (recovery, rehabilitation, reconstruction and maintenance, especially of mutually beneficial relationships) and
progressive change (transformation and development). Similarly, within societies most of our institutional structures, instruments and processes are
preoccupied with these often apparently contradictory pulls. Sustainability and progressive change are also central issues in the functioning of all ecosystems.
The highlighting of sustainability and progressive change emphasises the two dominant features of all living systems: maintenance, into which most
resources and energy are naturally channelled (usually well over 50%), and adaptation, transformation, development, succession and coevolution. These
also relate to two interrelated ways of being in the world that are essential for wellbeing: 'knowing' (necessary for action) and 'unknowing' (necessary for
learning). The key is to be able to move flexibly and appropriately between these two in an emergent spiral, not getting stuck for too long on one or the other.
If we become stuck on 'knowing' we are in danger of becoming boring, oppressive and controlling 'know-it-alls', with well developed defences against new
learning. People stuck on 'unknowing', on the other hand, often present themselves as perpetually apathetic, lost, searching, postponing or hyper-critical
'unknow-it-alls'. Learning to work flexibly and spontaneously with knowing and unknowing, the rational and the mystical, science and spirituality, the modern
and postmodern (and post-postmodern), order and chaos, goals and plans and visions and dreams, and sustainability and change is one important expression
of the essential competence of being able to embrace, learn from and work with paradox, an essential competence that remains largely undeveloped in our
society. Rushkoff's (1996) book 'Children of Chaos' provides a paradoxical, challenging and hopeful view of how many young people, by playing with chaos,
creativity and 'shadow' material, and with computers, are already intuitively preparing themselves for creating a more benign and caring future.
With respect to sustainability -- the rehabilitation, conservation and maintenance of ecological, cultural and personal capital, including especially mutually
beneficial relationships -- it is important to recognise that whereas ecological (and, to some extent, personal) sustainability deal with absolutes, such as the
air, water and nutrients for life, together with a vast range of mutualistic relationships, the requirements for social and cultural sustainability are relative and
much more flexible. Because money has no comparable requirements, economic sustainability, in contrast, is dependent primarily on the wisdom of our
decisions and actions (hardly comparable with resources like air and water). Thus, economic sustainability must serve firstly ecological sustainability, and
secondly personal and socio-cultural sustainability, and not vice-versa. See Yeomans (1958) for a systematic approach to working ecologically (also: Savory
& Butterfield 1999 for a systematic approach to decision making and its application particularly to range management).
The absolute nature of ecological sustainability has important legislative, legal and regulatory implications. Thus, interventions into ecosystems
(simplification, harvesting, waste disposal, release of novel chemicals and genetically modified organisms) must be regarded as 'guilty until proven innocent',
with much reliance on the precautionary principle (Harding & Fisher 1999, Rattensperger & Tickner 1999). Similarly, risk studies need to be conducted with
reference to ecological absolutes and socio-cultural values, and not based simply on economics. Currently, as part of a tendency to preserve the status-quo
(or extrapolations of it), most risk studies, which should be providing us with valuable feedback for necessary 'redesign', are concerned only with problem
measurement and assessment ; what I call 'monitoring our extinction' -- rather than with risk reduction and avoidance (see also Raffensperger 1998).
With respect to change, it is important to distinguish between 'deep' sustainable change, which usually requires fundamental redesign of the systems
involved, and of our relationships with them, and 'shallow' adaptive, substitutive and compensatory change, which usually unintentionally protects and
perpetuates the very structures and processes that are the sources of the problems that we are endeavouring to solve. In my work I distinguish between
'efficiency', 'substitution' (shallow) and 'redesign' (deep) approaches to change (e.g., Hill 1998). Although this 'E-S-R' model was first developed for re-
conceptualising pest control (from inefficient to efficient use of pesticides, to the use of substitutes such as biological controls, to the integrated redesign and
design of complex agroecosystems -- to favour the crops and natural controls and not the pests, e.g., Hill 1990; Hill et al. 1999), I have found it to be more
widely applicable. Within this model, 'efficiency' and 'substitution' strategies may serve either as stepping-stones or as barriers to the ultimately essential
'redesign' approaches. This tendency to suspect that a phenomenon detected in one part of a system might also be operational in other parts of the system --
in generically similar but specifically different ways -- is one expression of the 'holographic paradigm' and of 'holonomy' (Harman & Sahtouris 1998), which
are also central to my approach to social ecology.
I have also found when working with social change that it is important to meet people where they are, acknowledge their past and present relational efforts,
support their 'next small meaningful steps', and if appropriate to celebrate their progress and completions publicly to facilitate their spread. This is in contrast
to the more common overemphasis on ('Olympic' scale) mega-projects, heroes, experts and heavy-handed technological and legislative interventions. Using
the former approach with Quebec farmers interested in adopting more sustainable systems of farm design and management led to much higher rates of
change than had been achieved elsewhere using the more conventional top down approaches (Hill & MacRae 1992).
The other key to sustainable change is to be imaginative in integrating personal, social (including institutional), and environmental approaches, while also
being aware of their limited substitutability. For example, the provision of a benign environment may, even in the absence of personal change initiatives or
the fundamental redesign of institutions, lead to benign behaviour and health. This was achieved most dramatically in the Peckham Experiment in the UK.
There over 1,000 families, who had access to a supportive recreational centre in Peckham between 1935 and 1950, experienced no marriage breakdowns,
no violence, little interest in competitive games, the widespread formation of mutually beneficial relationships and a dramatic improvement in health and
well-being (Stellibrass, 1989, Williamson and Pearse 1980). Similarly, there are numerous examples of individuals in deep psychotherapy, or who have been
members of a supportive peer counselling or relationship counselling group, in the absence of environmental or institutional changes, significantly
transforming their ways of being and relating in the world and similarly achieving dramatic improvement in their health and wellbeing (Gruen 1988, Jackins
1992, Janov 1971, Mahrer 1978, Rowan 1993, Shem & Surrey 1998, Stettbacher 1991). The greatest gains are likely to be achieved, however, when
mutually supportive and potentially synergistic initiatives are being taken in each of these four areas (personal, social, ecological and 'spiritual').
Conversely, it is not surprising that in a culture that emphasises growth, greed, individualism, power over, hierarchy and compensatory, stimulatory
consumption (particularly through commodification and manipulative advertising), that disempowerment, relationship breakdown, apathy, irresponsibility,
addiction and violence will be common. Clearly, if we are to achieve sustainability and benign change, we will need to pay much more attention to the
neglected and blocked expressions of humanity.
Ecological, Humanistic and Community Values. Because reference to these qualities has been made throughout this article, only certain contentious
points will be highlighted here. These values need to be considered together to avoid arriving at conflicting imperatives. As indicated above, however, it is
essential that at every level our species recognises the primacy of those ecological values that are concerned with our survival, health and wellbeing.
Because these are currently being compromised within our societies by so many political, cultural, business and personal decisions, this point cannot be
overemphasised. I have previously assembled a list of ecological values (Hill 1980a), and I have spent over 20 years endeavouring to apply them, particularly
to the design and management of sustainable food systems (e.g., Hill 1998, 1999).
Enlightened humanistic values (Bookchin 1995) ask that we live up to our potential as human beings. There is currently much confusion and
polarisation in this area. Social ecology has been labelled by some of its critics as overly anthropocentric and contrasted it with the supposedly more
biocentric deep ecology perspective of Arne Naess and followers (Naess 1989). My version of social ecology is, however, critical of both positions. Because
all healthy humans naturally have a survival instinct, we are, in this respect, innately anthropocentric. To value another species above, or exactly equal to,
that of one's own might even be indicative of deeper problems of woundedness, transference and/or projection. For example, if as a child one's 'animal'
nature was not acknowledged, nurtured and integrated into one's personality, one adaptive compensatory response might be to seek alternative external ways
of keeping this alive, perhaps through an excessive concern for other species, especially those with which we most commonly identify. My point here is that
by raising children to value their 'animal' nature (along with their other natures) they are more likely to be proactive in valuing the richness and diversity of
nature as a whole, and to be consistent in acting on this knowing in responsible ways. In contrast, compensatory preoccupations tend to be relatively
temporary and the energy invested is often more cathartic than constructive. The other extreme adaptive response to such deficient child rearing might be to
largely deny one's 'animal' nature and, in so doing, also the value of external nature. A parallel argument has been applied to valuing and nurturing the
feminine, as well as the masculine, in males, and the masculine, as well as the feminine, in females (Shem & Surrey 1998). Certainly we live in a world
dominated by patriarchy, androcentrism, extreme anthropocentrism, technocentrism, racism, ageism, and a range of other uncaring and irresponsible
prejudices. Clearly these must be addressed if we are to not disadvantage future generations and further diminish the planet's biodiversity and quality of
habitat. Trying to resolve these problems by fanatically focussing on a particular type of 'otherness' tends to lead to further problems, not least of which is a
common lack of respect and heightened competition between those committed to different 'others'. The key, I believe, is to develop our understanding and
caring for both our selves (our diverse natures) and otherness. Part of the common concern for making these equal (rather than equitable), simply by taking
from one and giving to the other, may come from an assumption that there is not enough caring (or resources) to go around (another common lesson from
childhood). The personal task is to respect, value, support and develop mutualistic relationships with others so that their needs may be satisfied and their
creativity and 'gifts' to the world expressed and received. The social task is to create contexts that are supportive of doing this, and especially of nurturing
humanistic values and mutualistic relationships in children. Key child rearing and personal development references that integrate this awareness include
Josselson (1996), Sazanna (1999), Shem & Surrey (1998), Solter (1989) and Stellibrass (1989).
The importance of community values follows from the above, for children need to be raised in diverse interactive communities in which they feel cared for
and can form meaningful relationships. Although the current widespread loss of community, unlike the loss of species, is reversible, it is nevertheless a source
of immense pain and diverse compensatory consumptive and impacting behaviours. It is also an example of an externality that is rarely considered in our
obsession with short-term economic efficiency and associated economic rationalism. A hopeful development is the growing literature on cultural and social
capital (e.g., Roseland 1999). For me there are parallels between caring for and maintaining the soil within ecosystems (Hill 1989), communities within
societies, and the shadow within the self. The tragedy is that not only are we rapidly eroding soils and communities, we are also losing the knowledge and
skills and institutional structures and processes that are needed for their on-going creation and maintenance, and our source of imagination, creativity,
intuition and wisdom..
One approach used by many social ecologists to help address such problems involves supporting the formation of learning communities (Senge 1992) and
collaborative inquiry groups (Heron, 1996). These may then provide the ground within which the needed benign structures and processes can coevolve.
Hunter et al. (1997) have integrated these and other approaches into what they call co-operacy, which they see as the next stage after autocracy and
democracy. Central principles within a co-operacy might include caring and sharing, transparency and access, inclusiveness and participation,
comprehensiveness, responsibility and proactivity.
'Spiritual' Values. The final inclusion in my short definition of social ecology refers to spiritual values. Here I am concerned that spirituality functions as a
spontaneous and integrated expression of our core nature, and not as compensation, escape or addiction. For me, spirituality is concerned with the 'rest', the
mystery, the unmeasurable wonder and amazingness of it all - from our still largely unknown origins to our unknowable futures. As such, spirituality is related
mostly to the 'unknowing' side of the spiral referred to above. It is not something that needs to be explained and organised in great detail. Rather it is one
expression of being human - a source for our creativity and openness to learn and relate. In our distressed state, however, we have subjected spirituality to the
same organising and controlling forces that we have applied to our other social constructions - hence the existence of so many religions, which restrict both
life and our ongoing psychosocial evolution. Although claiming to cater to our deep spiritual needs, most religions are more obviously designed and
managed to meet the superficial compensatory desires of their constructors and followers. I believe that such over-organisation of spirituality is robbing so
many of us of contexts within which to develop our sense of wonder, so necessary in turn for the development of our values, respect, caring and responsibility.
In conclusion let me say that I believe that social ecology frameworks, such as that described above, are able to provide the breadth and depth of
understanding that is needed to carry us forwards to the next stage in our psychosocial coevolution. To do this we will need to work with rather than against
the narrower disciplines, and be more pro-active in collaborating with the other metafields, such as those concerned with sustainable development, peace,
and futures studies.
If you find the issues of Social Ecology significant, tell everyone about this site.
You will find below further comments in what has become...
my blog;
Copenhagen 2009.
Credit Crisis 2009?
'Corporate Social Responsibility':
'Solar power';
Globalisation.
Wealth and Poverty
Social Ecology and Capitalism.
Remaking Society.
Communalism and direct democracy.
Workers' Factories.
Future Scenarios.
COPENHAGEN 2009
The UN Climate Conference, COP15, has just finished - December 20th 2009. There was no concord. No Agreement.
No Treaty. There was a lot of posturing and strutting and walk outs amongst the 193 national delegates. Of course,
given the complexity of the issues involved, it was always unlikely that there would have been any climate Treaty. On
the final Saturday, everybody seemed to be declaring that the whole event had been a waste of time.
I wish to disagree.
First, all those island/coastal countries that are disappearing under the sea were able to present their cases to China,
USA, EU.
Second, the Chinese delegates at COP15 were forced to confront this evidence, and support these countries.
Third, several months ago, the Chinese delegates at the G20/G7/G77/G8 meetings, as well as the 'old guard
communists back in Beijing, had been making it clear that they regarded the 'climate change' evidence and
pronouncements as a US/EU plot to limit Chinese growth and wealth.
Fourth, until the election of a Democratic government in the USA, November 2008, the US leaders had consistently
refused to cooperate with the UN in their attempts to control global warming/climate change/ atmospheric pollution.
For example, President George Bush regarded the matter as a gross interference in national sovereignty. The USA
was not part of the Kyoto Protocol. And yet, in the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, President Obama of the USA, and
Premier Wen Jiabao of China, along with their advisers, were sitting face to face, drawing up an accord, detailing their
conditions for the control of global climate change. Why was this so important?
At this time, the USA and China are the biggest polluters across the globe: pollution generated by the world's biggest
economies, and carbon based industries. During the credit crisis 2007/08/09, it has become clear that China has the
biggest reserves of cash, and the USA the biggest levels of debt. So China is No.1.
In the conference hall, the leaders of 'state capitalism', China, were negotiating, face to face, with the leaders of 'free
market capitalism', the USA, about acting together with the EU to 'save the planet' from global climate change. The EU
had already fully committed to financial aid for the poorest countries, and to a significant reduction of green house
gas emissions.
The geopolitical reality of any 'deal' agreed in COP15 is that while many of the 193 countries present could have
been excluded, or walked out, if it was to be meaningful, the deal had to include China, and the USA.
Credit crisis 2009?
$1billion for a bonus, with 1billion,starving!
Some while ago Mahatma Gandhi told us that the world has enough to meet everyone’s need, but
not everyone’s greed.
November 2009 saw a number of significant events and statements that provide insights into the nature of our
global society.
1. At the beginning of the month, following the half yearly reports, the chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs,
confirmed that $16.7 billion would be put aside for bonus payments to executives of this financial corporation. When
accused of insensitivity, avarice, and profiteering, Blankfein declared that, on the contrary, the corporation was doing
‘god’s work’! helping companies and countries to be profitable.
2. At the same time, the UN, the World Food Programme, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, confirmed
that 5.5 billion people were living on less than $10 a day, of whom 1.1 billion were starving to death.
3. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank published a world trade report announcing that the
global GDP for 2008 had increased slightly to $61trillion.
4. Cap Gemini’s World Wealth Report 2009 stated that the number of very wealthy individuals had declined from
10.1million to 8.6 million with $33 trillion, as a result of the ‘credit crisis’ 2007/8/9.
5. The World Bank/IMF revealed that more than $12 trillion had been paid to banks/finance houses/hedge
funds/insurance groups [that is, to the very wealthy] across the world in order to ‘bail out’ their credit crisis, and
restore liquidity.
6. Oxfam and other charities indicated that these ‘bail out’ payments would have alleviated poverty immediately, if
they had been paid to the poor: in 2008, $8.42 trillion providing $1250; and in 2009, $12 trillion providing $1700 each.
7. It is not hard to calculate that if the global GDP of $61 trillion was distributed equally amongst the 6.8 billion
people in the world, rather than unequally to the $ millionaires, then everyone - man, woman, and child, would have
$9000 each, and there would be no poverty.
8. But this is not the case. Out of the 6.8 billion, 8.6 million $millionaires control most of the wealth, each living on
more than $11,000 a day. Most of the people in the world are poor and hungry, living or dying on less than $10 a
day.
9. A state of poverty [absolute and relative] is normal for the great majority of people. It is clear that the wealthy
minority live without regard for the alleviation of the poor.
10. It is ironic that we all live as part of religious communities that condemn greed . Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists,
Muslims, Jews, Christians, and others, regard greed and avarice as sins. Those who gain their profit and wealth from
the exploitation of others, and make no effort to alleviate the poverty of others, are thought to ‘live in sin’, and it is not
possible for them to be “doing god’s work”.
11. Some of us do not subscribe to any religious beliefs, but subscribe to notions of equality, caring and sharing,
dependence and interdependence. We condemn as immoral and unjust, the greed and avarice of the rich minority
who continue to get richer while the poor get poorer.
12. What is more, the wealthy seem not to notice the inequalities. They consider it fair that they get their rewards.
They form part of an exclusive club, whose members are determined to increase their wealth in relation to each other,
without regard for the welfare of non-members. There is a persistent failure to recognise 'poverty'.
13. On December 24 2009, the New York Times reported that recent investigations have indicated that the
'bankers' of Goldman Sachs, Lehman, Morgan Stanley among others have been busy manipulating the markets for
their own profits. Packages of 'sub-prime' mortgages, collaterised debt obligations, credit default swaps, had been
sold to investors across the world. Of course, the 'bankers' made profits from the packages if they were successful.
When it became clear that the packages were failing, the bankers made bets to cover default. The con-trick.......
Success or failure=profit for the company, and bonuses for the bankers. With the onset of the financial crisis,
investors lost their money; funds went bankrupt; all packages became toxic assets; but the 'bankers' were
guaranteed wealth through their 'insider trading'.
14. All the evidence makes it clear that our global society is subject to domination and control by greedy,
avaricious, capitalist elites, who spend their time justifying their greed and condemning poverty! praising themselves
as the most talented, the most able, the best, the chosen. And condemning the poor, as the lazy, the indolent, the
scroungers. At the same time, the poor majority exist in awe of these rich minorities, admiring and aspiring to their
celebrity, their luxuries, their ways of life.
The ‘con-trick’ of the trickle-down effect, wealth for all people is complete because all the evidence reveals that less
than 1% of the global population are 'wealthy'.
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
If we accept that Social Ecology leads us to a new morality, then we have to accept that capitalism and environmental
protection are not compatible. The guiding light of the capitalist is to maximise profits, and that of the ecologist is to
safeguard nature. The United Nations declares that we should be concerned with ‘development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.
The capitalist will claim the loyalties of the investors and the workers in order to maximise profits for the company.
It is 'grow or die!'. Corporate Social Responsibility is a sham, a con trick perpetrated by companies to protect their
commercial interests. Social Ecologists argue: it is grow and die! Major health problems have become associated
with capitalist enterprise. CSR has not been in play.
Tobacco
For example, tobacco companies have been making cigarettes for many years, knowing that they were increasing the
risks of chest infections and disease amongst their customers. Chris Woolston reports [www.ahealthyme.com] that
in the early 1960s, researchers at Brown & Williamson, one of the world's largest tobacco companies, made a
sickening discovery......... Smoking could cause lung cancer. In public, the company claimed cigarettes were perfectly
safe. Behind closed doors, their scientists searched for ways to remove cancer-causing compounds from cigarettes.
As their own internal documents show, the search for a safe cigarette was doomed from the start. The researchers
found that burning tobacco produces a stunning collection of dangerous chemicals, no matter how it's grown, treated,
or packaged. Simply put, the only safe cigarette is one that never gets lit.
Today, of course, the secret is out. Everyone from the Surgeon General to the kid on the street corner knows
smoking causes lung cancer. In fact, it causes the vast majority of all lung cancer, a disease that killed an estimated
160,000 Americans in 2007. Even the tobacco companies are now willing to admit the obvious. A statement on the
Philip Morris Web site says it all: "We agree with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that
cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other serious diseases." Despite this,
their drive for sales continues. Their profits expand and grow, and many of their customers die from smoking their
cigarettes! What sort of Corporate Social Responsibility is this ? A report in the NewYorkTimes, Nov.21 2009,
made it clear that the tobacco companies considered product liability a cost of doing business. MorganStanley
asserted that the tobacco industry could afford millions of dollars a year in legal costs! For example, in November, in
Fort Lauderdale, a woman was awarded by a jury 'compensatory damages' of $56million, and 'punitive damages' of
$244 million, against Altria Group, the parent company of PhilipMorris........ And there are hundreds of cases waiting
to be called to court.
Asbestos
But even when a product has been banned, like asbestos, its effects continue. Asbestos fibres can cause various
forms of cancer. People who worked with asbestos 50 years ago are coming forward with mesothelioma today. Others
who were present when buildings exploded, such as the World Trade Centre in 2001, were exposed to asbestos
fibres, and many have died of asbestos cancers. The Maa Center monitors the many different ways in which the
companies producing asbestos continue to endanger the workers and users of asbestos through the spread of
mesothelioma. [www.maacenter.org/mesothelioma]
The dangers of asbestos were known 100 years ago. Companies like Bendix, Borg Warner,Chevron,
Chrysler, Dow Chemicals, Kodak, Ford, General Electric manufactured and sold asbestos products. Its use, and the
profits generated, were more important than the lives of the workers and the consumers. Mining and processing was
banned in the USA in 1989; in the EU, 2005: but continues in Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Canada, Brazil. December
10th 2009 marks the start of the 'trial of the century' in Italy: two executives of the company, Eternit, have been
accused of causing an environmental disaster leading to the deaths of 2,200 workers, and ill health of hundreds of
others, due to asbestos poisoning in four factories.
Oil
Action can be taken to protect local communities from pollution. But as the legal battles between Chevron and the
government of Ecuador show such actions are never straightforward and can drag on for years. According to the
New York Times, October 2009, the multibillion-dollar legal case between Amazon peasants and Chevron over oil
pollution in Ecuador’s rain forest keeps unfolding more like a mystery thriller than a battle of briefs. Since the oil giant
released videos in August 2009 that were secretly taped by two businessmen, Ecuadorean officials and Chevron
have accused each other of gross improprieties, including espionage. Chevron gambled that the disclosure of the
videos would enable it to cast doubt on the integrity of the trial, and the honesty of the Ecuadorean legal system. But
the tapes have also raised questions about its ties to the men who made the recordings, potentially opening the
company to a new legal fight. The tapes were the latest turn in a legal marathon over oil contamination left by Texaco
years before it was acquired by Chevron. The fight has become one about 'damages' not about environment.
Mobile phones
And how should we regard Motorola? or AT&T? During the first week of December 2009, a story has emerged, in the
New York Times, outlining the facts about the marketing of cell phones/mobile phones by Motorola during the 1960's.
Both corporations have admitted that they knew that 'multi-tasking' by the driver in the car, with a cell phone causes
distraction, and accidents, and death....... So of course they mounted a campaign against the use of these phones by
drivers? Not a bit of it. Motorola mounted a campaign promoting their use by lorry drivers. Motorola was too
concerned about its market share. Since this time, they have developed 'hands-free' mobile phone kits fitted in the
car and lorry. This is despite the fact that they are aware that 'multi-tasking' is dangerous: leading to 2,600 fatal
crashes, and 570,000 accidents in the USA, in 2007. In Dec 2009, the BBC reported that the Transport Research
Lab.UK revealed that in London the use of mobile phones in vehicles was on the increase, despite the fact that it was
illegal.
Another example of the incompatibility of CSR and capitalism! January 2010, the lawmakers of States are drawing up
legislation to control 'distracted driving'. Four bills are pending in Congress that would push the states to regulate
various types of cellphone use by drivers, including banning texting, requiring hands-free devices or prohibiting
motorists under the age of 21 from using any devices. In the USA, generally, states regulate their roadways — which
is why, safety advocates say, the actions of state lawmakers play such a critical role in addressing the issue.
(Currently, 19 states and Washington ban texting while driving, and six states and Washington require use of hands-
free devices by motorists talking on phones.) In December, 2009, the House of Representatives passed an order
banning 8,000 House staff members from texting while driving (following on an order signed in October by President
Obama banning 4.5 million federal employees from texting in state-provided cars or phones or during work hours).
CSR and pollution
Indeed the current fad for ‘corporate social responsibility’ can be seen as a strategy to persuade workers and
customers that their best interests are provided by the corporation. However, we must not forget that the prime
objective of a capitalist corporation is to maximise profits for the shareholders and the directors. INSnet newsletter in
January 2008 signalled that the countries that are acknowledged as the biggest polluters were gathering in Hawaii to
see if they can reduce their pollution and safeguard profits. The G8, the G20, the G77, the UN, the IMF, the World
Bank, continue to meet and discuss up to the present time [Nov/Dec 2009]. If this is best achieved by being more
careful about how they look after the workers, take care of their customers or conserve the environment, then so be
it. But once the profits are threatened, the workers will be sacked, and the resources exploited once more. This has
been clearly illustrated by the battles about the exploitation of the Amazon forests. Recently, increased demands and
the prospect for profits has accelerated exploitation by the very companies that had promised protection and
conservation. For example, McDonalds has been encouraging the growth of soya beans, which has led to the
resumption of clearing of forests for farmland. Elsewhere, in the forests of Indonesia, Wilmar, a palm oil producer, has
been caught by Friends of the Earth, violating its own CSR policies by cutting forests and occupying land without
permission.
Ethics World newsletter [Jan 2008] tells us that
An assessment of the Dubai Ethics Centre's efforts highlights the glaring gap between the rhetoric of corporate social
responsibility and the reality of most business practices.
"Companies are becoming familiar with the term 'corporate responsibility' and they recognize the need to be saying
the right things in this rapidly developing, highly competitive international marketplace [and] yet their actions, if not the
words, prove that they remain unconvinced or unclear of the business case for corporate responsibility and the
benefits successful CR management could bring to them in terms of mitigating risk and identifying opportunities,"
concluded the DERC-commissioned report.
There can be a lot of ‘greenwash’ !
I am arguing that ‘capitalism’ and ‘corporate social responsibility’ cannot go together.
Capitalism is a system of exploitation in which products are bought and sold for profit: to ‘care and share’ and
‘conserve and recycle’ are regarded as means to ends, not ends in themselves. It is easy to see this as the fault of
private enterprise. But we must remind ourselves that the emergence of communist China as a major economic power
indicates that capitalism can be state controlled, 'authoritarian capitalism' , and generate major pollution in every
corner of the country in the search for wealth.
Furthermore, I am suggesting that capitalism and democracy do not go together. Capitalism results in the profits
going to an elite, the owners of capital. The recent UN reports indicate that this elite comprises 0.0015% of the world’s
population, who control +80% of the wealth. What sort of world is this!
If at this time the millionaires forgot about ‘growth’, and actively redistributed their existing wealth, it would make a
significant difference to all the others. But under a capitalist system that elite are forever trying to increase their share
at the sacrifice of everyone else. This is oligarchy and patriarchy. Indeed, if you consider the details more carefully,
the battles for supremacy are often between families….for example, some of the largest companies, and subsidiaries,
in the world are owned and controlled by these families: Rothschild, Walton, Halley, Piech, Porsche, Quandt, Takei,
Tata, Mittal, Lagardere, Peugot, Pinault, Murdoch, Gates, Goldsmith, Thomson, Rausing, Mars, Saji, Olayan, Al
Kharafi, Al Ayoubi, to name a few. How can we take seriously the notion of a share owning democracy ? How can we
believe that such families are interested in anything other than the aggrandisement of their family! I am sure that they
will be more interested in getting named as one of the Forbes 500 or being one of the Sunday Times Rich List.
Even those who are involved in charitable works make sure that everybody knows where the money comes from……..
The Gates Foundation; the TATA Trusts, and so on. This is tantamount to saying ‘sorry for the exploitation’ and here
are some pennies to make it better.
Social interdependence and social responsibility are to be sought in tandem as part of a cooperative system, what
has been called a cooperacy, not part of an exploitative capitalist system.
Why do individuals, families, and corporations continue to seek ‘growth’? Is it 'grow or die?' Why are they obsessed
with greater profit? What is McDonalds doing in the Amazon? Why did Carrefour, and Walmart venture into Japan?
What is Gazprom doing penetrating the ice floes of the Arctic? What are we all going to do when all the natural
resources of the earth have been consumed? Why do the 1% continue in this way? when most of the people are
poor, and the profits of growth go to the very few who are very rich? How are we able to justify a capitalist system in
which the majority of the world’s population is poor, many on less than a dollar,and many more on less than 10 dollars
a day? In the USA, in 2009, poverty is defined as less than $34 a day. We know that there are 6.87 billion people
living on earth at October 2009: most of whom are poor; probably 6.6 billion living on less than $34 a day. In 2008,
up to 10 million people across the world are classified as rich and live in luxury : of whom 103,000 are multi-
millionaires! In 2009, these figures were put at 8.6 million including 78,000 billionaires. Capitalism has enabled a tiny
minority of people to control all the wealth of the world.
The 'trickle-down effect' promoted by Friedman is another con trick!
It was a significant development to see that the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, proposed scrapping capitalism and
developing clean energies as part of radical measures "to save the planet and mankind." "If we really want to save the
planet, we must eliminate the capitalist system," Bolivia's first indigenous president told hundreds of indigenous
delegates from around the world at the UN in April 2008. Morales argued that the capitalist system was mainly
responsible for climate change and for the "accumulation of waste." He also railed against the development of
biofuels which he said only serve to fuel "poverty and hunger" and instead he expressed strong support for clean
energies. "Biofuels are very harmful, in particular for the poor people of the world," he later told reporters. The leader
called for "respect of Mother Earth," guaranteeing access to basic services for all and putting an end to consumerism.
He noted that indigenous peoples had a different perspective on life, including a stronger commitment to social justice
and a preference for communal ownership of the land. "Mother Earth is not a commodity. It's not something to buy
and sell," he said. And he proposed an international convention "to protect water resources and prevent their
privatization by a few." [as reported in www.insnet.org]. In January 2009, Morales made it clear that the increasing
world wide demand for the lithium in Bolivia will lead to increased prices for the benefits of the total population.
Environmentalists have already realised that if and when the poor majority of the world demand a better way of life,
the exploitation and pollution of the world will accelerate out of control. If we listen to Ted Trainer of the University
of New South Wales, future practises will have to be significantly different:
If all 9 billion people soon to be living on earth were to consume resources at the present per capita rate in rich
countries, world annual resource production rates would have to be about 8 times as great as they are now. All
estimated potentially recoverable resources of fossil fuels (assuming 2t tonnes of coal) would be exhausted in about
18 years.
If all 9 billion were to have the present US timber use per person, the forest area harvested would have to be 3 to 4
times all the forest area on the planet.
If 9 billion were to have a North American diet 4.5 billion ha of cropland would be required, but there are only 1.4
billion ha of cropland in use, and this is likely to decline.
The drive for growth, whether by the rich or the poor, has a limited future.[after Ted Trainer]
You may want to argue that social responsibility and capitalism must go together. If corporate social responsibility as
currently practised is a sham, what should be done to make it a reality? Here are some possibilities.
Ethics World newsletter tells us that www.policyinnovations.org. reports,
Much of the past fifty years has been characterized by a corporate attitude of denial or obligation. Only over the past
fifteen to twenty years have companies begun to look at social and environmental challenges as business
opportunities,either by "greening" their current products and processes or by moving "beyond greening" to
technologies that leapfrog us into the future and make incumbent technology obsolete through a process of "creative
destruction."
Looking forward, however, the greatest opportunity may lie not in reaching only the wealthy of the world with clean
technology, but the six billion plus at the base of the economic pyramid which have historically been bypassed,
underserved, or ignored by economic globalization. To do so will require not only technological ingenuity, but also
disruptive new business models and a willingness to listen and co-create rather than impose new technologies from
the top down. For example, Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Foundation wants us to run 'social businesses', no
loss,no dividend companies, organised to achieve social objectives, such as health care, sanitation, education, clean
water.
What could be done to promote CSR?
What and where is the company?
Offices, factories, warehouses, fields, forests, mines, water. Is it part of the neighbourhood or alien? Does the
company endeavour to link with the local communities.
If you are from another area, or region, or country, make sure you manage the enterprise in the interests of the
locale. Organise the enterprise in tune with the local cultures. On the assumption that you are a capitalist enterprise,
invest an agreed amount of your profits into the improvement of the local area. Do not simply take the money and run.
A fair days pay for a fair days work. Pay the workers at all levels a fair wage as negotiated by all parties. Do not
contrive to pay below the minimum wage. Ideally, one could pay everybody in the company from shop floor to office
the same wage.
Provide the whole work force with benefits that will help them to work e.g. health services, medical care, work
protection such as ear defenders, face masks, showers where necessary, changing rooms, toilets; family leave,
crèche facilities.
Bus services to and from work; conference meetings by internet, and audio/video links; no company cars.
Fair wages. Fair treatment. Fair trade : tea, coffee, soft drinks, milk, fruit, vegetables. Fair Prices.
All processes to be operated by renewable energy: solar, wind, water. In many locations where there is flowing water,
why not return to the water mill?
If the company is producing finished products, say furniture; then use recycled wood.
If it is buying farm produce, make sure that you do not cheat the farmers: like paying one penny a kilo, and selling on
for 1000 pennies a kilo.
In such a CSR company, the priority is offering a fair deal to workers, the suppliers, and the customers. In a company
where profit is the only motive, it is important to cheat the workers, suppliers, and customers so as to maximise profit,
and of course, protest that you are being as fair as possible!
For a company that is manufacturing a finished product, it is essential to cater for any pollution risk from the first
design, rather than discover it after everything has been built. Factories that belch their polluted smokes in to the
atmosphere do so because the company does not care. And the local inspectors cannot be bothered to take action,
or are bribed by the companies to do nothing. It is no good imposing a fine. The factory has to be rebuilt or closed
down.
If any of these actions were taken, there would be significant changes to current practices immediately.
All the ‘developing’ countries, that are claiming their places in the new economies will not be able to enjoy the luxuries
of the North American and European capitalists. ‘The West’ will have hoodwinked the rest yet again!
The force of Ted Trainer’s arguments is that we cannot go on as before. It will all change whether we like it or not,
and we shall have to face the consequences.
I accept that you may not want to go as far as Trainer’s forecasts. But it is time for a seed change in our thinking.
‘Exploitation’ leads us to see other people, plants and animals as objects to be used and abused. Our thinking is
dominated by competition and individualism. Within this mindset, ‘social responsibility’ is just another way to take
advantage of those ‘objects’. ‘Growth’ involves expansion and greater profits. A company that makes the same profit
as the year before is seen to be failing. ‘Expansion’ means that more land, more resources, are consumed and
converted into products and profit. This capitalist cycle will have to stop.
Already, in the wake of the credit crunch of 2007/8/9, responsible financiers are questioning free markets, and calling
for greater regulation, and suggesting the extension of redistributive taxes. Even senior officers such as S.Roach at
MorganStanley, a principal investment bank, are raising questions about unfettered capitalism. At one level you could
argue that the financial corporations should regulate themselves more rigorously. At another level, one has to admit
that the ‘crunch’ occurred because these financiers were busy offering packages to a wider range of customers so as
to seek growth, and to maximise their profits. In other words, they were doing what they are supposed to do! in a
capitalist system. And they are looking for greater regulation because many of the key players like JPMorgan, Morgan
Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehmann Brothers, BearStarns, CitiGroup, and SocGen, Barclays, Northern
Rock have lost millions for themselves, and of course…….for their clients.
Some environmental organisations, such as EarthAction, World Wild life Fund, Friends of the Earth,
Greenpeace, LiveGreen, and Ted Trainer’s The Simpler Way [www.ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au] see the capitalist
search for growth as the key to exploitation and destruction. The fact that most companies are not satisfied with
stability as the norm, and are busy pursuing greater growth and market share, drives them to produce more and to
devise a wider range of other products. For example, local supermarkets will offer 2 for 1 to increase their turnover.
But the impact of this is to increase demands for greater production in the field and under glass, and the ploughing
up of forest or scrubland in different parts of the world.
The history of Walmart in the USA has shown the devastating effects on the environment of low prices and bulk
demands. ‘Walmart Watch’ report that Walmart promote organic foods, even though many products sold are not
organic. Their superstores create significant atmospheric pollution and water erosion. Their insistence on low prices
forces farmers to adopt industrial farming methods, thus altering the ecology of the locality. The fact that they buy
many products from China, and are in fact their fifth largest trading partner, means that they are part of the pollution
cycle in China.
We have to conclude that a ‘fair price’ is not always a low price. It is a price that allows farmers to cultivate in eco-
friendly ways; and is affordable to the consumers; and generates profit for the shop and the farmer. ‘Walmart Watch’
are clearly indicating that big-block superstores and their systems of bulk purchase and global transport are
unsustainable in the future, and need to be replaced by smaller mini-markets. The future should be local suppliers for
local customers. One could argue that if we were part of a system in which the price of any product was the sum of
costs, plus a premium for services, then there would be no need for price competition. Or is that being too naïve?
The culture of capitalism means that one is free to use your own , and other people’s, capital for your personal profit;
to use the labour of others for your own profit; to organise companies so that they make the most profit for you. When
these cultural beliefs are associated with the culture of paternalism, some individuals are given greater value than
others. For example, the father is the leader of the family, and the lines are drawn for systems of patriarchy, in which
the ‘father’ is the most important individual, to whom homage is owed. My analysis has revealed that the capitalist
system of the world is controlled by many such families. It is run by the ‘barons’ of capital. When associated with
elitism, those individuals deemed to be the most able, and the richest, are allowed to form an upper class distinct from
the rest, with the power to control the rest. Recently, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs went so far as to declare that
such an elite is 'doing God's work '! In such a closed system what does corporate social responsibility mean?
I want to argue that whether we see ourselves as individuals equal to all others; individuals independent of all others;
individuals as part of a patriarchy; elders of the tribe; or members of an elite; we live in conditions of social
interdependence. The one depends on the many for survival, for prosperity, for language, for culture, for education,
for work, for support, for love, creativity, skills. And of course each one of us benefit from, and contribute to, the
networks of social interdependence.
Social ecology leads us to think and act in the interests of all humans, animals, and plants. Social responsibility
involves the seed change in our thinking that Thabo Mbeki is looking for, and leading us to new ways of
behaving that will benefit all: a new morality!
J.Kelvyn Richards
send your comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
SOLAR POWER
The Insnet Foundation reported in their newsletter, May 2008, that the cost of Solar power panels is tumbling and
that the prospects for the photovoltaic industry in the USA and Europe are improving. It is ironic that many of the
world's poorest countries have lots of sunshine, but little oil or gas. Why is it that solar energy has not been at the
forefront of their energy provision ? At one level the answer is simple: the bulk of capitalist investment has been in
fossil fuels. The USA once a principal producer of oil has been the principal investor and consumer of oil products for
many years. Solar power has not been on the agenda. At another level, oil and gas had the advantage of flexibility,
being used for heating and transport and thus driving the economic expansion of the USA and Europe. Solar energy
panels are static and used for the production of electricity.
It is only now in the face of reduced sources of fossil fuels that solar energy is becoming the subject of investment
and development. Indeed, recently, some researchers produced a 'solar car'.
If solar power had been on the agenda, is it possible that many of the countries of Africa, the Meditteranean Basin,
and sub tropical zones, would have become self sufficient in their demands for electric energy. I now live in Greece. It
still amazes me that this sun drenched country is dependent on oil and gas, once from the Middle East, and in the
future from Russia. I accept that Greece has not been rich enough to sponsor a photovoltaic industry. I am told that
the government has recently withdrawn all schemes to help householders use solar panels. But that does not alter
the fact that solar power could be their primary source of energy: for example, solar heating could be required in all
accommodation.
Could it be argued that the development of solar energy has been suppressed by the oil producers on the grounds of
unnecessary competition? If the oil producers had been acting according to the principles of CSR they should have
invested some of their many billions of dollars into solar energy, and thus secured the development of many poor
countries, and avoided the ecological disasters of oil pollution in all its forms.
J.Kelvyn Richards
send your comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
GLOBALISATION
and corruption
There was a time when I thought that 'globalisation' was about the development and extension of markets and
production across the world for the benefit of the local communities. I now think differently.
Researches by Greenpeace, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, Transparency International, and other
organisations, have shown clearly that the development and completion of projects in Africa, South America, China,
India, and South east Asia, are to do with the maximisation of profits for the project corporation. Evidence arises - as
for example, Danzer, the Swiss logging company operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - that shows that
corporations seem to be determined to avoid paying local taxes, paying the lowest wages to imported labour, rather
than local workers, and giving bribes to local officials, and their families, to secure the most favourable terms for their
corporation. CorporateWatch reminds us of the cases of bribery relating to British Aerospace in Saudi Arabia; of
environmental destruction by AngloAmerican in Alaska, South Africa, Ghana; and the abuse of environmental and
social conditions by AngloGold Ashanti in DRC.
It seems to me that 'globalisation' represents a series of strategies designed to enable the rich minority, individuals
and corporations, to further exploit the communities of the developing world, and their resources, so as to make the
rich even richer.
The worst aspect of this exploitation is that the local leaders of the host communities actively pursue the bribes on
offer for their personal benefit, not for the benefit of the populace that they supposedly represent.
Globalisation is a con! Of course, you may think I am being a bit extreme. But the situation facing Argentina is a case
in point [Oct 24 2008]. Here is a country that has developed industry and agricultural projects by means of loans from
lenders in the US and Europe. However, all these projects are confronting collapse following the credit crunch.
Lenders are no longer lending and are moving towards 'payback'. The onset of recession has led to the decline in
demand for many of Argentina's products. So revenues are on the slide. Argentina, along with other developing
countries, are dependent upon export markets in the developed world and will have to face the consequences of a
financial crisis generated by the G7, who are more concerned to take care of their own interests in these times of
recession.
Transparency International, as published by www.ethicsworld.org, confirms the global realities of corruption.
Bribe Payer's Index
Transparency International Releases Global Survey on the Propensity of Corporations to Pay Bribes Internationally.
For many years Transparency International has published an annual Corruption Perceptions Index that provides
insights into the taking of bribes by public officials - but the bribery tango involves two parties and it is important to
have better information on who is paying the bribes. This part of the equation has been subject to far less analysis
than bribe-taking. TI commissioned Gallup International to undertake a major global survey.
The 2008 BPI ranks 22 of the world’s wealthiest and economically dominant countries by the likelihood of their firms to
bribe abroad. It is based on the informed observations of 2,742 senior business executives from companies in 26
developed and developing countries, selected on the size of their imports and inflows of foreign direct investment.
The corporations most likely to be involved in offering bribes were based in Russia, China, Mexico, India; and were
involved in public works contracts/ construction, and real estate and property development.
The 2008 BPI is derived from a survey of senior business executives in 26 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Czech
Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, United Kingdom
and the United States.
These countries were selected on the basis of their trade and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows, using data from
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The combined global imports of goods and
services and inflows of foreign direct investment of the 26 countries represented 54 percent of the world total in 2006.
Frank Vogl, Transparency International co-founder and Board member writes -
Out of 180 countries across the globe
Congo, Democratic Republic,Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Chad, Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar, Somalia
are seen as having the most corrupt governments.
Every day, as public officials steal and enrich themselves, the citizens of these countries are dying violent deaths.
These cesspools of corruption are either in the midst of civil wars, and/or run by ruthless dictators. These are the
kinds of countries where, as World Bank President Robert Zoellick said you find, "a witches' brew of ineffective
government, poverty, and conflict."
The magnitude of perceived corruption in these 10 worst performers is staggering. On a scale of 10.0 to 0.1, Somalia
scores 1.0 on the new Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2008, while each of the other nine
worst countries score 1.7 or less.
Some of these countries are major recipients of foreign aid from Western countries – countries that repeatedly turn a
blind eye to the corruption of the national governments that receive the aid.
In each of the 10 worst performing countries the scale of human suffering of the vast majority of the citizens is
staggering. And those who dare to raise their voice in protest are imprisoned and often tortured. In a major speech in
Geneva on September 11, Mr. Zoellick underscored the need to address simultaneously the issues of security,
governance and economic development. For 15 years Transparency International has been the leader calling on
Western leaders to raise their voice against the massive corruption seen in these 10 countries and to act forcefully to
confront the thieves who hold power in these nations and in many others where corruption is widespread. TI is no less
vigilant in calling for the full enforcement of criminal laws to punish those corporations that routinely bribe foreign
government officials.
According to Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International, “The continuing high levels of corruption and
poverty plaguing many of the world’s societies amount to an ongoing humanitarian disaster and cannot be tolerated.
But even in more privileged countries, with enforcement disturbingly uneven, a tougher approach to tackling
corruption is needed.”
Corruption is certainly not only a poor country’s problem. The Index showed statistical backsliding in a number of
industrialized countries, including Norway and the United Kingdom. A large contributor to this trend is the emergence
of a number of foreign bribery scandals in the past year. Examples such as Siemens, BAE Systems, and most
recently a subsidiary of Halliburton, all illustrate wealthy nations’ failure to live up to the promise of mutual
accountability in the fight against corruption.
In the 2009 report, the index confirms that bribery and corruption are world wide. Some of the worst offenders are
found in Italy, East Africa, Nigeria, and the Balkans. Government agencies, such as the police, medical services,
military agents were found to demand bribes from both national and international clients. The most corrupt were
Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Chad, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Haiti.
TI advocates that all nations strive to create stronger institutions of oversight, firm legal frameworks and more vigilant
regulation in order to ensure more meaningful participation for all people in their societies, stronger development
outcomes and a better quality of life for marginalized communities.
J.Kelvyn Richards
send your comment to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
WEALTH
I have been examining how the distribution of wealth among the 6.87 billion people living across the world is
measured. I have to concede, first, that the concept of wealth is confusing: there are those who have lots of capital,
and assets, and little income; and there are those who have lots of income, which they spend, and so have little
capital. But both these groups are rich! and those with lots of capital, and a large income, are super rich. Then there
are those with land and income; land but no income; no land and no income; labour skills and income/or no income
And there are 2.2 billion children. Second, it has become clear that a lot more is known about the rich than the poor.
For example, it is known that in 2007 there were 10.1 million $ millionaires in the world, of whom 103,320 were multi-
millionaires, all of whom, together, owned $42 trillion[assets and income], out of a global GDP of $54 trillion. The
World Wealth Report 2009, indicated that in 2008 this number had fallen to 8.6 million $millionaires, including
78,000 multi-millionaires, controlling $32.8 trillion out of less than $54 trillion. At the top of this rich list were 1125
billionaires with $4.4 trillion. Now, Forbes.com knows exactly who these people are, where they are, and what they
do. In June 2009, Forbes reported that the billionaires had reduced in number to 793 and their fortunes reduced to
$2.4 trillion.
For the many people, who believe that individualism and meritocracy and elitism are best, this millionaire elite
represent this elect, the chosen, the blessed, the best of society: models for the rest of us.
But what about the rest of us? the other 6.84 billion?
According to the elitist paradigm, the poor majority serve the interests of the elite. They count for little; and are worth
at least $5.24 a day; $1914 a year; out of $12 to $20 trillion.
According to the 'social freedom' ethic, the elite should serve our needs by promoting the redistribution of wealth and
the alleviation of poverty.
Anup Shah, in Global Issues, indicates that there are 5.4 billion people living on less than $10 a day; and 1.4 billion
living on more than $10 a day. It is clear that poverty is the global norm. This is confirmed by a recent World Bank
report which established that the average annual income across the globe is $8000, or $22 a day.
The 1.4 billion people, who are the 'better-off', includes the millionaires and billionaires who live on more than $11000
a day: and those who live on more than $11 a day; those on average wages, $22 a day; those who are wealthy with
more than $220 a day. Gross wealth inequality is the global norm. The UN tells us that 10% of the global
population are wealthy; 90% are poor. Many people fall between $22 and $220 a day, and may be regarded as
'comfortable'. A recent UN report suggested that if you earn $60,000 a year, you can be included amongst the
wealthy.
January 27th. 2010. In the UK, a report produced by the National Equality Panel, led by Prof.John Hills, revealed that
10% of the UK population received less than $44 a day[27GBP]; while 10% had an income of more than $186 a day;
5%, more than $232, and 1%, $464 a day. The poverty line was set at $54 a day [33.7GBP a day]. The report
confirmed that the rich are getting richer, and inequality is greater in 2010 than in 1990 [after 20 years of the 'trickle-
down' effect]. 50% of the UK population earn less than $91 a day [56GBP].
Journalists and politicians seem to find it difficult to accept the reality and significance of poverty and inequality.
Publication of the Report led to discussions and debates on the BBC, and in the Houses of Parliament. The
participants, like Lord Heseltine and Harriet Harman, were, however, all more concerned with blaming the poor for
forming an under-class, and accusing the political parties.
We may tinker with the figures, but the truth is that most people in the world are poor. And some of these poor
are to be found in the richest countries of the world like the USA, UK, Japan.
The precise definition of poverty is difficult. Until recently absolute poverty was '$1 a day'. But if you have ever tried to
live on a dollar a day, you will know that it is more accurate to say that you die on a dollar a day! In Greece, where I
live now, $1 a day would get you only 4 tomatoes.
In the USA, in 2007, the definition of poverty, for a family of five, whereby you become entitled to benefits, is $67 a
day. For a single person, it is $30 a day or $10,991 a year. The latest US Census reports indicate that in 2007 37.3
million people [12.5% of the population] lived in poverty. In 2008, it is estimated that 17.1 million had to get by on
$14.8 a day. In 2010 it is calculated that 38 million people receive food stamps.
So, 'poverty' across the globe can be defined as living on an income of between $1 and $67 a day.
In the UK, the Inequality Report indicates that there are 982,400 people with zero wealth, of which 614,000 are
existing on no more than '$1 a day'.
It seems to me that in our global capitalist society about 6 billion people may be described as poor, and 0.8 billion as
rich, of whom 8.6 -10.1 million are very rich. If you live in the prosperous world, it will be difficult to imagine what it is
like to be in the world of the poor.
At this time of financial crises, it is possible to accept that for those on less than $10 a day, nothing has changed.
Life remains a struggle - Survival accidental. Regular employment, a dream. It will be more catastrophic for those who
now have to live on $220, rather than $11,000 a day; for they will have to get rid of all their assets at cut price and
may have lost all their savings and pensions as well as income.
At the height of the crisis, it seems that the International Monetary Fund is short of funds, and cannot help those
distressed nations on the verge of bankruptcy. Some of the cash rich countries, like the Oil States, are being lobbied
to provide funds for the IMF. I would suggest that the millionaires, with their $ trillion fortunes could be asked/required
to contribute funds to the IMF and thereby help, significantly, to alleviate poverty across the globe. But we all know
from the Wealth Reports of Cap Gemini, that they will much prefer to spend their money on luxuries - another luxury
car; a new boat; a cruiser;an aeroplane; a helicopter; another mansion, a hotel; diamonds, gold; a football team; and
so on.
The financial crises has revealed clearly that the alleviation of poverty and inequality is not an action
priority for any social/economic/investment/financial/ government policy.
J.Kelvyn Richards
send your comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
CAPITALISM: UNJUSTIFIABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE!
A Contribution to www.socialecologylondon.wordpress.com November 11th 2008.
Capitalism, unfettered or not, is unjustifiable, and unsustainable!
Let us now consider the facts – or to be more precise the estimates of the facts. Let us dispense with the rhetoric,
and look for solutions.
Population calculators on the Internet indicate that about 6.87 billion people live on the Earth in 2009, of which 2.2
billion are children.
Anup Shah of Global Issues.org estimates that out of the 6.87 billion people, 5.4 billion live, or we could say die,
on less than $10 a day……30,000 children die each day. In the USA, social security is provided for, and poverty
defined as, those individuals living on $30 a day; or $60 for a family of four.
A recent report by the World Bank proposed that the average global wage is $21 a day.
The World Wealth Report of 2009 declared that there were 8.6 million people who were multi-millionaires, with at
least $4 million each; of which 78,000 were ultra rich with at least $35 million each. They comprise 0.0015% of the
global population and live on at least $12,000 a day! This group controlled $33-42 trillion, out of a global GDP of $54
trillion.
I admit that these estimates exclude those living on $60 to $10,000 a day, as there are few statistics about them. But
if you follow the US Census Bureau, and calculate that in 2008/9, 5% of the population earn more than $180.000, or
$493 a day. Across the world that would be 410 million wealthy, and would include the rich and ultra rich.
It is well understood that the world in 2008 was dominated by unfettered capitalism, unregulated and unsupervised [at
least until the October financial crises]. But such a capitalist world is one in which relative poverty is normal for 6.8
billion people.
Such unregulated capitalism is unjustifiable. It allows the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. And for many
people to get into debt.
Ben Funnel, in the Financial Times, June 30, 2009, advised that excessive lending was the only way to maintain
the living standards of the vast bulk of the populations in US, UK, EU, at a time when wealth was being concentrated
in the hands of an elite. The amount by which the elite benefited is startling, and illustrates the problem with lightly
regulated free markets: the rich get much richer while the rest do not get richer at all. According to Société Générale,
the inflation-adjusted income of the highest-paid fifth of US earners has risen by 60 per cent since 1970, while it has
fallen by more than 10 per cent for the rest. As was recently pointed out in the New York Review of Books, the Walton
family, of Wal-Mart fame, is wealthier than the poorest 100m people of the US population put together.
Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the
population.
So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could
borrow it. The management of debt by banks, hedge funds, investment funds, insurance groups, not only provided
loans for the consumers, but also generated greater profits for the financial services, fees that increased the wealth
of shareholders, and the bonuses of the fund managers. The management of debt became a major service industry.
But as we know, in 2009 the corporate and national debt has become several times greater than the GDP of the
G8/G20, the developed world. There is not enough money to pay the debts! when they become due.
What can be done to alleviate the impact of this debt? First, we should redouble our efforts to increase
productivity through innovation and creating new markets; with investment in education and research. Second, we
have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn. Third, we should be careful in
distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Income disparity at
current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we need a new political consensus, one
aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and
investment in innovation.
Nassim Taleb and Mark Spitznagel wrote: July 13 2009 19:11 in the Financial Times that the core of the
problem, the unavoidable truth, is that our economic system is laden with debt, about triple the amount relative to
gross domestic product that we had in the 1980s. The only solution is the immediate, forcible and systematic
conversion of debt to equity. There is no other option.
They believe that stimulus packages, in all their forms, make the same mistakes that got us here. They will lead to
extreme overshooting or extreme undershooting. They lead to more borrowing, by socialising private debt. But
they argue that running a government deficit is dangerous, as it is vulnerable to errors in projections of economic
growth. Asking the economics establishment for guidance (particularly after its failure to see the risk in the economy)
is akin to asking to be led by the blind – instead we need to rebuild the world to make it resistant to the economist’s
mystifications. It is sad to see that those who failed to spot the problem (or helped to cause it) are now in charge of
the remedy. Just as the impending crisis was obvious to those of us who specialise in complexity and extreme
deviations, the solution is plain to see. We need an aggressive, systematic debt-for-equity conversion. We
cannot afford to wait a day.
The rich minority will hold their wealth in stocks and shares and bonds and funds in corporations. This wealth will be
used to invest in all the projects designed to exploit the resources of the world. The corporations such as De Beers,
Alcoa, Danzer, Esso, Shell, BP, Billiton, Anglo-Gold, Rio Tinto, and many others, will move onto sites across the world
to mine and drill and cut forests, and clear land for industrial farming: to convert nature into products.
Investigations by Greenpeace and Oxfam reveal that such corporations are not interested in alleviating the poverty of
the local populations, only in securing and protecting the profits of their corporations. It is no accident that some of
the poorest countries in the world, like the Congo, Somalia, Zambia, Ghana, are the sites of some of the
most valuable resources. ‘Development’ is best considered as another capitalist strategy to extend and maximise
corporate profits.
Capitalist enterprises are unsustainable.
Change is necessary. We have seen in 2008/09 that unfettered capitalism has led to the unraveling of the financial
and banking systems in the West and the collapse of many finance houses and funds. This has been accompanied
by increasing demands for regulation, supervision, and control, and government intervention. The principle of
deregulation has been challenged. At the same time we have had to witness the distribution of 11 trillions of dollars to
the very corporations that had brought us to this crisis and to the edge of economic depression: the rich looking after
the interests of the rich.
If such trillions had been given in low interest loans to the ‘developing’ world, and as grant aid to the poverty- stricken
communities across the globe, the alleviation of poverty would have been significant.
The debate should now be about how to reorganise societies, in which 95% of the population is relatively poor,
lacking basic amenities, educational opportunities, healthcare, and social services, and to provide a fair redistribution
of wealth to all, through the development of social businesses, and the initiation of projects that provide work for local
communities, and the funding to support local services now and in the future.
We must not assume that governments can be trusted to supervise any reorganisation. We have to recognise that
they have the power. But in many countries across the world their governments have become the fiefdoms of ruling
families, who have fed monies to their friends and relatives. In such cases, there may not be ‘political’ solutions,
because the politicians succumb to bribery and corruption.
Against this background Mr. Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, has highlighted ten areas for action in
what he describes as ‘fragile states’ – states that are subject to constant internal conflicts. It is the sum of these
actions that combine to present a very different perspective on approaches to economic development than has been
the traditional core of the World Bank’s work. He said the ten necessary actions are:
• Building the legitimacy of the state.
• Establish a relatively safe and secure environment.
• Building rule of law and legal order. President Zoellick noted: “The most fundamental prerequisite for sustainable
development is an effective rule of law, including respect for property rights… legal order is not only vital to public
safety – it is also a safeguard against the serious risk of criminalization of the state. Corruption adds to fragility and
lack of legitimacy. Abuse of state power destroys confidence, and ultimately the state’s legitimate and core purpose.
• Bolster local and national ownership, which is fundamental to achieving legitimacy, trust, and effectiveness.
• Ensure economic stability as a foundation for growth and opportunity.
• Pay attention to the political economy - this means taking into account the relationships between power and wealth
in society.
• Ensure the development of a healthy private sector.
• Coordinate across institutions and actors to ensure that government is not overwhelmed by the international
institutions, foundations, NGOs, and the private sector, which seek to assist the fragile states.
• Consider the regional context given that fragile states can be both the cause of regional unrest and the object of
manipulation by neighbors.
• Think and act with a long-term perspective.
Mr. Zoellick said, “These are not quick-fix countries: Support needs to be for the long-haul. Money and humanitarian
aid flood into the more fortunate countries at the beginning of a post-conflict settlement, often beyond the state’s
capacity to absorb it.”
J. Kelvyn Richards
[send your comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com]
REMAKING SOCIETY
A contribution to www.socialecologylondon.wordpress.com November 14, 2008.
If we follow Bookchin and others:
remaking society will involve altering human relations with each other, other animals, and plants in nature;
the recognition that humans are dependent upon other animals, organisms, and plants for their survival, and that the
destruction of nature will lead to the destruction of all organisms;
the preservation and conservation of natural resources by the regulation of corporate capitalism;
the protection of workers against exploitation by employers by the establishment of equality and civil rights, will
continue to be priorities.
I wish to suggest that remaking society in 2008 involves more than this. For example, what are we going to do about
the fact that poverty and unemployment and starvation and malnutrition are normal for the majority of the earth’s
population, leading to the deaths of 220,000 children a week?
The creation of a capitalist world has led to an elite of up to 10 million people, who control more than 80% of the
wealth of the world, and 6.8 billion others in relative poverty. The investment of capital and its use by corporations
and governments has led directly to the exploitation of natural resources, the creation of global pollution, and the
wholesale destruction or displacement of communities of humans and other animals and plants. 200 years
of industrial pollution has altered the composition of the atmosphere and resulted in global warming and climate
change.
So what is the point of capitalism? The freedom to innovate and invent and invest, that is implicit in capitalism, has led
to the development of telecommunications, and of ‘miracle drugs’ that have saved lives, and the technologies of
space travel. Unfettered capitalism has opened the opportunities for a few people to become very rich, and for
the rich to get richer.
In areas of the world where there is employment and manufacture, such as the USA and the European Union, the
debates may still be about the rights and rewards of workers and employers. But these people form a minority in the
world, say 500 million. It is calculated that 5.4 billion people are trying to bring up their families on less that $10 a day.
For example, village communities in the Amazon or the Congo, or the scrublands of Nigeria, Ghana, Somalia, Sudan,
Zambia, Zimbabwe or central Australia or China, are trying to cultivate their lands to feed their families. They are not
‘capitalists’. They are farmers trying to grow enough to eat and barter at the local markets. They do not have the
benefits of social services nor health care and education. Their access to fresh water is limited. Sanitation is rare and
malnutrition rampant. It is worth noting that their conditions are not helped by the invasion of international
corporations and the exploitation of local resources such as oil, gold, copper, diamonds, timber. Greenpeace and
Oxfam and others have revealed that the corporations employ foreign workers and take all the profits.
Further exploitation and development is not the answer. It will only lead to more pollution and environmental
degradation. It has been recognized that we are already at the tipping point for climate change. The Polar ice sheets
are busy melting; coastal settlements are already planning for flooding emergencies; huge areas of grassland in Asia
and Africa and the Americas that are dependent on rainfall are becoming deserts. It has been reported that the
Pacific Ocean has become a vast reservoir for plastic rubbish. February 2010: the Sea Education Association
reported similar collections of plastic rubbish in the North Atlantic.
The big debate is about the alleviation of poverty across the world: in the field, the village, the town, and the factory,
and the city. The poor are not only on the farms, but at present they form majorities of the urban populations where
city slums are growing faster than the ‘concrete towers’.
If we are going to remake society, we must make sure that life is worth living for 6.8 billion people. It is necessary to
realise that the monies that are available to help to provide essential social services for the poor majorities across the
globe are held by the rich minorities. Out of a gross domestic product of $54 trillion in 2008, $42 trillion are owned by
0.0015% of the world population. The World Wealth report 2008 indicated that these very rich groups are not intent
on giving to charity, they spend most of their wealth on more and more luxuries, from aeroplanes to hotels for their
families!
Capitalism is based on profit, greed, exploitation, elitism, inequality, injustice. It upholds the rights of the investor to
take all the profits. It is indifferent to the conditions of the worker, except when profits are challenged. It does not care
about the environment as to do so would reduce profits. It ignores the problems of the poor so as to minimize
unnecessary costs.
The alleviation of world poverty can only be achieved by the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism is unjustifiable, and
unsustainable.The remaking of society will be based on socialism.
J.Kelvyn Richards.
[send your comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com]
COMMUNALISM and Direct Democracy
a contribution to Kommunalistien liitto, Nov.2009 [revised]
a contribution to www.socialecologylondon.wordpress.com
a contribution to www.socialecologyvashon.org [Nov 25 2008]
What is ‘communalism’? It depends upon where you live. Among the social ecologists and socialists of the USA/EU,
communalism refers us to ‘direct democracy’, local and neighbourhood assemblies, decision making by local
residents in a local context.
However, among the religious communities of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, communalism is a description of
religious communities in conflict: the various communities of Moslems, Sikhs, Hindus, Jain, Buddhists, Christians, in
particular localities, attacking each other on the grounds of their religious differences, and centuries of oppression
and domination.
In view of these contradictions, it may be better to think about communalism as ‘direct democracy’ whereby every
adult living in a neighbourhood, village, town, municipality, local authority, county and city, are free to be involved in
the discussions and debates and decisions concerning their locality and region. It is important that every adult is
involved, not just a privileged few.
If we wish to institute a ‘direct democracy’, we have to remember that we are not operating on a clean slate. In the
past, it was applied to societies, such as Athens, in which only the male elite took part. In the present, facilities,
utilities, social services, local offices and officers exist already. There are roads, railways, telephones, water and
sanitation, electricity, schools, hospitals, clinics, banks and building societies, mutual funds and hedge funds, industry
and commerce operating within our hierarchical societies. In all neighbourhoods across the world there are issues
concerning the use and development of existing services and facilities, which could be matters for local
neighbourhood assemblies, but in the main are currently determined by representative politics, whereby one
person votes on behalf of everyone in the constituency; or dictatorial edict when one person decides for all.
How could it be possible for ‘direct democracy’ to be established within the confines of current political and economic
organizations. Oddly enough, most governmental systems justify themselves as operating in the interests of, and with
the approval of their citizens. A representative democracy will assert that the representatives have been approved
and voted by the citizens. And even a dictator will claim that s/he has the approval of the citizens on the grounds of
law and order. And most governments will assert that they are all working in the best interests of the citizens.
It may be the case that governments would not recognize ‘direct democracy’, but it is not impossible that they could
set up local neighbourhhood assemblies, for consultation, and set up the offices to facilitate such local government.
The problem with this is that such assemblies could just as easily be removed at the whim of the national government.
The essence of ‘direct democracy’ is that the authority of government is vested in the citizens, in their local
communities. This would lead to the removal of existing governments. But little guidance is provided as to how
these governments are removed. It seems to be assumed that they will go quietly.
Direct democracy is 'revolutionary'.
I would agree that local issues are often best dealt with locally, rather than by some civil servant far away in the
regional or capital city: that local is best. But at times ‘local’ and ‘global’ are equally important. Social ecology reminds
us that we are a part of a global nexus in which animals and plants are interconnected and part of nature. We have to
think and act locally and globally.
The recent financial crises in 2007/8/9 have shown clearly that the whole world is interdependent and interconnected
and that local solutions are not always good enough, and that global solutions are essential. For example, banks and
finance houses deal with each other across the globe, lending and borrowing money for national and international
investments. Although the crises started locally as a result of families in the Mid-West of the USA defaulting on their
mortgage loans, the subsequent losses of income by the lenders led to their default on their loans, and so on. The
cycle of debt destroyed the system of global credit, and led to the collapse of banks and investment funds across the
world, which in turn halted the provision of cash for commercial enterprises, closure of workplaces, and the onset of
unemployment.
It seems to me that local assemblies would be unable to cope with these events. Indeed, it is obvious that their
perspectives would be local, demanding that companies kept going and employed the local workers and maintained
local prosperity, irrespective of the global situation.
I want to suggest that there are different levels of problems and issues: local, regional, national, international, that
are best dealt with at these different levels. A local assembly can be consulted, but may not be fit to make decisions
about national or global crises. For example, what decisions would be made about immigration? about workers and
families from other parts of the world?
How could direct democracy work?
In principle, it would involve all the adults in a specified area, in a neighbourhood. They would have the opportunity to
be involved in local assemblies: but how many would get involved? I would suggest, first, that while all could be
members of their local assemblies, most would be too busy trying to survive, and the others too busy earning a living.
Second, we have to accept the implications of our previous analyses. Our present governments and economic
systems are dominated by elitist systems:
elitist capitalism, which is dominated by 9 million very wealthy people and their families; and
autocratic capitalism, where dictators take control of all the wealth of their countries.
I have reservations that perhaps direct democracy is a pipe dream within such elite systems. For example, during the
20th century,in Spain, the Balkans, USSR, China, Indonesia,the Middle East, Nepal, Tibet, Zambia, South Africa,
Colombia, Venezuela, and many other places, local movements have quickly been suppressed by the forces of 'law
and order'.
Third, I am not saying that people are not interested in becoming part of ‘direct democracy’, I am trying to remind
ourselves that families and workers in local communities have different priorities in the light of their experiences. For
example, for many years I worked with local residents in Nottinghamshire in the UK on a number of community
education projects. I soon learnt that the residents had very different priorities to me. For example, a meeting would
be set up. Everybody had agreed to the date and the time, and been very enthusiastic about the event. I had been
very careful to involve everyone in the plans. But on the day, nobody would come. Some had to work. Others had to
deal with illness. Some were just too tired to come. A few felt anxious or neurotic about the meeting and so did not
come. Others would be watching a local football match. Others would consider such initiatives as pointless, as part of
the elite con-trick! I soon learnt not to take their absences personally, and to set up another meeting. I learnt too that
meetings and formal debates were not part of the residents’ way of life. They had to learn new rules, and if they did
not like the rules, they would not come to the meeting.
Fourth, a local assembly would have to be large enough to make sure that someone turned up! and not so big that
there would be no time for all to speak. If the assembly has 500 members, and each has the right to speak for 3
minutes on each item on the agenda; that could be 1500 minutes or 25 hours per item; and 100 hours for 4 items.
This time would not include voting and counting, and validating the vote. Even if the assembly was only 50 members,
the time taken would still be 150minutes/ 2.5hours per item, and 10 hours for 4 items; and say 12 hours for debate
and voting. While I accept that not every member would want to speak, a local assembly must be so organized so as
to allow them to speak. Of course, these time factors make the operation of such assemblies out of the question.
How could the meetings be organized? As I have already mentioned, local residents do not have the time, nor
the inclination, to spend hours in meetings. Any one meeting should be no more than one hour long: and the debate
and the voting take place in separate meetings. I think it is safe to say that residents would not want meetings every
day, and probably no more than two a month. The meetings would therefore have to be carefully arranged so as to
allow as many views as possible to be expressed on any item, and to include all the key issues. In a meeting that lasts
an hour, and covers 6 items: that is 10 minutes per item. To enable as many views to be presented as possible, the
speakers must be delegated to represent the views of others: the pros and the cons. This means inevitably that some
residents will act as the representatives of others: their street. Such necessary limitations would mean that these
meetings would be easy to 'manipulate'. An important aspect of direct democracy would be that the residents at any
meeting should be free to alter the rules so as to fully discuss any controversial issue that concerns them at that
moment. The secretary of these meetings would be a key player in each local assembly.
Where could the meetings take place? The locations do not have to be standardized. The meetings could take
place under a tent in warm, dry areas; the market square; in the local church/mosque/temple hall; in the local school;
or the town hall. The meeting place would have to have enough seats; and access to toilets for all, young and old;
facilities for drinks; be equipped with sound equipment so as to make sure that each speaker can be heard; have a
crèche or nursery or playground for the children, and volunteers to look after them. These meetings could not just
happen - they would have to be carefully organized by the ‘secretariat’.
What happens after decisions are made? In the literature about direct democracy, there seems to be an assumption
that the local residents would be directly involved in the implementation of the decisions. I do not think that this would
be the case. For example, a local assembly could decide to set up a new nursery school for the neighbourhood. But
who would manage this decision? and the establishment of the school? Actions would be taken about the site; the
purchase of the site; the design of the school, including equipment and facilities; the construction of the school; the
staff and their appointments; the registration of pupils; the teaching and the curriculum; the monitoring and inspection
of the school. All of these activities are specialist, and require a lot of time. Only some of the local residents would be
available and qualified and willing to assist. The tasks of purchasing, planning, construction, appointing, and
monitoring will be carried out by professionals. Direct democracy will involve local residents in decision making, but
not necessarily in the implementation of the decisions. Whether we like it or not, such implementation would be easy
to 'manipulate'.
This example indicates that direct democracy cannot mean the direct control of all services in the area; nor the
control of the monies required to run the services, and to fund all new projects. It is worth remembering that some
projects like hospitals, schools, roads, railways, can involve millions of pounds/dollars/euros subject to strict rules of
accounting. These responsibilities could not be executed by the local members meeting at their mutual convenience.
If they were, the meetings would have to be daily! hourly! The local residents would not welcome such responsibilities
- even when they had happily become involved in the policy decisions.
In a direct democracy, a clear distinction will have to be drawn between policy decisions and policy implementation. Of
course the local assembly will be free to appoint ‘supervisors’ of any project. But these projects will be managed by
teams of specialists. The project team would be responsible and accountable to the local assembly. This alone is a
significant difference to present practices whereby responsibilities are hierarchical.
Can direct democracy be achieved by other ways and means? A key element is that local people are involved
in the decisions about the management of their local neighbourhood. One way in which this could be done is by 'e-
poll'......a system of social networks and forums designed specifically to enable direct democracy. It is possible that
this could be adopted as a principle of practice by the existing local and national authorities and their officials. Such
offices and officers would be required to inform and consult all interested parties, and to organize e-polls to discuss
key issues. For example, not everybody in the local neighbourhood would be interested in the debates about school
provision, but it would be the direct concern of parents with children. Everybody would be concerned about the
availability of medical services, hospitals and clinics. But not every citizen could be involved in their operation. It would
be necessary to appoint a ‘medical’ committee who would oversee the provision of the services. There would have to
be a secretariat to control documents, minutes, contracts, and to make sure that the committee is not ‘packed’ by
other interested parties, and that the committee completes its tasks. The administrators of these services would be
directly responsible to the local residents through these committees rather than to the civil servants. Direct
democracy will be government by local committee.
It may not be necessary to destroy all existing systems of local administration. But it is essential to alter the lines of
responsibility. At the moment, educational/medical/social services and their officers are all looking to the top of the
hierarchy for their direction. What is required in a direct democracy is for these officers to be looking to the local
assemblies/local residents for their decisions. This could be greatly facilitated by appointing staff who are committed
to the direct involvement of local residents in the operation of their services.
What about industry and commerce? It is well known that local and national corporations set up their operations
without any regard to the views and interests of the local communities. There is a growing body of evidence gathered
by Oxfam and Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, among others, of the ways in which mining/forestry companies
move into areas in places like the Congo, Ghana, Indonesia, Sumatra, the Sudan, the Amazon, Ecuador, displacing
the local communities without any regard to human rights or property tenure, exploiting the resources without any
payments to local workers.
It is time for all corporations to exercise their social responsibilities to the local communities in all the places where
they wish to develop their business. This could happen now as part of their ‘corporate social responsibility’ policies.
But we already know that what is said is not the same as what is done. In a direct democracy, however structured, the
local assemblies would have to be consulted, and briefed, in order to give permission for the enterprise. We must not
be naïve and think that such consultations would take place without lobbying and pressure, and favours, and
corruption and deals. Many corporations are multi-billion dollar organizations looking to make many more billions of
profit. They will ‘work’ the systems, the assemblies, and the committees in order to get a favourable decision. They will
try to ‘pack’ the committees with their supporters.
In order to protect itself from too much ‘pressure’, a direct democracy will have to make sure that all dealings are
honest, open and public. The secretariat of the local assemblies will manage and supervise any local dealings so as
to protect the local citizens from corruption. While it is true that corporations will be looking out for their best interests,
the local assemblies could manage the negotiations to their own advantage, with conditions that secure the provision
of schools, and hospitals, and essential local services by the corporations, for the local communities.
The most important feature of a direct democracy is that the local residents are responsible for their local
communities, and are to be consulted so that they can discuss and make decisions about all services and
developments in the local area –village, town, municipality, prefecture, county, province, region. The decisions that
are made are formulated into policy and practice by a secretariat. The decisions are put into action by professional
teams, who are directly responsible to the secretariat, and the local residents. A direct democracy will be dependent
upon teams of administrators [secretariat] to organise projects and manage funds. Of course these administrators will
be influential and significant members of the direct democracy. But they will be responsible to, and subject to, the
decisions of the local residents.
J.Kelvyn Richards. Send comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
‘WORKERS' FACTORIES’
Moments of social crisis may provide us with opportunities for social change. At the moment we are all subject to a
credit crunch, and a banking crisis; a financial collapse and economic recession leading to a global depression and
deflation. Across the world there is a lack of credit, and companies are going bankrupt, unable to borrow the capital
that they require to pay wages, insurance, to buy parts and raw materials, for dispatch and shipping. Banks and
finance houses are collapsing as their customers and investors withdraw their cash, and avoid losing their money. At
this time, factories and offices and shops are closing down and becoming vacant lots. Their workers and officers and
managers are being made redundant, and unemployed, to become the responsibility of the State and the benefit
systems. These unemployed accept their loss, and stay at home.
But what if they did not? I have been reading about the creation of ‘worker factories’ in Argentina, and Bolivia in
response to the collapse of their economies after 2000. The empty ‘lots’, factories, hotels, shops, had been
abandoned by the owners and locked up. But some of the workers decided to occupy the ‘lots’, and to start up again.
These workers gathered together as committees to make decisions about how to run the enterprise. Some of them
returned to the hierarchical structures of the past, others set up workers democracies. They had all returned to their
places of work so as to run them without the owners and the bosses. They knew how to operate the enterprises, but
not how to finance them. They had occupied the premises, and got them working again, but they were trespassers.
They were not running a legal entity, so could not be recognized for the purposes of contracts and loans. In Argentina
these ‘worker enterprises’ appealed to the national government for finance, and for legislation to legalise their
occupation. Their appeals failed. Their futures are doubtful.
What if the redundant workers in the USA, the UK, the EU, Russia, and elsewhere, were given governmental support
to take over their places of work, and to run them as ‘worker enterprises’ ? We have already seen that these
governments have been more than willing to bailout the owners and shareholders of bankrupt corporations and
banks to the tune of trillions of dollars. What if these monies were paid to the workers ?
The bankrupt companies, including finance houses, car factories, aluminium window manufacturers, mining
operations, parts manufacturers, and so on, all have premises, with equipment, which will be abandoned, because the
owners cannot afford to run them anymore.
But their premises remain. If we assume that the workers would rather be employed than not, and feel able to run the
operation without the bosses, then they can all be available to operate them as ‘worker enterprises’ or ‘worker
cooperatives’ or as ‘social businesses’. However, the experiences in Argentina show clearly that each ‘worker
enterprise’ requires financial aid, legal aid, and skill training programmes in order to survive as a ‘going concern’.
Why should a government get involved? Any government, in the developed world, will be paying thousands of
unemployed people various benefits, which will cost millions of dollars with no tax returns. But this money could be
spent instead to support the establishment of ‘worker enterprises’; to allow the workers to take over the enterprise,
and operate it as a cooperative or social business with legal rights and access to loans. The government would be
required to sponsor the legislation necessary to allow ‘takeover by occupation’, and prevent owners or previous
bosses from reclaiming the enterprise once it is back in profit. It may be that the government will require the loans to
be repaid once the operation is in profit.
Initially, these ‘worker enterprises’ are to be managed and operated by workers’ assemblies, whereby all workers will
be involved in the decisions about structure, planning and wages. Later, some may decide to be ‘worker
democracies’, in which every decision is made by all; others may decide that they operate as before, as hierarchies,
with a managing committee representing each working group, without the bosses; others, that they operate as
cooperatives, with workers and customers as shareholders. None of them are to be seen as ‘nationalised’, unless
that is agreed by mutual consent.
Send comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
Financial crash, population crises, climate change.
What sort of future?
Present [2009] and Future[2030]Scenarios.
Following three recent articles in the Guardian, by Professor John Beddington, by Mark Lynas, and George Monbiot,
I want to make further projections about the impacts of economic crises, population changes, and global warming.
2009: a global financial crash.
* Banks and investment funds had gambled on bad investments, generating bad loans or toxic assets - loans that
would never be repaid.
*The loss of 33% of GDP, reduced value of global companies such as Toyota, General Motors, Honda, Ford,
Panorama, Sony, General Electric.
*The bankruptcy of major banks and investment funds e.g. Lehman Brothers, American Insurance Group, Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, Northern Rock, Halifax, Nationwide, Fortis, Royal Bank of Scotland. Bear Stearns.
*The bankruptcy of countries who borrowed too much on easy dollar credit e.g. Iceland, Ireland,Austria, Spain, Italy,
Hungary, Greece, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, the UK, Ukraine, Russia.
*Governments, local and national, have lost their investments in derivatives and swaps.
* Governments, local and national, have no access to credit, and are unable to generate the cash to run any
services, social, medical, transport.
*Millions of workers laid off and unemployment levels rising across the world.
* The G8, the G20, the World Bank, the Central Banks, the IMF, all bailing out the world financial system so as to re-
establish liquidity to the tune of $15 trillion:
*the nationalizing of the debts/losses, but privatizing the profits.
* How long will the crash last? 2010? 2020? 2030?
*Economists are predicting that we are witnessing system changes which may take ten to twenty years to work
through. Nobody seems to know or are unwilling to say.
One billion people starving, out of 5.5 billion trying to survive on $10 a day.
* The world’s population is 6.8 billion, of which 5.5 billion are trying to survive on less than $10 a day.
*The World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN announced in October 2009 that
over one billion people were starving.
An estimated 642 million people are suffering from chronic hunger in Asia and the Pacific. An additional 265 million
live in sub-Saharan Africa while 95 million come from Latin America, the Caribbean, the Near East and North Africa.
The final 15 million live in developed nations.
*The World Health Organisation declares that up to 11 million children die in a year.
*Millions of adults and children in the developing world die of starvation, malnutrition, lack of water, lack of sanitation,
disease.
* 20% of the world population will struggle to survive.
* This struggle will be made worse by the continuing high food prices, in the face of the expansion of industrial
farming, in particular biofuels.
*During the crisis any cash that may have gone for aid and development, and the alleviation of the poor, has gone to
the relief of the wealthy!
Go to the World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org/1billion
Climate Change
*The publication of reports on Climate Change by various agencies revealed for the first time that climate warming is
accelerating and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future, irrespective of what human communities do to control
emission of pollutants!
* We have to accept that it is happening for whatever reason!
*New data released Thursday Oct 15 2009 suggests that the Arctic Ocean will be "largely ice free" during summer
within a decade. The report, compiled by the UK-based Catlin Arctic Survey and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), is
the latest research into ice thickness in the Arctic. The expedition, which was completed in May, was led by UK
explorer Pen Hadow. He and his team collected data by manually drilling into the ice and noting its thickness along a
450-kilometer route across the northern part of the Beaufort Sea. Measurements taken by Hadow and his team
report that the ice-floes were on average 1.8 meters thick -- which, according to scientists, is too thin to survive next
summer's ice melt.
Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the UK's University of Cambridge said: "With a
large part of the region now first year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable. The area is now more likely to become open
water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone."
Martin Sommerkorn from the WWF International Arctic Program believes that the changes in sea-ice cover in the
region are likely to increase global temperatures further. "Such a loss of Arctic sea ice has recently been assessed
to set in motion powerful climate feedbacks which will have an impact far beyond the Arctic itself," Sommerkorn said.
"Arctic sea ice holds a central position in our Earth's climate system. Take it out of the equation and we are left with a
dramatically warmer world," he added.
*Ice in the Arctic Sea forms only in the winter, and Antarctica ice shelfs disappear. Already, the Wilkins ice shelf has
broken away.
* Global sea levels are rising.
* The subtropical zones moving north and south, converting grasslands into deserts and making cattle rearing in
central Africa and South America more difficult.
* Plants and animals, birds and insects moving north and south in greater numbers to find suitable environments, and
diseases such as bird flu, malaria become common place all over the world.
* Extreme weather events are more dramatic: the droughts across south China, Sept.2008; the forest fires in the
southern Meditteranean 2008; and in New South Wales, and South Australia, Jan-Feb 2009; the cyclones in
Queensland; the heavy rains and floods in the summer, in the UK, and in the winter in France and Spain; extensive
snow storms across Canada and the US, Jan/Feb/March 2009; Dec/Jan/Feb 2010.
2030:
Changes in the economic balance
* the developed world is in recession, plagued by inflation.
* the countries who printed money have currencies that are almost worthless.
* USA, UK, Europe, Japan: run nationalized banks, operating according to regulated objectives.
* Cash-rich countries, such as China, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, the Emirates, Venezuela, Nigeria,
Bolivia, have bought up major corporations in Europe and the USA.
* the economic balance has changed, and the so-called developed world is dependent upon these cash economies .
* the oil supplies have peaked, threatening the stability of cash economies.
*China with its communist capitalism is the richest country in the world in opposition to India and the USA.
* China controls all the principal sources of minerals across the world.
* China, the principal communist government, controls the capitalist world! Victory for communism!
Population
*the world’s population is 7.5 billion.
* any rises in the population lead to food demands, and food shortages.
* the climate changes have impacted on agriculture and led to starvation and death of up to 2 billion people.
* malnutrition, and disease, causes death of up to 50 million children.
* more rigorous birth control measures in China and India; more programmes of birth control in Africa and South
America.
* more and more people living in cities, living in the slums, directly suffering from flooding, lack of sanitation, and water
borne diseases, including the plague.
* USA, Japan, Europe, Russia have 60% elderly: and a decreasing working population.
* Young working populations are in Africa, and Asia, global migration.
* faced by lack of access to funds, many governments, of failed states corruptly direct these monies to politicians and
civil servants.
*the people dependent upon aid, fail: their businesses collapse; education/health projects stop.
Climate change
* up to 10C increase in global temperatures.
* the oceans are hotter and more acidic leading to the death of sea life.
* increased temperatures have caused the rainforests to burn up.
* there are no ‘carbon sinks’.
* the global atmosphere has more than 450 particles per million and there is increasing heat retention.
* rising sea levels have led to flooding, and extension of marshes and deltas;
* migration of people from coastal areas across the globe;
* stagnation of rivers, and inland flooding leading to failure of sewage flows.
* most prosperous countries have developed water management systems, along with flood control barrages.
* increasing temperatures have led to migration of people to northern temperate zones.
* the increasing temperatures have seen the spread of diseases such as bird flu, ebola, cholera, the plague, lyme
disease, TB, yellow fever, sleeping sickness to most of the world, along with HIV and malaria.
* an increase in violent storms, leading to extensive damage to buildings, farms, forests.
Do you want to offer other scenarios?
Join the debate.
You can send your comments to the website:
hmr@kelvynrichards.com
The web site has been supported by
Professor Stuart Hill, s.hill@uws.edu.au
www.PoliticsResources.net
www.insnet.org, the internetwork for sustainability;
www.earthaction.org;
www.thegreenfuse.org;
www.livegreenordie.com;
www.crisisgroup.org;
www.globalissues.org;
www.undp.org; the United Nations Development
programme.
www.socialecologylondon.wordpress.com
www.socialecologyvashon.org
www.ecologiesociale.ch
·
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |