The Elemental Attributes of Solerian Economics
Economics needs to be simplified. How can people govern themselves if they do not know how the world economy works. Contemporary societies have become too complex, we are no longer the model for developing nations, a new model has to emerge. Paolo Soleri’s philosophy is useful here as the intellectual and theoretical baseboard for this new economic model.
When Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs says that at the temporal scale there are geographical choices and that the future is not automatic he is speaking on a very grand dialectical scale. Living systems on earth evolve based on geographical considerations. Evolution is based on geographical and temporal choices made by competing systems. If our ideas are powerful enough they can alter the course of human history. When Einstein came up with his E=MC2 calculations he began to become aware of the geopolitical implications of his work not simply in terms of nuclear physics but in relation to the impact science has on the way we see reality. It is the splitting of atoms through fission that enables us to create nuclear power and unleash a tremendous amount of energy. Atomic level the critical mass for a nuclear reaction is also similar to social dynamics that lead to a triggering of potential for social change.
Consumption-Population Conundrum
Conspicuous consumption exponentially multiplied (3-7 percent growth per year times 100 years about the age of the consumer economy plus or minus 30 years) = hyper-consumption. Hyperconsumption + suburbanization in the for low-density sprawl = unnecessary complexity. Soleri actually sees complexity as a good thing, but he feels that it is has operate under natural laws. What he defines as interiorization is part of this natural law of evolution, which he calls the MCD hypothesis. M = miniaturization C = complexity D = Duration (time) M + D + C = Interiorization.
Paul Elhrich made a slightly different equation relating to carrying capacity T+P=C Throughput + Population = Carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is estimated at about 2 billion people but it is hard to define because some environmental scientists claim that if everybody lived the average “American Dream” it would take several more planet’s full of resources to sustain us. If we gave up meat or at least moderated our meat consumption, stopped treating biomass as waste and converted to renewable energies we might go along way towards sustaining the estimated population peak of 8 billion but not without altering how nature as we know functions, dramatically. We have already done this, so it will be built into any equation, any scenario for sustainable development. We do not know what the consequences of our vast modification of natural landscapes and systems will have on nature’s ability to sustain humanity’s high resource consumption load, but what should be clear is that we have created a level of complexity, which is dissipating the solar energy that has for eons sustained the solar economy of the biosphere. Through nature’s industriousness and our accessing of that through modern technology, we have accumulated quite a little bit of biomass, which we are now proceeding to as rapidly as possible to burn up into the atmosphere, dump into the oceans and burrow away like squirrels into landfills. Add to this impact of unearthing ancient reserves of biomass called fossil fuels that we now burn up into the atmosphere like there was no tomorrow.
We should assume logically that to compensate for a hundred years of this exponentially increasing insanity (which some have mistakenly called progress because they are so shortsighted) that we need to create systems like Soleri has envisioned in his Arcologies—negentropic systems—as rapidly as possible. Dense systems that minimize energy loss and resource consumption.
What emerges from relatively simple and basic hypothesis: we have deviated from natural law. We have denied this, and we have taken the planet’s solar energy budget and redistributed to create a level of exponentially rising complexity that is not sustainable. It is not an efficient system nor is it effectively sustaining human needs, for it is based on the assumption that nature is inexhaustible. At the same time this systems assumes that the prosperity of the few must come off the backs of the many. According to the laws of universe, a complex system must be efficient in order to sustain itself. If a system is too leaky it will not be able to sustain itself, and it will drain surrounding systems as well. Modern civilization has created a system that maximizes waste and this is based on classical economic assumptions that saw and still see nature as infinitely plentiful—frontier economics. If resources are plentiful, then we do not we have to conserve, be frugal and design systems like nature does. It is a waste of our energy to spent time on such systems, and this is the reasoning of The Cato Institute a libertarian think-when it comes to policies like subsidizes for renewable energy.
On the other hand things are not so plentiful otherwise the classical laws of economic scarcity would not to continue to hold water perpetuating a vast distance between rich and poor. Thus the value of natural resources is significantly deflated based on these erroneous assumptions. Hence the differential between high value technologies (products the developing world exports to the developing world) and low value natural resources (products the developing world exports to the developed world) is very uneven, and explains why people in the developing world continue to struggle. This whole paradigm is based on mistaken assumptions that natural resources are infinite thus we need not attach any value to them except the cost of processing and extraction.
Developing nations dutifully following the advice good intentioned, but infinitely misguided “development experts” in organizations like the World Bank and the IMF are desperately selling their valuable natural resources at fire sale prices. The only problem is that it is selling these resources to people who already have too much in the world, in exchange for overvalued technologies and consumables that are often an effective investment of their very limited resources. The exchange is not fair at all. Their resources are severely undervalued and what is more important is the impact this on the psychology of the people in these countries. They are being instilled to not see the value and the potential in their societies, because such realizations have been not in the national interests of the West. The West has to become committed to the fact that its future is tied to the social, political and economic stability of the developing world.
The deeper truths of aid and development policies do not indicate a full hearted commitment to improve the lives of the people in the developing world. Despite the pretensions that we are giving all this money to the developing world (most of which goes to corrupt officials and the rest cto subsidize corporations exploiting people and the planet), the truth is that the developed economies are gaining much more than they are giving. It is not politically correct to say so because it offends the sensibilities of many powerful people in the world. In order for these countries to develop sustainably, this pattern of capital outflows has to be reversed and this means a fundamental change in the policies of business. We are not talking ideology here, we are talking about the scientific (universal systems theory) logic of how systems operate from a holistic perspective. Present macro-economic policies sustain the wasteful and conspicuous consumerism of developed countries (where the most challenging health problem is people eating too much), while one-third of the world is barely above starvation. This is not recipe for prosperity but a recipe for disaster!
Globalization - debate is complex
Not only have the debates become complex, but the very way we live our lives has become complex. We need a way to make the complex more simple and to explain the global situation in a way so that people are able to understand it. Without a way to make the complex simple there can be no real democracy because the people have to understand their reality in order to govern themselves. If we can not help people create self-governing systems at the local level then global democracy is not feasible. If it is not feasible at the global level and we are becoming an increasingly global society, then how will this affect our local democracies, which appear to increasingly struggling under globalization? Modern existence could be more simple. When levels of information and content use overly complex languages people are intimidated from participating in the political process.
The notion of Judo Strategy for global change is based on the believe that we must become graceful in the way we think and act, artfully dancing through the webs of confusion and angst that keep us from spreading our message to others and create a massive momentum for change and self-realization. In order to be effective in communicating others, we must first work hard to recreate a deeper sense of meaning in our own lives. We must simplify our lives, focusing on the core values that are important to us: love, compassion, passion and integrity.
An Understandable Language
We need to speak to people in a language that they understand and that relates to their experiences—touches upon a nerve. There is a need to redraw reality, to redefine the boundaries of the expressible, but not to the extent that we are alienating people from what we are trying to say. It is always a challenge to make our complex world understandable and user friendly. The complexity of the world overwhelms the common person. The common person's smallness in relation to the monolith of the system and gigantic egos of those who run it, fuels an economy that thrives on the apathy and cynicism it creates by inhumanity of its scale in relation to the people of the world. This economy allows us to pretend we live in a democracy with real and geniune freedom.
The socioeconomic core of the dominant social paradigm is expressed through the G-7 nations or the handful of corporations and individuals that disproportionately control the global economy. Even within this core of exclusivity, we see an even tinier and more disproportionate sub-core made up of an even smaller and more exclusive group of American-based elites. What goes on in Washington, Wall Street and Hollywood should not have as much impact on our lives and those of humanity as they do. The celebrity-obsessed culture that drives American popular culture and even politics is a symptom of too much centralization.