An important spiritual principle is that we are all responsible
for the consequences of our actions.
This is true collectively
as well as individually.
Since the rise of civilization with the
development of agriculture,
most humans have endeavored to improve
their world by leaving behind
a better place than they inherited
from their ancestors.
Tools were invented and passed on, and surplus
wealth was accumulated.
The building structures and institutions
developed usually gave
each new generation a better start in life.
Children inherited the estates and businesses of their parents
and often were able to pass on a little more.
This process of cultural transmission is still continuing in
many ways
as science and technology especially advance at geometric
rates.
However, in the last generation or two humanity has begun
to face a new situation
in which many aspects of life on Earth
are starting to deteriorate
because of the increase in human population,
the depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels,
and the accumulation of waste and pollution from
excessive consumption
with minimal recycling.
Most scientists have estimated that the overall supply of petroleum
on Earth
that is practically accessible (without costing more
energy to drill it than would be gained)
is expected to reach
its peak, or half-way mark, within just a few years,
and some
are suggesting that 2005 may even be the turning point of peak
oil already.
Because the first half of the useable supply is naturally
taken from the oil
that is easiest and cheapest to acquire, the
prospect is that supplies will not only diminish,
but that the
cost of drilling for them will greatly increase.
Coal still is
available in large quantities; but it is considered a “dirty” form of energy
that greatly adds to the carbon dioxide that causes
global warming
in addition to causing acid rain and leaving behind
devastated land.
At the same time as the Earth is running out of oil, the build-up
of carbon dioxide,
methane, and other polluting gases in the atmosphere
is causing the temperatures on Earth
to rise so significantly
that the polar ice caps are melting
at a rate never seen before
in human history.
As of September 2005 scientists have become
concerned that the Arctic ice cap
may have passed a point of no
return with an irreversible trend that could result
in the complete
melting of the northern ice pack by the year 2070 if not before.
This means that the large country of Greenland, which is mostly
white with ice now,
will actually become green.
Without this cooling
ice that also reflects back solar heat, the Earth will absorb
more heat.
The oceans will rise significantly, flooding many coastal
cities and island communities,
and warmer waters in the oceans
will cause many more severe hurricanes like Katrina,
which recently
devastated the Gulf coast of the Mississippi River delta.
Texas suffered from another major flood on July 4 and 5 in 2025.
That global treaties can work to prevent environmental problems
is proven by the early
success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol that
cut back the use of the chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) that deplete
the essential ozone layer in the Earth’s upper atmosphere
that
protects life from harmful ultraviolet rays.
Within five years
most nations had phased out most of their CFCs.
However, the effort
to slow down the trend of global warming by reducing the production
of carbon dioxide that was first agreed to at the Rio de Janeiro
Earth Summit in 1992
has had only limited results.
The Kyoto Protocol
of 1997 called for specific reductions
by the industrial nations producing the most carbon dioxide;
but U. S. President George W.
Bush refused to agree to the accord.
As the Earth becomes warmer,
less glaciers will also mean much less fresh water.
Less fresh
water makes providing enough food
for a growing population much
more challenging.
Feeding animals to provide meat for humans on
a large scale is becoming unsustainable.
The Laws of the Sea Treaty attempted to share the resources
of the oceans fairly,
but the United States, the United Kingdom,
and Germany have not ratified the agreement.
Long drift-nets that
kill marine mammals and other species not sold could be banned,
and until then people can boycott fish products from nations using
such drift-nets.
Rivers, lakes, and even the oceans are becoming
polluted
by toxic chemicals discarded by humans.
Mercury and other
elements make eating some fish and sea food
such as tuna and sharks hazardous to human
health.
At the same time many fishing areas are being fished out
at unsustainable levels,
though some attempts are being made to
restrain fishing in order to save the industry.
Since 1945 human beings have been mining uranium and producing
nuclear weapons.
For thirty years many nuclear power plants came
on line to produce energy,
and most of them are still operating
and leaving behind large amounts of nuclear waste,
some of which
has been turned into atomic and hydrogen bombs.
The uranium isotopes
and especially the plutonium remain radioactive
and deadly to
human cells for thousands of years.
The problem of what to do
with this nuclear waste has still not been adequately solved.
Yet with diminishing oil supplies some governmental leaders are
considering building
new nuclear plants for the first time in
thirty years.
Probably the greatest danger that humanity faces
is a nuclear war that could kill millions
of people and cause
long-term radioactive poisoning in various places.
A major nuclear
war might even result in a nuclear winter
and the extinction of
the human race as mammals sensitive to radioactivity die.
Thus the consequences of our collective industrial civilization
are now making the Earth
a more difficult place in many respects.
The people alive today are the first to confront this radical
turning point in human history.
Those who are alive now are probably
the people who will decide if humanity will be
able to adjust
to this megacrisis by adapting
our behavior to reduce and solve
these problems.
The main purpose of this book is to offer suggestions
as to how we can meet these
challenges by adopting improved ways
of living on this Earth
that will be sustainable in the future.
So far this planet is the only one we have found
that is teeming
with beautiful and diverse organic life.
Already human behavior
is causing millions of species to disappear,
most of them in the
rain forests.
Many wonderful drugs have been developed from animals
and plants in these areas,
and humanity may never know what miraculous
cures
have been lost because of the extinctions.
Thus ecological
wisdom behooves us to respect all living things and work to retain
as much diversity of life as we can, even if we only do so for
such selfish reasons.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore how we can improve
our economic, social,
and political institutions and behaviors
so that
human civilization will continue to improve instead of
deteriorating.
The word “economics” comes from the Greek oikonomia,
which means the management of a household or
family.
The word oikos, which originally meant a house,
came to mean the inhabited world,
and thus we get the word “ecumenical.”
Now I believe the time has come for us to expand our idea of estate
management
or taking care of our world to include the entire
human family
and even the family of life on Earth.
We need global
ethics; otherwise our children and grandchildren
will face even
more horrendous problems than we face today.
I have already briefly discussed the first two priorities of
alleviating poverty
and preventing wars as the most urgent emergencies
for preserving human life.
Alleviating poverty by making sure
that everyone has healthy conditions
and good education is especially
important because it is the best way of helping
to slow the growth
of human population to a sustainable balance.
People who are educated
are better able to work
and provide for themselves and their families.
Such people do not experience the kind of insecurity that often
results in large families.
As women are educated, they are more
inclined to take a paying job
and usually have fewer children.
The most populous nation, China, has used governmental policies
to slow the increase
of their population; but in India, which
is smaller geographically,
the population continues to grow at
a faster pace and has surpassed China’s population.
These huge nations are educating many people and
thus have economies
that are expanding at higher rates.
This poses
an additional challenge, because the more developed nations produce
most of the pollution and resource depletion that needs to be
restrained.
The United States has the third largest population, and it is only 4.5% of the world’s people,
but it uses at least one quarter of the world’s fossil fuels
and
produces that much of the pollution as well.
The developed world,
which is primarily the United States, Europe, and Japan,
has less
than 18% of the population but uses more than 70% of the energy
while producing a similar proportion of the pollution.
Population
needs to be controlled, and the excessive use of resources
and
the manufacture of waste by the affluent cause even greater problems.
How then do we hold individuals, groups, corporations, and
even governments
accountable for the consequences of their actions?
Some people believe that if complete freedom is allowed, then
the competition
in free markets will result in a natural process
that will reward the successful
while driving out of business
those that are harmful or inefficient.
Yet the lessons of
history show a different result, because the rich and powerful
governments and corporations often abuse their power by making
or letting others
pay for the harmful consequences that they have
caused.
In fact this is why the world has come to be in such danger.
What are called externalities are not made part of the actual
market price
of a product when corporations and governments fail
to be responsible.
One of the important tasks of government, then,
is to make sure that individuals
and groups are responsible for
what they do by internalizing those consequences.
Various levels
of government may do this by using laws prohibiting actions
that
are harmful, licensing to permit only limited use of resources,
taxing to discourage activities that have social effects that
need remediation,
and applying other ways of regulating behavior.
What ethical standards then should we use to decide
which methods
need to be used to curtail or shape various actions?
Obviously
those activities that cause widespread death, illnesses, or destruction
of useful systems need to be prohibited first by laws so that
the power of government
can be used to hold such violators accountable
and stop those harmful behaviors.
In my view this is the justification
for banning weapons of mass destruction first.
Nuclear, biological,
and chemical weapons that are designed to kill masses of people
thus must be most urgently prohibited.
Other weapons systems and
combinations of military power can also be banned
in order to
keep power blocs or arrogant governments from inflicting their
power on others.
How we can do this has been discussed in previous
chapters, which describe
how disarmament can be brought about
and how a United Nations Democracy
can make sure that no nation
acts in criminal ways on a mass scale.
In addition to preventing such intentional killing and destruction,
governments also need to make sure that governments, corporations,
and individuals
do not also kill, harm, and destroy with toxins
that are by-products of manufacturing and industrial processes.
Companies may cause the death and illnesses of thousands of people
every year
by releasing such poisons and pollution into the environment.
The people have a democratic right to make sure that an effective government
holds these companies accountable by stopping such nefarious activities.
Some governments either ignore such problems or may even support
with subsidies
the corporations that commit these crimes.
Thus
in these cases the people need to organize to reform
those governments
in their own self-defense.
Problems also occur when the actions of many individuals
and
groups combine together to cause harmful consequences.
Yet it
has been difficult to bring about the discipline needed to restrain
these behaviors.
People can be educated to act more responsibly;
but when selfish benefits motivate
many people to do those things
that make things worse for others and future generations,
then
for the good of all the people the government can implement
regulations
and taxes that will discourage and reduce such selfish activities.
For example, because of the dangers of air pollution and global
warming,
humanity needs to learn how to use cleaner and safer
energies that are called renewable
because they neither deplete
nor pollute limited natural resources.
One method is for government
to make laws requiring automobiles to release
fewer toxins while
getting better mileage per gallon of gas.
However, powerful corporations
may resist this or even argue that such standards
cannot technologically
be achieved yet.
Incentives and disincentives can also be used
by having government tax those activities
that need to be reduced
and by offering tax reductions or subsidies to new methods
that
need to be encouraged, especially in the early stages
when it
is difficult to make them marketable on a large scale.
Now in 2025 elective vehicles are beginning to replace gas-powered ones.
Thus cleaner
and safer energy pathways can be pioneered by enlightened political
and
social policies while those existing pathways that pollute
or endanger the future
can be made accountable and phased out.
In a way this is part of the free market system in the sense that
the customers as a whole
have a right to organize to make sure
that some companies
do not violate the people’s right to a healthy
environment.
Another way of looking at it is that the people have
the right to use democratic
processes to regulate possible abuses
and socialize
some parts of the economy for the good of all the
people.
Another example is the use of fresh water in agriculture.
In
many countries cattle ranchers are allowed to use public land
and water resources
for much less than the market value of those
resources.
These subsidies enable them to sell meat at a much
lower price than it would cost
if the customers were to pay for
these hidden costs contributed by the society.
As fresh water
is becoming very precious, such subsidies can be removed.
Destruction
of the rain forest to make room for more cattle ranches is depriving
the Earth of valuable natural resources that affect the life of
the entire Earth.
The idea that the Earth is a living system or organic being
has been called the Gaia hypothesis.
Gaia is the Greek name for
the Earth Goddess.
Some believe that our mother Earth as a living
organism will adapt herself
to changes that threaten her life.
From the Earth’s viewpoint humans are a parasite on her body;
if those parasites threaten her health, she may find ways
to make
them change their behavior or possibly even eliminate them.
Mad-cow disease, avian flu, and other diseases may cause epidemics
so that humans
will reduce their eating of other animals.
One
aspect of this megacrisis is that humans in their spiritual evolution
may be learning
not to kill other animals, especially those that
are more evolved such as fellow mammals.
Eating the meat of mammals
is less healthy than consuming fish and fowl
and much less healthy
than living on vegetables, nuts, and fruit.
As society takes on
the responsibility of making sure that everyone has good health
care,
those personal actions that tend to cause one’s health to
deteriorate may be discouraged
by taxing them in such a way as
to pay for the health care costs they cause.
In this way the freedom
of each individual to choose those less healthy behaviors
is still
preserved, but they are held accountable
by having to pay the
true costs for their choice.
Another example is taxing tobacco
and other harmful drugs.
A democratic society has the right to plan more intelligent
transportation systems that are best for all.
Mass transit in
and between urban areas may be more efficient for many people
to use.
Electric cars using batteries and hydrogen fuel cells
can be used for short journeys,
and already hybrid cars are providing
a transition by getting much better gas mileage.
Yet even hydrogen
fuel requires energy to make the hydrogen and is not a panacea.
Unless a miraculous breakthrough discovers how to use
a safe and
clean form of fusion energy, humans must learn how to be more
efficient
in using the renewable energies that come from the sun,
wind, water, and biomass.
These energies can be promoted.
People
can also learn how to conserve energy more efficiently,
and taxes
can discourage the profligate use of energy.
Such green taxes
respect the freedom of the wealthy to follow their own chosen
way of life
while making sure that they contribute to the well
being of society as a whole
instead of getting away with exploitation.
Or societies may democratically decide to allow some privileges
such as airplane
transportation to individuals whose work requires
such travel.
With improved communication systems people will not
need to travel so much
to other places which electronic media
can in various ways bring to them.
In the United States, for example, a corrupt political system
enables the wealthy
to dominate the government and thus get away
with mass murder and extraordinary
exploitation of natural resources
and pollution of the environment.
Major reforms are needed to
reign in the corporations and make sure that
everyone pays their
fair share.
In my view taxes should come from those who can afford
them.
Martin Luther King
Jr. favored a negative income tax so that those below the poverty
line
would receive a subsidy to meet their basic needs.
How can
the poor be expected to contribute to society
if they are homeless,
hungry, and unemployed?
Why should women taking care of young
children be forced to take a job
they do not want just to get
enough rent and food for their family?
Raising a child well is
a very important job, and by the time you subtract the
child care
costs from the low wage of enforced workfare the result is not
efficient anyway.
By providing basic housing, food, education,
and health care for the poor
they can survive and then have a
better opportunity to find useful work.
While we can through our
government promote the general welfare,
we are not obligated to
subsidize luxuries, which may be taxed.
Most people will be motivated
to find work
so that they can have extra money to spend on personal
choices.
Those who stay home to educate themselves and work for
nothing
in the arts or for social reform may end up contributing
as much or more
to society than those out working in paying jobs.
The opposite philosophies of political economy that came into
conflict
during the Cold
War are capitalism and socialism.
The extreme form of socialism
is totalitarian communism in which the government
dominates everyone’s
lives by managing the entire economy with its bureaucracy.
The
dangerous form of capitalism is fascism that backs up the private
corporations
with nationalistic militarism and uses its power
to exploit resources and protect private
wealth while developing
their own private bureaucracies.
In both extremes a dominant class
that is corrupted by its control of power and wealth
oppresses
civil liberties.
What has emerged in many countries, especially
in Europe,
is a moderate combination of free markets with government
providing social welfare in what are called mixed economies.
Regardless of the system, what is most important is that people
live by ethical principles
that respect the equal rights of all
people.
History has shown that democratic elections tend to produce
better political leaders
than monarchical heredity or military
domination.
Thus people can use democratic means to decide the
combination of free markets
and social welfare that they want.
As James Madison wrote, if people were angels there would be no
need for government.
Thus if everyone acted in an enlightened
way with justice and charity
a completely private system without
government could work.
However, given human nature, this is utopian
and unlikely.
On the other hand, communism could work if it was
democratic and intelligently designed;
but probably some of the
bureaucrats would be corrupt, and it would be very difficult
without
a private sector to allow every individual their freedom to choose
their own destiny.
Thus the best system seems to be a combination
that allows individual freedom
in private life and the market
while providing a safety net of social services
and charitable
programs to make sure that everyone has the right
to good education,
health care, housing, and fair employment.
Currently many societies are experimenting with various combinations
of mixed economies.
Most developed nations provide education and
health care for all their citizens.
However, since the collapse
of the Soviet Union and the renunciation of its communist system,
the capitalist nations have been using loans to developing nations
to try to force on them
trading concessions and privatization
schemes that exploit their resources while leaving
these countries
even poorer than they were because of the interest they have to
pay.
History demonstrates that such capitalist exploitation has
led to imperialist domination
by the Spanish and Portuguese in
Latin America, the French and others in Africa,
the Dutch in Indonesia,
and the English in India,
all of whom robbed enormous wealth from their colonial empires.
Now the United States and its allies are the imperial powers
that
are attempting to dominate the world.
Such an economic system
in which the rich increase their wealth
while the poor become
even more destitute is not sustainable and is fundamentally unjust.
A day of reckoning is fast approaching because such injustice
is unstable.
Efforts by big corporations to make poor nations
privatize their resources
and even fresh water are now being resisted,
especially in Latin America,
where a positive trend toward greater
social and economic justice
is emerging in South America and Central America.
I suggest that we could forgive
all the interest on these loans to underdeveloped countries
and
allow them as long as they need to pay back the principal.
We
can also increase charitable grants, especially to the poorest
nations.
Consider the political economy of the United States.
The greed
of some leaders has cut the taxes of the wealthy so much
that the
national debt of the government has passed 37 trillion dollars in 2025.
Instead of having the wealthy individuals and corporations pay
most of the taxes,
which is the sensible policy, money is
borrowed from the rich and other countries
so that they
can collect interest.
Yet the largest military establishment in
history
cannot be sustained by such loans indefinitely.
The excessive
consumption by the United States is currently running a trade
deficit
of 78 billion dollars in 2025, while private debt
is so high that it surpassed private saving.
Individuals need
to learn how to live within their means, not just on financial
levels
but including the hidden costs that affect the environment
and the future.
A sustainable governmental budget may be achieved
by greatly reducing military
expenditures and adopting progressive
income taxes.
The enormous debt could even be paid off gradually
by taxing excess assets of the rich,
whose wealth has increased
dramatically since the 1980s.
The government and the people
will be much better off when government expenditures
are not financed
by borrowing that causes interest.
By capitalist principles a
government is unwise to do this; and the private capitalists
have
manipulated the process to serve their selfish interests, not
those of all the people.
This foolishness of drastically cutting taxes on the wealthy
while increasing military spending was
called “voodoo economics” by George H. W. Bush and has been especially egregious during
the
administrations of Reagan, the two Bushes, and Donald Trump.
When Ronald
Reagan was elected President, the United States was the largest
creditor nation
in trade, but in the first term of his policies the
United States became the largest debtor nation.
The government’s
national debt of one trillion dollars began to rise quickly.
During
the eight years of the Clinton administration this trend was temporarily
reversed,
and the annual deficits decreased steadily and even
went into a surplus;
but with the election of George W. Bush,
the line turned downward again
toward record annual deficits for
the federal government.
Another comparison shows how the wealth
was distributed.
During the Reagan-Bush years the top quintile
(20%) in terms of income
made substantial gains; but the second
quintile made only moderate gains,
and the bottom three quintiles
had little or no gain with the bottom quintile doing the worst.
However, during the Clinton years all five quintiles
had substantial
increases at about the same level.
Tax policies are primarily
responsible for these differences.
Yet because of corrupt campaigns
the Democrats have also favored wealthy interests,
just not as
much as the Republicans.
Thus campaign reform is essential to
creating a sustainable political economy.
We also need to change our private behavior as individuals
and collectively.
We can learn how to reduce our use of material
things so that less waste results.
We can take good care of what
we use and use things for as long as possible,
instead of throwing
away so many things.
Remember, from the viewpoint of the whole
Earth there is no “away.”
We can use products that last
longer and that can be repaired.
Things that are thrown out need
to be recycled
so that the materials can be used again in other
products.
Thus we need to REDUCE, REUSE, and RECYCLE.
Green taxes can be designed so that corporations are held accountable
for all the costs
involved in their products and services.
For
example, many products come in packages that are immediately thrown
out;
such packages could be taxed so that companies
will have
an incentive to sell products with less packaging.
Manufacturers
must be held accountable for their waste products.
Tax incentives
can encourage manufacturing that uses recycled materials
and that
facilitates recycling of the materials used.
Subsidies that increase
pollution can be repealed.
For example, bulk mailing gives lower
postage rates, but this is abused by
advertisements that create
unwanted junk mail that is usually thrown away unread.
Those who
shop intelligently for food will find that what is most healthy—
fresh fruit and vegetables and grains can be purchased without
wasteful packages.
One can also save on bags by bringing canvas
or cloth bags to the market.
Government can be more efficient
and avoid planned obsolescence by investing
in what will last
longer.
In Europe most highways use materials that last much longer
than those used in the US.
Water can be used more efficiently
by using clean water for drinking
and washing but reclaimed water
for agricultural use.
Forests are valuable resources that need to be protected.
Goats
or other natural methods can be used to control undergrowth,
rather
than harmful herbicides.
Instead of less sustainable monoculture,
permaculture can mix various plants together
in the same environment.
Industrial hemp can be grown to make paper, clothing, and many
other products.
Soil conservation can prevent the loss of topsoil.
Very high taxes can be imposed on the use of poisons with complete
bans
on the most harmful, as was done with DDT in the early 1970s.
The use of pesticides can be replaced by using organic farming
methods.
By living more frugally people will consume less and not have
to work as much.
The forty-hour work week, which has prevailed
for a century, has been long overdue
for major reductions, especially
since we have become so much more technologically
efficient in
the computer age.
Less human work is required to meet our basic
needs, and electronic inventions are
enabling us to extend our
education and appreciation of the arts at very low costs.
The
minimum wage needs to be substantially increased.
As we become
materially more efficient, people will have more time for life-long
education and enjoyment of the arts.
These fields can provide
much additional employment
because a well educated populace can
use many more teachers.
This chapter has been published in the book
BEST FOR ALL: How We Can Save the World.
For information on ordering, please click here.
Global Emergency
Alleviating Poverty
Disarming Weapons of War
Creating Global Democracy
Reforming the US Constitution
Restoring Justice
Sustainable Economics
Freeing Communication
Spiritual Awakening
Nonviolent Strategies
Appendix:
Global Disarmament Treaty (first draft by Beck)
Constitution of the United Nations Democracy (first draft by Beck)
Constitution of the United States Revised (first draft by Beck)