What is suggested by this report on traffic to gaiabrain.blogspot.com through 24 hours on Jun 18/19, 2023?

Reposting, edited, from 8½ years ago. 

I was fasting as a symbolic protest. That should be protected speech, but the Court did not see it that way [and neither I nor my Court-appointed counsel made that assertion (that my symbolic protest should count as protected speech) explicitly... I think I at least strongly implied it.]. 

I was caught by surprise and buckled under pressure after being taken against my will to a psyche ward and threatened with forced-feeding and ECT... (I think a resumption of the fast as most emphatic protest is way overdue): 

from the 2012 post:

I believe that this proposal that calls for payments to the people, from polluting industries and from those who take natural resources, could solve two of the greatest problems threatening the stability and sustainability of civilization. Many small problems would disappear. 

This proposal would mean economic actors would strive to increase efficiency in use of energy and other resources, to the extent necessary to bring the reality, in terms of appropriate limits on resource depletion and other environmental impacts, into line with what the people want. And it would bring an end to extreme poverty. 

The proposal is being allowed to languish. I find this fact very disturbing; so much so that I have not been able to give a normal answer to a 'How you doing?' greeting for about six 14 16 years now. I can't say I am doing well because I see that people are willing to neglect a proposal for how to end poverty and promote sustainability.

(Perhaps I, too, would be thoroughly uninterested in carrying this idea forward if I were not its author. Well, by whatever quirk of fate or accident, I am the author of the proposal, and I am VERY interested in something to which silence and inaction are common responses. The inclination of the vast majority of people is to let these ideas languish.) 

I am asking that the two professors at Assumption College (Hickey or Kantarelis, who invited me to present the idea at an academic conference) say what they meant when they declined to share this proposal to a larger audience because it was (they believed) contrary to human nature. What changes in human nature would be needed (from what to what)? What did I write that caused them to hold this view? I would be happy to celebrate hearing from either of them on these questions by breaking abandoning my plan to resume the fast.

These professors took a substantial sum of money and invited me to their academic conference on the understanding that they would give an honest evaluation of a paper that elaborated on my ideas and then decide whether to publish. Truth be told, they did not specifically tell me that they would give a review. But I think the assumption is always that there will be honest dealings, and it is generally understood that there will be feedback (which there was) in the case of rejection of a paper. The problem is that their critique, "change in human nature" is so vague as to be (shall I say?) inscrutable. Not analyzable. What change? And there was no reference to text, after repeated emails to the two men (there was no reply at all) even to this date [12-24, late PM July, 2021, ...1-20-23 (latest update)] to show what in the paper brought them to that conclusion. Common human decency requires honesty and courtesy. Where is it? I may be about to die* driven to resume a fast to draw attention toward something I believe to be profoundly important. 

Nothing that anyone has said has caused me to waiver from that conviction. So be it, if need be. But if there is a fatal flaw, if there is a requirement for a not merely improbable but also highly implausible change to happen, if the proposal is not realistic or feasible, then surely I don't want to die for a flawed proposal. That would be a sad waste of a good life.

Also, if ANY other person sees a fatal flaw in this proposal, PLEASE alert me! That would be a relief. I will NOT sacrifice my life for a flawed proposal. I only feel so strongly about this because I believe it to be important. If it is flawed, it can be let go.

OR

If anyone, ANYONE, is aware of a better proposal for achieving these goals (promote sustainability and end poverty), PLEASE let me know. I will not sacrifice my life for a second-rate proposal.

OR

Someone show me some sign, some evidence, that these ideas are being brought into the public discourse. Where is that conversation happening? When is that conversation happening? The hour is late.

OR

If MANY people were to tell me that these goals are not important and that it is therefore not worth pursuing changes that would be difficult to bring about, then I might celebrate our self-indulgent toboggan ride toward collapse with a bit of fruit... Not the outcome I would prefer. I prefer to think that I live in a society made up of people who really are concerned about these problems and goals. I want to believe we are a people who want an honest economic system. A people who demand that industries operate within limits acceptable to the people at large. I mention this maybe as a way of inviting people to 'look at it squarely. These are profoundly important precepts and goals!'

(I feel certain that a small group of people could, if they chose to do so, make a topic part of the public discourse, at least in a local area to start...)

What news media and universities are not telling us: Systemic flaws are not reported

If a reporter or editor were to respond to this critique by resolving to remedy this blind spot in their reporting and publicly committing to do so (or if they would tell me where the critique is flawed) I would also be ready to end this fast. I would not feel a need to sacrifice my life to bring some topics and ideas to the public consciousness if those topics are being addressed in normal reporting, as they should be.

@TallPhilosopher

*I buckled under pressure and ended a fast when threatened with forced-feeding and ECT, and a court confirmed the threat may be carried out.

Maybe, maybe...

Maybe "accidentally" eating glass last Saturday was due to a compulsion to not waste food. Maybe it was a kind of act of self-destruction done because subconsciously I know that I have overstayed my time on Earth. I should have already protested in the strongest possible terms the utter neglect of basic precepts that say honesty is important (even in pricing) and natural wealth belongs to all. Neglect of these principles is putting us on a path toward a global catastrophe. Maybe it was a prelude to a kind of 'voodoo death' that happens when members of a society are ostracized, are treated as non-persons. (When I ask why it is OK to let languish the ideas, based on moral principles, that would allow us to solve our greatest challenges, I am completely ignored.)

Collapse of civilizations in the past were always localized phenomena. The collapse of our unsustainable society will be a disaster on the largest possible scale.

Maybe I am feeling the sepsis caused by lacerations of my digestive tract.

Biodiversity as a Public Good

Decisions regarding the extent to which humans shall disturb the larger community of life need to be collective decisions.

A basic principle of property rights requires that those who degrade the value of property must compensate the owner(s) for the damage done or value lost. If we believe that we all own the air and water in common, then it makes sense that we should require industries that cause pollution to pay a fee to the people at large, because their actions degrade the quality of the air and water that belongs to all of us. We should respect public property rights, too.

Destruction of meadows and forests for conversion to monoculture farmland adversely impacts environmental quality. We might choose to attach a fee on monoculture, as a counterweight to the economic incentives from food markets (and now biofuels markets) that encourage destruction of biodiversity. The most appropriate fee would be a fee that is just high enough to ensure that destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity are not carried to an extent that most people would say is excessive. Putting a limit on destruction of biodiversity and loss of wildlife habitat would mean a more democratic society, if most citizens would like to see such limits established.

Furthermore, if a large fraction of people polled in a random survey said that monoculture dedicated to production of sugar cane or tobacco or opium included these adverse environmental impacts and that such monoculture supported excessive consumption of sugar or cigarettes or heroin, to the detriment of the human community at large, we might attach a higher fee to monoculture dedicated to growing these crops. We could thereby manage the overall prevalance in society of sugar, tobacco, heroin (and other potentially harmful substances) without the need to take a war-like or militaristic stance or police action against individual citizens who choose to use such substances within their private spaces. We could require that the buying and selling of such products be kept every bit as private as the use of them. No public spaces--no places open to the public--need have such markets operating, if the people at large choose to adopt such a standard.

In our not-so-distant evolutionary past, certain foods were quite rare, but necessary and highly beneficial to those who could find them. Our taste buds (our physiology) and our psychology are adapted to ensure that we are highly motivated to seek out these previously scarce, high-energy foods. But since the development of agriculture and modern economic systems, scarcity of these high-energy, high-value foods is no longer a reality, while our physiological and psychological appetites for them remain strong.

A fee system could ensure that the mix of foods produced by our agricultural system more closely matches what most nutritionists and most people would agree is a more healthful balance. With a different political and economic paradigm, we could see improvements in personal health, with improved ecological health, too.

Fees attached to the cultivation of plants that most members of society feel ought to be grown only in limited amounts would make the products derived from these plants more expensive than what they would be in the absence of any controls. But the extra profits associated with those higher prices would go to all the world's people as part of a natural wealth stipend. This method of control would not feed black market profiteering or corruption of law enforcement and other public officials, as current methods of control often do.

The threat of legal sanctions against people who use controlled substances in private spaces, including the threat of lengthy (and costly) prison sentences, would be removed. This would tend to make it easier for people with substance abuse problems to seek help when they recognize that they do in fact have a problem.

A fee system can be applied generally as an efficient and fair way to control pollution, to manage rates of taking of natural resources, and (through equal sharing of fee proceeds to all) to end abject poverty in the world. An equal, modest payment to all people would mean that workers would have more flexibility in choosing their place of employment. The prospect of being unemployed would no longer bring the threat of becoming destitute that it does within the current system, where natural wealth is not shared equally.

With a modest income going to all people based on shared natural wealth, the economy would not require injection of additional money into circulation that is often advocated during periods of economic contraction. Monetary stimulus (printing more money) is corrosive to the stability of economic systems generally because it fuels inflation and often stimulates production beyond what is sustainable and what is needed by the human economy and society. The ultimate limits to human economic activity are the physical limits that are imposed by the nature of the world we live in. If we exceed limits of what is sustainable for an extended period of time, civilization will collapse. Stimulating the economy by inflating the money supply means that the overall size of the economy grows, and our demands on natural resources increase, taking us closer to these physical limits (or farther beyond them, as the case may be). Conversely, fees assessed on those actions that make us approach or exceed those natural limits (actions that tend to use up resources and foreclose opportunities) can reduce the prevalence and moderate the intensity of potentially harmful human activities. Fees can prevent excessive growth of economic activity to the point that it becomes detrimental to the larger community of life, detrimental to climate stability, harmful to future generations, etc. Fees can dampen the upswing and excesses of an over-heating economy, while equal sharing of fee proceeds can ensure that recessions do not become so deep that they threaten the viability of the system. With confidence bolstered by their natural wealth stipend, all people will continue to spend in support of their basic needs.

This proposal assumes that the decision of how we ought to balance the amount of the Earth's surface dedicated to monoculture and paving on the one hand versus forests and meadows on the other hand belongs to all of us. It implies that ownership of the decision about how we ought to balance overall production levels of various kinds of food belongs to all of us. The responsibility for deciding such questions does not rest solely with the minority who are land-owners. A public property rights paradigm will embody within the structure of our political and economic systems the awareness that bio-diversity is more valuable than bio-mass.

Biological Model for Politics and Economics

Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too

Some responses to a proposal to end extreme poverty and limit humans' impacts on Earth

An email exchange:

from: John Champagne
to: Jack ***
date: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:01 AM
subject: Documenting the vacuum of responses to this call

I want to document the various responses (or lack of responses) that follow this call for a change in the rules we live by that would bring an end to extreme poverty globally AND would define limits to environmental impacts overall such that there would not be more pollution or faster depletion of resources than what most people feel is acceptable.

I am identifying the right to share natural wealth as a fundamental right. When fundamental rights are not respected, there is a moral obligation on the part of those who are aware of the violation to act to remedy the situation. The idea that environmental impacts should not exceed what most people feel is acceptable is also based on the fundamental moral precept that we have a shared human right to define overall limits.
In response to this proposal, in conversation, you have indicated that this proposal does not merit a call to local news outlets to challenge them to report the existence of the proposal or to challenge them to say why they don't report it. (Or, perhaps more accurately, you have declined to make any such call or to put any such challenge.) You have declined any involvement in an effort to create an organization aimed at bringing these ideas to a larger audience. When asked why it is OK that these ideas are allowed to languish, you have offered only a change of subject or platitudes (such as, "Everyone does what they can"... You repeated this response some time after I pointed out that everyone does what they choose to do from among the things that they possibly could do.)
If I have described the situation falsely, please let me know. If you want to confirm that this is an accurate description, I will be more able to show mental health personnel that I have made extensive effort to use language and more conventional forms of communication to bring these ideas to a larger audience. (Previously, when I resorted to a fast as symbolic protest of the neglect of ideas that could solve the world's seemingly most intractable problems, I was taken against my will for psychiatric observation and was threatened with forced-feeding and electro-convulsive treatment if I continued to refuse nourishment.)


from: Jack ***
to: John Champagne
date: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:17 PM
subject: Re: Documenting the vacuum of responses to this call

John, You have a sound analysis/message but so do Bill McKibben and the Dalai Lama. Somehow they have been relatively more successful in disseminating their message, although, clearly, most people remain apathetic (or even hostile). May I suggest that you embrace your status as a minor prophet, let your message gestate, and find other ways to engage in the joys and pleasures that the natural world (and human relationships) still provide us. Respectfully, Jack E.


from: John Champagne
to: Jack ***
date: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:05 PM
subject: Re: Documenting the vacuum of responses to this call

are you aware of and can you cite a page or two from either of them that promises limits to environmental impacts consistent with the will of the people AND a significant minimum income (say approximately $20 per day) for everyone on Earth?

There is lots of sound analysis in the world. Where are the proposals that promise to achieve these two goals?

(The amount that I refer to is based on the estimated value of natural wealth according to a team of scientists published in Nature, May, 1997.)


from: John Champagne
to: Jack ***
date: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM
subject: Re: Documenting the vacuum of responses to this call

I don't think we have the luxury of time. I figure we are already a generation (or two) behind where we need to be re awareness about what an alternative paradigm might look like (and even that a paradigm shift is imperative).

An organism suffering a cancer MIGHT carry a new life to term IF the cancer is not too far advanced in the earlier stages of pregnancy.


from: John Champagne
to: Jack ***
date: Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM
subject: Re: Documenting the vacuum of responses to this call

"Sound analysis" is a somewhat vague term. As I mentioned, there is plenty of sound analysis. $20 per day is not an arbitrary amount. Neither is it vague. It is the amount that natural wealth is estimated to be worth (estimated by a team of scientists, Robert Costanza, et al, Nature, May, 1997)

The knowledge that systemic solutions are being allowed to languish is interfering with my ability to enjoy life's simple pleasures in the normal way.

If you (or any other person) can state a reason or reasons why it is OK to let these ideas languish and the reasoning appears sound, It would save me from having to take my most emphatic protest to Assumption College in Worchester, MA. (That is the place of residence/work of the professors who have thus far offered the most formal and authoritative response to this proposal, to whit: It is not realistic (because) it would require changes in human nature. They have declined to say what changes would be required, nor have they said what I wrote that led them to this conclusion.

http://john-champagne.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-fast-attention-must-be-paid.html

The blog post puts the question, "Why is it OK that these ideas are left to languish?" in a more elaborate form. (There are flaws (What are they?); There are better proposals (Where are they?) There is evidence that the ideas are coming into the public discourse (What evidence?) The goals are not important (Says who?)

To my knowledge, no one has made any attempt to answer this question.

Symbolic fast as political protest leads to forced confinement for observation in psychiatric ward

(This is a follow-up to my previous post, but is too long to post as a comment...)

I was taken into custody on December 25th, 2012, for psychiatric observation. I was held against my will and within a few days was threatened with force-feeding and electro-convulsive treatment (ECT) if I continued to refuse to eat. I perceived that as a threat that my conscience would be destroyed.

I was taken to Court within days of being taken into custody, where it was confirmed that, if I continued to refuse food, the Court would allow the psychiatric establishment to 'have their way with me'. (My phrasing.) That is, the Court would allow them to do whatever they deemed 'necessary'. I learned later that I had been labeled as 'delusional'; it was said that I held the belief that I could save the world. In truth, I believe that we together can solve the biggest problems threatening the stability and sustainability of civilization. I never made any assertion of belief that is ascribed to me by doctors of psychiatry at University Hospital. (I feel that one possible path forward is to sue for malpractice and have that Court order reversed. More important, though, is that these ideas are either discussed or rebutted. Whatever wrongful acts were taken against me seem a small matter, the mistaken diagnosis seems a small matter, next to the question of whether we will create a sustainable and just civilization or allow a global collapse, along with all the famine, chaos and environmental degradation that that would bring.)

When I heard the threat of forced-feeding and ECT, I felt as though my ego (which I had let go of years earlier, at the time that I realized that normal efforts to use language to communicate profoundly impyortant ideas were going nowhere, were being completely ineffectual) … I felt as though my ego had leaped back into my body, almost as a physical sensation. I knew that, if my conscience was destroyed, then my capacity to take the decision to make this ultimate symbolic statement would be lost. I knew that I had to get out of that threatening environment.

I should have written this note earlier. I wanted to write to not only explain the events that led me to interrupt my fast, but also to relate the hilarity and insanity that I experienced during that forced visit to the psychiatric ward. (My only such visit ever in my life.)

Although the professional staff was presumably deeply concerned that I receive nourishment, the hospital meal service did not seem able to understand the concept of a vegan meal. I was repeatedly served a tray that contained animal products, which I declined. I came to realize that vegans don't go to hospitals very often, so the staff does not have experience dealing with requests for plant-based meals.

I remember surreptitiously eating a muffin with peanut butter on it, since it was against the rules to have food from outside... even while the staff were still having difficulty accommodating a plant-based diet request.

At one point (after I had regained some energy), some other patients and I were playing cards and using monopoly money to place our bets. We were becoming quite psychologically engaged, quite animated, and reacting emotionally to each dealt hand's outcome. We wondered, being under observation as we were, whether our game-playing and normal social interaction would count in our favor in our psychological evaluations; or whether our intense emotional reactions to the outcomes of bets placed using play money would count against us as signs of delusional behavior.

That was all certainly an experience that I will not soon forget. (Whether I will remember it for a long time is a different question... depending on whether I am around much longer.)

I think that I need to take my fast, undertaken in part to protest professors' extreme and egregious discourtesy, to Massachusetts, where the professors teach class at Assumption College. If I must endure forced-feeding and elector-shock treatments, I think it should be close to the source of the most formal and authoritative voices saying that these ideas should not be put to a larger audience.

Again (repeating myself), if there is good reason to not publish (such as a conflict with human nature, as claimed by those professors), then I want to know what that reason is. Professors Hickey and Kantarelis (or any other member of the academic community) can simply point to the text that I wrote that implies a need to perform actions that are contrary to our nature. If a misinterpretation has led to the conclusion that there is such a conflict, I want to clarify the text that is being misinterpreted.

If there is a better proposal for ending extreme poverty AND limiting humans' impacts on the environment (so that they are held within overall limits that most people find acceptable), I want to know what that proposal is. Where is it? Anyone can point to it to make me aware.

Or, if the goals of ending extreme poverty and limiting humans environmental impacts (to levels acceptable to most people) are not important and so a means for achieving them is not worth a public conversation, I want to know that people are willing to go on the record and say publicly that they are not important.

Otherwise, I still feel that neglect of these ideas must be protested in the strongest possible terms. Thus far, normal means of communication have failed. We do not have unlimited time to address these most serious threats to the stability and sustainability of civilization.

J. Champagne


Natural law requires respect of PUBLIC property rights, too

Biological Model for Politics and Economics

Biodiversity as a Public Good:

Is Civilization a Success or Failure, or is it Too Soon to Tell?

Why I fast - Attention must be paid

I am a bit scared now for my own health and safety, being somewhat weakened by 66 fast days this year, with about 30 in the past 100 days or so.

Because...

I started a fast about 12 hours ago, one that may end badly for me personally. I am asking for some attention to be paid. I am seeking answers.

I believe that this proposal that calls for payments by polluting industries to the people, and payments by those who take natural resources, could solve two of our greatest problems threatening the stability and sustainability of civilization. Many small problems would disappear.

This proposal, if adopted, would mean the economy would become focused on increasing efficiency in use of energy and other resources (to the extent necessary to bring the reality, in terms of resource depletion and other environmental impacts, into line with what the people want). And it would bring an end to extreme poverty.

The proposal is being allowed to languish. I find this fact very disturbing; so much so that I have not been able to give a normal answer to 'How you doing?' for about six years now, seeing as I do that people are willing to neglect a profoundly important proposal. (Perhaps I, too, would be thoroughly uninterested in carrying this idea forward if I were not the author of the proposal. Well, by whatever quirk of nature or accident, I am the author of a proposal, and I am VERY interest in that to which silence and inaction are common responses. The inclination of most people is to let these ideas languish.)

I am asking that the two professors at Assumption College, (Hickey or Kantarelis, one or another of them) say what they meant when they declined to share this proposal to a larger audience because it was said to be contrary to human nature. What changes in human nature would be needed (from what to what)? What did I write that caused them to hold this view? I would be happy to celebrate hearing from either of them on these questions by breaking fast.

(These professors took a substantial sum of money and invited me to their academic conference on the understanding that they would give an honest evaluation of a paper that elaborated on my ideas and then decide whether to publish. Truth be told, they did not specifically tell me that they would give a review. But I think the assumption is always that there will be honest dealings, and it is generally understood that there will be feedback (which there was) in the case of rejection of a paper. The problem is, though, that their critique, "change in human nature" is so vague as to be (shall I say?) inscrutable. Not analyzable. What change? And there was no reference to text, even after repeated emails to the two men (there was no reply at all) even to this date [12-24, late PM, latest update] to show what in the paper brought them to that conclusion. Common human decency requires honesty and courtesy. Where is it? I may be about to die for something I believe to be profoundly important. Nothing that anyone has said has caused me to waiver from that conviction. So be it, if need be. But if there is a fatal flaw, if there is a requirement for a not merely improbable but also highly implausible change to happen, if the proposal is not realistic or feasible, then surly I don't want to die for a flawed proposal. That would be a sad waste of a good life.)

Also, if ANY other person sees a fatal flaw in this proposal, PLEASE alert me! That would be a relief. I will not sacrifice my life for a flawed proposal. I only feel so strongly about this because I believe it to be important. If it is flawed, it can be let go.

OR

If anyone, ANYONE, is aware of a better proposal for achieving these goals, PLEASE let me know. I will not sacrifice my life for a second-rate proposal.

OR

Someone show me some sign, some evidence, that these ideas are to be part of the public discourse. Where is that conversation happening? When is that conversation happening? The hour is late.

OR

If MANY people were to tell me that these goals are not important and that it is not worth pursuing changes that would be difficult to bring about, then I might celebrate our self-indulgent toboggan ride toward collapse with a bit of fruit... Not the outcome I would prefer. I prefer to think that I live in a society made up of people who really are concerned about these problems and goals. I mention this maybe as a way of inviting people to 'look at it squarely. These are important goals!'

(I feel certain that a small group of people could, if they chose to do so, make a topic part of the public discourse, at least in a local area...)


What news media and universities are not telling us: Systemic flaws are not reported

If a reporter or editor were to respond to this critique by resolving to remedy this blind spot in the reporting and publicly committing to doing so (or if they would tell me where the critique linked above is flawed) I would also be ready to end this fast. I would not feel a need to sacrifice my life to bring some topics and ideas to the public consciousness if those topics are being addressed in normal reporting, as they should be.

How are we doing?

How are you doing?


How are WE doing?

Someone asked me how I am doing.

I am not OK.

I haven't been able to say I am OK for about six years now.

I don't want to live in a world where the best ideas for how to create a sustainable and just society are left to languish.

But I do not have the power to define what society is; whether it is adaptive or moribund. WE decide that. Our collective actions decide that.

Societies do not adapt in a timely fashion to changed realities when the best ideas are neglected.

Here's our best idea available for ending extreme poverty in the world AND limiting humans' impacts on the environment (to hold them within what most people would endorse as acceptable, as not excessive): Recognize an equal claim to and demand an equal sharing of natural wealth. We can charge a fee to polluters high enough to adequately discourage harmful impacts and give the proceeds to all the people.

(If you are aware... if anyone is aware... of a better way to achieve these goals, please let me know.

Early essay on the gaia brain paradigm

This essay was offered as an outline, an abstract of a proposal, in response to a call for papers that bring ideas from different disciplines to bear on solving environmental problems. It resulted in an invitation to the conference, along with an offer to consider publishing a longer paper with the conference proceedings.

Pollution fees and natural resource fees: A necessary part of our global brain.

Democratic ownership and free market management of natural resources: a capitalism-communism synthesis.

We have a problem with pollution. Our economy treats the earth as a free dumping ground for wastes. The ecosystems of earth provide a valuable service by taking our waste products and transforming them into clean air and water and soil. Like anything that is free, this natural service of accepting and cleaning up wastes that the earth provides for us is subject to over use. This problem is known as the Tragedy of the Commons.

We treat these valuable services as a free good because, until recently, there were not such great demands placed on these natural recycling services--we could use them as though they were free without destroying them from overuse; and, we lacked the tools to measure and allocate these resources. Now, the demands placed on the earth's ecosystems by our habit of putting industrial and agricultural wastes in them are exceeding their capacity to absorb and clean. So the problem is: 'How to allocate the limited resource of waste removal and cleaning in an efficient and fair way'.

If the earth's waste removal service were treated as the valuable resource that it is, and if our industries were required to pay a fee according to how much they use the service, then the problem of overuse due to zero cost would be eliminated. A pollution fee would require the measurment of emissions and would cause a reduction in the emissions. This is how a sensory nervous system works: information about injury to the organism is transmitted by sense nerves into the neural network (brain) and the neural network changes in a way that causes a reduction in the injury. In this analogy, pollution, or stress to ecosystems represents injury to the organism, the earth. Information about the environmental impact of industry and agriculture enters society (the neural net) through the price of goods and services in the marketplace. Cleaner products cost less, while those with higher ecological costs would have corresponingly higher prices attached.

Another way to think of this process is as an autonomic nervous system for earth: the pollution fee is information about stresses or demands on ecosystems that would tend to move the earth organism out of homeostasis, and it is an economic incentive or pressure to maintain a homeostasis, or a healthy ecologic balance.

We must decide what the earth's ecosystems can sustainably absorb from us in the form of wastes. But we do not know the answer to this question. No one does. So we begin by recognizing that we cannot be certain of the numbers. Let us resolve to err on the side of caution, that is, to be conservative and err on the side of preserving and restoring ecosystems for the benefit of our grandchildren and future generations.

We could issue permits for various pollutants according to how much of each pollutant we will allow, and auction these permits in the free market. Thus, those industries which can adapt processes to reduce or eliminate waste emmissions will have an advantage in the market, while those industries which continue to emit large amounts of waste will have to include the costs to ecosystems in the price of their products.

Because just about everyone will have a different opinion regarding the levels of pollutants that would be safe and harmless, the actual amount that we decide on will be a summary of the opinions of all the world's people. And, because many of us are not able to make an informed decision about appropriate levels of some or all pollutants, we may choose to delegate our vote to someone whose opinion we respect. For example, if I believed that it is safe to release 100 million tons of fossil fuel carbon dioxide into the environment, and that no level of chlorinated hydrocarbon emmissions (e.g.: CFC's, Heptachlor, DDT) can be called safe or sustainable, but I had no opinion or knowledge about safe levels of other pollutants, then I might refer to lists of people who share my views on CO2 and chlorinated hydrocarbons to see what their opinions are regarding other pollutants, either to inform my own opinion, or to find a knowledgable and responsible person to whom I could delegate my 'emmissions allowance' vote.

This concept of assigning fees to the use of earth's waste removal services can be applied to other areas. Pollution fees are actually a subset of green fees. Green fees are a way to manage scarce natural resources that are subject to overuse and depletion, such as forests, fisheries and grazing land. This system could also be applied to the management of the use of non-human animals by human beings. Someday, perhaps soon, we may completely eliminate the systematic enslavement and exploitation of non-human animals in industry and agriculture, but until that time, we may wish to create a system whereby industry and agriculture are subject to economic costs in some proportion to how much suffering they inflict on the animals they use. This will give them an incentive to reduce both the numbers of animals they use and the amount of suffering inflicted on each one.

The Gaia brain/pollution fee system will so transform the global economy and society, we probably ought to think in terms of an elimination of government as we know it. With the introduction of significant pollution fees, conventional taxes not only would be difficult to support financially, they may seem rather without philosophical foundation: we may see that a fee according to our use of the earth's natural resources is well founded on philosophical principles of fairness, while taxes on income or sales do not seem on the face to be eminently fair.

The proceeds of the pollution fees and green fees would be a monetary representation of the value of earth's air and water and living systems. As these resources can be thought of as belonging to all, the proceeds of these fees probably ought to be shared equally among all the people of the earth. This could be the basis of a guaranteed minimum income. Perhaps we could contribute half of our share to charities or other community needs--those functions currently served by government, and spend the other half toward our more personal needs. If everyone had access to such an account, no one would live in abject poverty, and low income people would have charity social services available.

The pollution fee/gaia brain concept applies ancient principles to today's challenges: We must live in accord with nature; We must give something back in proportion to what we take; We are the stewards of this planet. The greatest challenges that life presents are those which must be met to ensure the very survival of the organism. The difficult but life sustaining task before us is to transform ourselves from cancer cells of earth to brain cells of earth--to make a healthy, properly functioning world brain; to create/re-make our global society.



The longer paper: Biological Model for Politics and Economics

Hungry from fasting - Hungry for answers

Today is the 50th fast day of the year for me.

I do not want to live in a world where the best ideas we have for solving our biggest problems are neglected. I fast to symbolically represent this fact in as strong a way as possible, and to protest the fact that a call for equal sharing of natural wealth languish, so that we miss maybe our best chance at a sustainable society and an end to extreme deprivation and poverty.

That is seriously wrong.

I also don't want to think this is a big important proposal if it has flaws that would keep it from working. Let me know if you see any. Anyone.

If anyone wants to join me in asking where the supposed conflict with human nature is (It's easy: "Where is the conflict with human nature?") in a plan to charge fees to polluters and give the proceeds to all the people (which is the reason given for why professors Hickey and Kantarelis decided this proposal should not go to a wider audience), I think now would be a good time.

Seems to me to be a fair, even a necessary question.

Kevin Hickey khickey@assumption.edu
Demitri Kantarelis dkantar@assumption.edu

My unusual complaint

My friend asked me how am I doing.

I am not doing well. I have a very unusual complaint.

She didn't know what it is.

The overwhelming majority of people who have learned of a profoundly important proposal (to end extreme poverty and manage environmental impacts so they only go so far as the people want and are not excessive) are willing to let this proposal languish. I am living on a world where people CHOOSE to not make the changes to sustainability and justice that are possible through clear application of moral principle.

Fast for answers

From: John Champagne

Subject: Starting two day fast

The goal generally is to help draw attention to what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal. More specifically it is an occasion to emphasize some questions I have that I feel have been neglected.

I thought that a proposal to end extreme poverty and limit humans' impact on the environment would be seen as a valuable contribution that people would want to share with others and adopt as policy. But I have noticed that people who have received the proposal generally have little or no interest in sharing it with others.

I feel that I have been an utter failure in my efforts to communicate the proposal, the ideas.

The failure to communicate apparently starts with the sentence, the assertion, that "I have a cure for what ails the planet: a way to end abject poverty AND limit humans' impacts on the environment (the physical Earth and its inhabitants) so that they do not exceed what most people feel is acceptable". I believe that people generally are not aware of another one or two or three (or any) other proposals that make such a claim. This sentence, this assertion may simply be too incredible to be taken seriously. I have to believe that, because in all seriousness, these are important goals. I don't want to assume that people are unwilling to apply some effort to make sure that the best way of achieving the very important goals of a sustainable and just society is being followed or pursued.

Am I wrong about the uniqueness of this proposal? Are you aware of more than one? What is your favorite proposal for achieving these two goals? (And what do you like about that particular proposal that makes it your favorite?)

If you believe this proposal does not merit a response, if it is not worth sharing with others, can you say what is lacking?

Are the goals, restated above, not sufficiently important?

Are there flaws in the proposal that make it unworkable? What are they?

Is there a better way to achieve these goals? What is it?

Is there something I am missing? Some other way to understand why people are willing to allow this proposal to languish?

wondering,

john


An eight-page paper, written at the invitation of the hosts of the International Environmental Association Conference: Gaia Brain theory: A Biological Model for Politics and Economics

This paper was not published with the conference proceedings. The reviewer called it 'eminently clear and intelligible' and said that it brought new ideas to bear in solving environmental problems. But the proposal was also said to require changes in human nature. The hosts never explained what changes in human nature would be needed. I see it as a call for a change in the rules we live by. It is a call for changes in human culture, not in human nature.

An uncomfortable realization

Ethics or basic moral precepts are a kind of natural law (THE natural law) of social interaction.

Just as we MUST respect other natural laws to survive, we MUST respect basic moral precepts. (If we walk along a narrow path on the face of a cliff, we must respect the law of gravity or we will die.)

Since we have no moral authority to initiate force or coercion against another peaceful person, we cannot delegate such authority to a government entity. Therefore, we MUST NOT, as a matter of moral principle, vote for a politician or support a policy that would do such a thing.

If we disregard this basic moral precept, our civilization will collapse. The time-lag between the error and the consequences may be greater than what we see in the case of other kinds of lapses of due regard for natural law, but the consequences are every bit as real. The consequences for a large-scale society take a longer amount of time to work themselves out. Larger entities in the cosmos generally change according to a longer time-frame, whether they be pendulums, organisms, societies, etc.

Since we have a right to share in deciding what limits to put on amounts of pollution or rates of taking of natural resources, we MUST use our political system to effectively define these limits. To fail to do so would be to relegate the assertion that we have this collective right to the bin of “What we give lip-service to without follow-through with effective action”. If we fail to use our instrument for collectively defining (limiting) our action to do that which we have a collective right (and duty) to do, then we are violating natural law. It is one thing to violate this law out of ignorance, (as has been the case during previous instances of civilization collapse, but it is entirely another to violate this law after we've become aware of its workings in the cosmos.

I see a moral imperative to seek out or create a marriage of libertarian and green. Whether this means voting Libertarian and Green, or it means communicating with candidates who identify as Democrat and Republican to influence their ideas, policies and orientation is, I think, merely incidental.

The moral imperative is baked into the way the cosmos works. Our civilization is well down the path toward collapse. I see no moral alternative for myself. I feel that I must take drastic action to communicate the urgency of the situation. My attempts to communicate in what could be called a normal way have thus far been an utter failure.

I have learned that sharing good ideas is enough to get people to say, “That's a good idea”, but it is not enough to make them want to share them with others. It is still the case that, after six years and more than 30 posts to the blog, it still gets zero or one or maybe two hits in a day, except when I actively share it on the internet somewhere other than here on fb. Then it might get five or ten or 15 hits in a day. That's not sufficient. I happen to think still that it is a profoundly important proposal. (People here may or may not have looked at it, but having seen the link a few times, it looks like nothing new, I suppose.)

In all those years, those 30 or so articles have received a total of about a dozen comments. One every six months or so. So the very few people who have visited, seeing zero or maybe one comment on whatever article they are reading, may easily conclude that this is something that not many people are interested in. This proposal is being allowed to languish. I don't understand why that should be so.

Are you aware of ANY other proposal for how we might end extreme poverty AND limit humans' impact on the environment so that levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources could be kept within limits that most people would agree are acceptable?

If this is the ONLY such proposal that you are aware of, is it not also a proposal that merits some kind of response? I just can't get past the question, “Why should this be allowed to languish?”

Well, it shouldn't be allowed to languish, but it is. Now what? Well, I know what, but it will not do to say it. If I want people to sit up and take notice, I have to perform the most drastic symbolic act possible. Words are not enough.

Or tell me where I am wrong.

Natural Law and the Golden Rule

Not a promising dialogue

A link to a Fox News story was offered by a friend, with this comment:

S.:
If the facts don't support your agenda...make something up.

-- Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data ... The University of Colorados Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3mm every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming. --


John:
I think it's Fox News and the Heartland Institute that are pushing an agenda. (What is your point in posting this? Do you really doubt that the earth is warming and SL is rising?)

The graph I just looked at shows just over a one inch increase from about 1994 to about 2004. That's about ten times the amount of this refinement of their measurements of .3 mm per year. The 'expert' that Fox is quoting is a lawyer with Heartland, not a climate scientist, BTW. In that story, this lawyer, James M. Taylor, is quoted: 'We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century', but earlier in the same story, this same lawyer says: 'Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring'. So you can't get a clear idea from this Fox News 'expert' whether SL rise is occurring or not.

Help me understand. Why do people want to rely on Fox as a source of news? Is it not obvious that they have an agenda that colors how they report?

What exactly do you think Colorado University is making up?

A cure for what ails the planet - (make the big problems MUCH smaller) - a sustainable and more just civilization: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html


S.:
Why are liberals do Fearful of FOX News?


John:
Is it not obvious that FOX has an agenda that colors how they report?

What exactly do you think Colorado University is making up?


S.:
So... Is global warming occurring on Mars?


John:
Why do you ask?


S.:
Is it happening on Mars?


John:
I don't know. But since my actions have no bearing on whether Mars' climate might be changing, it seems a meaningless question, (Meaningless in the sense that it makes no difference in how I should choose to live my life. What does it mean? = what difference does it make?)


S.:
What it means is that it's all about politics and power- not "saving" the Earth.


John:
Through our collective actions (mostly habits of convenience and choice among the more affluent on the planet) we are inducing a rather abrupt change in climate. Plants and animals living at higher altitudes and latitudes may soon be unable to survive. This matters if we believe that a more diverse community of life embodies more beauty and goodness. It matters if we believe that other forms of life on Earth exist for their own sake and not merely as means to our ends.


S.:
How did man create Global warming on Mars?


John:
There is a way to end extreme poverty in the world AND limit our impacts on the environment in an efficient and fair way that is consistent with democratic principles...

http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html

... and you choose to ask nonsense questions ... as a kind of distraction I might guess. But you can speak to your motives as to why you do what you do better than I can.


S.:
You can't answer because you realize it undermines the very foundation of your argument on global warming. Typical liberal tactics: if you cant win, then attack, smear, or denigrate the opponent personally.

And yes there is a way to end extreme poverty in the world within the framework of a Democratic Republic. It is called Economic Opportunity through Capitalism.

Well, I find this whole exchange rather disturbing. My friend and I used to have debates about creationism vs. evolution. (I haven't actually seen him in about 30 years.) I don't think either of us was swayed in our views, although I did learn a lot of biology as a result of my being challenged to defend a theory. Here I use the word 'theory' as meaning something more weighty and significant and predictive than a 'fact'. My friend would use the word in the sense of a conjecture, guess or hunch.

Ignorance is dangerous. We may not succeed in solving the challenges we face if we fail to understand the world we live in sufficiently well.

One thing I can say for my friend: He is a kind person. He has a good heart.

Natural law requires respect of public AND private property rights

Al Gore - Climate of Denial - Rolling Stone A very good article by Gore discussing the current effects of climate disruption, the political situation and challenges. Sadly, he makes no mention of economic externalities as such, equal ownership of natural resources or the ecological benefit of moving to a plant-based diet (relevant to the 'What to do?' question).

A Remedy for Urban Blight

from Texas Public Radio letters - Mine was on December 23rd, 2010.

What was not mentioned at the Homelessness Town Hall Meeting:

If we start talking about externalities [the hidden costs of economic activity] and start charging fees to those who produce adverse impacts on the environment, we may start to ponder the fact that a property owner who allows vacant or neglected structures to exist on his/her property is causing a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

If there is a general view that there is too high a prevalence of derelict properties, to the detriment of the community at large, then a fee could be attached to property owners who hold those vacant and neglected properties.

Taking account of spillover costs of neglected properties would give property owners incentive to improve derelict properties and make them available for rent or sale, which would increase the housing supply, thus reducing the cost of housing.

The existing housing stock would be utilized more efficiently.

The wealth of a society is subjectively experienced in relation to how efficiently it utilizes resources.

To have widespread homelessness amidst vast numbers of vacant properties is a sign of a malignancy in a society. It is nonsensical, and reflects underlying injustice.

The fee on neglected properties might be quite modest yet effective, or it may in fact be unnecessary. There could be a general fee on impervious land cover (such as asphalt and buildings) as a way to minimize the adverse impact of this kind of land use. (Impervious land cover is a detriment to community well-being because it means that rain showers are no longer a blessing to humans and the larger community of life but are instead a hazard to the community. Rather than soaking into the ground, rainfall washes off rapidly, contributing to flash flood risks downstream.) A fee on impervious cover would give all property owners incentive to ensure that all properties are maintained in usable condition and able to produce income.

A general fee on impervious cover would also tend to bring down the cost of housing AND keep neglected properties to a minimum.

These facts do not spontaneously emerge in the absence of a general discussion of economic externalities and ownership of natural resources.

Why is the topic of economic externalities not discussed on the public airwaves? I have asked my local NPR station and NPR's ombudsman many times but have received no reply.

Still wondering,...






On Tue, Mar 8, 2011, Greg wrote:
John, a few thoughts about the vacant property problem from my perspective:

The property owner normally pays substantial property taxes whether the property is vacant or not, so there is a logical consequence (penalty) for not making the property productive, though not necessarily in the proportion you mentioned.

[My reply to Greg: The public policy question is, 'Is the incentive sufficient so that, in the view of most people, the consequences in the world match what the people want? Does the current tax regime result in a sufficiently low incidence of neglected properties?'.

If there is sufficient incentive so that there is not a higher prevalence of abandoned properties than what a random sample shows is consistent with the will of the people, (if the reality matches what the people want to see in this regard), then the existing incentive is adequate. If the reality does not match (if there are more neglected properties than what most people would want to see), then that is a sign that the incentives to rehabilitate ought to be strengthened.]


Same with landlords who don't offer good or acceptable properties for rent at a fair price--they don't find renters and are generally economically penalized in proportion to their neglect or unfair pricing.

If the owner does not pay required taxes (or mortgage) for long enough, then normally the lender or county forecloses on the property and eventually sells it to someone more committed and able to make the property productive.

[There is less transparency in our society than there might be. We don't know at a glance which properties are held privately and which are held by banks, and which are held by the county. (Maybe something like Google Maps could help change this.) Counties and banks would feel this incentive to make the properties they hold productive, too, if we were to adopt this alternative paradigm, so the question of whether an individual piece of property is held by private owner, bank or county is apparently not relevant to the question of whether this paradigm would produce a better society than what we have now.]


However, properties reach a stage when they are no longer economically worth rehabilitating and should be demolished (with usable elements recycled). But as you know, the process often doesn't work, leading to urban blight and decay.


[I'm offering a proposal that would reduce the problem of urban blight and decay, in case anyone is interested.]


There are many programs that have and are being implemented with various success.


[I think we should aim for (and this proposal would result in) the level of success that is in accord with the will of the people at large.]


Some even involves strategic downsizing of an entire city, like Detroit is doing, and clearing some former blighted properties and making more community green space, parks, gardens, semi-rural farmland, playgrounds, etc.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/09/detroit-looks-at-downsizing-to-save-city/

It's a complicated and highly debatable matter to propose extra fees based on a largely subjective sentiments of other residents concerning ...


[How much light pollution is too much is a debatable question, too, and highly subjective. That is no reason to not limit the level of light pollution to levels that most people would say are not excessive. So, although you make a true observation (that the question of how much blight is too much is a subjective question), I fail to see how exactly does it pertain to the question of whether we ought to adopt this alternative paradigm.]


. Municipalities can and often do step in through their Code Compliance depts. to hire contractors to remedy the most egregious safety and health related violations and correctly place liens against violaters' properties.
Greg


[Rather inefficient instruments, those, since the government agencies cannot and do not exercise this power except in the most extreme cases. I think it is 'sometimes', not 'often'.]




From: John Champagne
To: Greg
Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 8:53:27 AM
Subject: ps: something you do well would [also] be done [well] by more people

If people who hold vacant property that is an eyesore and a perceived detriment to the community were made to pay a fee in proportion to how strongly the community wanted to decrease the prevalence of derelict and abandoned properties, more property owners would have incentive to rehabilitate properties to make them marketable. If fee proceeds go to the people at large, more people have money in their pockets, so they are more able to pay rent.

This policy of charging a fee to those who cause environmental impact, and sharing the proceeds with the people, would mean that people who don't currently have housing could find it (because they would have some money and rents would be lower, with the increased supply), and our neighborhoods would look better.

This is just one way that this proposal would make the world better. (That would be better, wouldn't it?)

-

Gaia Brain blog
What do we need to know that news media and universities are not telling us?
Quantum mechanics of gaia brain

Diet choice is a moral choice

I went to a meeting of people who want to fight hunger here and throughout the world.

I want to see our religious communities--and all of us who strive to be moral beings--consider the moral arguments relating to what we eat. If we come together to address the problem of hunger, it seems fair to raise the point that a much more efficient use of natural resources will mean fewer hungry people. The limited amount of natural resources, (land surface, aquifer water and fossil fuel), available for planting, watering and fertilizing crops can feed more people when we eat the grains and other plants directly rather than process them through the bodies of animals such as cows, pigs, various kinds of birds, etc.

If we want to feed more people and we are coming up against limits on natural resources involved in food production, then we must be interested in finding the more efficient sources of nutrition.

In the large group I saw that night, no one said that they knew of a moral argument related to what we eat. I think that this question of whether we use our precious life-sustaining resources efficiently, (so that fewer or no people are left wanting basic nourishment, and so that wildlife and biodiversity are not needlessly destroyed), is a moral question. We should choose a more environmentally friendly diet-style over a less environmentally friendly diet-style. Our times demand it. The fact is ecosystems can support large populations of plant-eaters, but only small populations of animal-eaters. We need to respond intelligently and morally to the reality of our situation.

Another moral argument related to what we eat would be that we exploit beings as things when we mechanize animal agriculture and intensify confinement systems: more crowding, more abuse, more fetid, miserable conditions, more pollution. We've demoted beings to the status of commodities. Treating a being as a thing is tantamount to slavery. It is wrong.

Do we want a culture of tolerance, mutual respect and non-violence? We can bring ourselves closer to creating this reality by developing a deeper respect for one another's person and psyche. We must recognize others as individuals who are not objects but who are subjects of their own lives. They are not means to our ends. They are ends in themselves.

We sometimes come to know members of other species as individuals. We see their unique personalities. We feel a concern for their interests and well-being. But at the same time, we prefer not to consider the fact that there are creatures held captive on our behalf in stifling, fetid, miserable, oppressive conditions that we do not want to know about. These animals are themselves unique individuals; subjects of their own lives--not objects to be used by us as means to our ends. We take their lives, after oppressing them interminably from the first day of their conscious existence … all so we can use the flesh of their bodies to trigger certain taste and texture sensations on our palate.

Where is the sense of outrage?


A cure for what ails the planet: How to promote justice and ensure a sustainable society

We have to respect moral principles to make society work. Neurons in a network seem to recognize this, too.

Letter to my local NPR station

Dear Ms. Grojean,

I have asked your news director and your program director why there should be no reporting on economic externalities. I received no answer.

It seems that the hidden costs of economic activity ought to be made visible. Economic externalities distort our economy and society so that more harm is produced by our economy than what would be the case if all costs, (including environmenntal impact costs), were to be reflected in prices.

We must be apprised of the situation, made aware of the existence of this systemic defect called externalities, and its consequences, so that we will be able and willing to remedy it.

The lack of any political will to start taking account of externalities can be explained by the absence of any public discourse on the topic. If we talked about the various ways of taking account of externalities and compared them—which are more efficient, which are more fair, and which combine efficient and fair—we would be empowered to choose the more efficient and fair option.

Serious problems in the world would be solved.

If you know why this topic should not be discussed on the broadcast outlets that proclaim a determination to provide the people with vital information, please tell me.

I know that, if I can get more people to join me in asking this question, your station management will be more interested in answering it, or in challenging the premise by questioning whether this topic really should be omitted from the public discourse and news reporting.

If I can get your major funders to join in asking this question, then all the more likely that you will respond in some fashion. I hesitate in asking your funders to join in asking the question, though, because of the law of unintended consequences. Some of your funders may decide that it is because they are funders that they are being bothered by my solicitation of their involvement. To reduce complications in their life or business, they may choose to stop funding the station rather than start writing letters to you or start explaining to members of the public why we should think of their support of a neglectful news agency as a benefit to the community. That would be an unintended and I think unfortunate consequence of this approach.

My hope would be that you would reflect on whether neglect of this topic has in fact been a disservice to the community up to now, and on what you might do as a public service entity to remedy the situation, and that you would then take action to effect the remedy.

I can't imagine a clear and intelligible answer to this question of why economic externalities should not be mentioned or discussed in most of (rather than none of) the stories where their consequences are discussed, but if you have one and if you will share it with me, (or if you will start remedying this systematic neglect), I will certainly renew my membership.

Sincerely,

John Champagne

--

Links to my latest comments to NPR news stories and blogs

Gaia Brain blog

NPR: No discussion of public property rights here

I posted a comment in three segments, with the intent of relating the concept of public property rights to the problem of obesity, in response to a story about Michelle Obama's effort to combat childhood obesity. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/01/michelle_obama_launches_person.html

One of the segments of my comment was deleted for violating the Discussion Rules, (which include "we have the right... to ... delete... any content"). This would not be so disturbing were it possible to find some discussion of the concept of public property rights somewhere on the public airwaves or on npr.org A respect of public property rights, (equal ownership of natural resource wealth and effective accounting for economic externalities), would mean an end to extreme poverty in the world AND an efficient and fair way to limit our environmental impacts, (including greenhouse gas emissions). Why no discussion of public property rights on NPR?



If we start to respect public property rights, then all the world's people will own the decision about how much of the earth's surface ought to be devoted to the support of diverse ecosystems, as opposed to that devoted to other uses, such as monoculture or paving, (assuming that biodiversity is recognized by most people as a value worth preserving).

We will respect public property rights if we are truly committed to basic moral principles. Moral principles are the basis of our concepts of human rights, including private property rights. Public property rights refers to the idea that we all own the air and water and other natural resources. We have a right to use them and to stop others from messing them up. If meadows and forests are of value to human beings and the larger community of life on earth, then destruction of these diverse ecosystems should be limited by rational public policy.


One way to limit the extent of paving or of other human impacts that adversely affect environmental quality would be to charge a fee to those who cause the adverse impact. We could use a random-sample survey as a basic instrument to discern what is the average opinion on questions regarding appropriate limits to various kinds of environmental impacts. If most people felt that monoculture and other more severe impacts ought to be limited to, say, 14 percent of the Earth's surface, then permits to cause such impacts could be offered in a free market auction. (In reality, some people will hold the view that 15 percent is an appropriate limit, while others may say 12 percent is permissible. There will be a number that reflects the mean or average opinion. If we are committed to democratic principles, we will strive to create a public policy that brings about a reality that matches what the largest number of people say is the best balance of possible uses of the earth's surface. (I am using the word 'uses' in a broad sense here. Leaving some portion of the landscape undisturbed by humans for the benefit of other inhabitants of the planet could be a normal consequence of the political process within a public property rights paradigm.))


If the opinion of the people is that limiting monoculture and promoting a healthy ecosystem serves the public interest, and if we determine to create public policy to reflect this belief, we might also decide that monoculture devoted to production of sugar cane or corn syrup or tobacco includes these environmental impacts AND that such land use involves other adverse impacts on society.

We could attach a HIGHER fee to monoculture that supports production of things that most people feel are harming the human community, so that the overall abundance of these problematic commodities does not exceed what most people feel is acceptable. The mix of foods in the marketplace could come to match what most nutritionists and most people agree is a healthy balance.

BTW, a pollution fee would mean that walking and bicycling would become more attractive choices for getting around our cities and neighborhoods. A pollution fee is also the most efficient and fair way to limit greenhouse gases. A pollution fee is the obvious policy of choice within a public property rights paradigm.

The proceeds of all fees collected as compensation for natural resources taken or environmental degradation caused should be shared equally among all the worlds people. This would mean an end to grinding poverty across the globe. http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com

Attempt at a dialogue

Tom,

If we SAY we are for democracy, then object to the suggestion that the people at large should have the power and responsibility to set overall limits on pollution and other environmental impacts, arguing that scientists should decide for us, aren't we acting more like a technocrat than a democrat?

Do you think we have a system now that ensures overall levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources are set by scientists operating in the public interest? I understand that this is the system that you want.

It seems to me that, on the contrary, what we have now is more tailored to the interests of industry than to sound, dispassionate science.

You never responded when I asked whether the people's preference should hold sway if popular opinion pointed to a more strict limit on pollution levels and other environmental impacts than what established scientific opinion called for. Your objection seemed based on a fear that the people at large, being non-experts and generally not educated about the particulars, would make bad judgements about acceptable levels of pollution and rates of taking of resources.

If a random-sample survey were to show that the people at large actually supported more strict limits on environmental impacts, would you be willing to reconsider your objection to the random-sample survey as an instrument of policy?

wondering,

john

In the 44 months since the first post to this blog, there have been about four or five comments.

If you agree that a society that respects public AND private property rights could mean an end to grinding poverty in the world and bring human impacts on the environment into line with what most people feel is acceptable, then I hope you will put a comment to voice your support of the idea. You could tell how you can help to spread the idea. Or tell how this paradigm shift might help to alleviate a particular problem.

If you see that this proposal, (charge a fee to polluters and those who take natural resources - give the proceeds to the people), could not work because it contains serious flaws or invalid assumptions, please share your critique in a comment.

When Kevin Hickey and Demetri Kantarelis said that they would not publish this proposal to a wider audience as part of the Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Environmental Association conference, (after inviting me to share the proposal at the conference), they did not explain their objection other than to say that this paradigm shift would require "changes in human nature".

(The reviewer of the paper did say that the paper was a "radical proposal" with "leftist tendencies", but they knew that when they invited me to attend and present, so it hardly seems fair that they would reject it for publication on those grounds.)

Only if someone other than the author of the proposal asks them to explain will they know that anyone other than the author actually cares.

Kevin Hickey (khickey@assumption.edu)

Demetri Kantarelis (dkantar@assumption.edu)

(If you want to communicate to those professors, I hope you will cc: or bcc: to me, or cut and paste to my comments section. Thanks!)

John

P.S.: Is it a fair assumption that, if no one objects when professors say "We won't publish this", that the goals that might be achieved are not really that important, or that the proposal has fatal flaws? If you see flaws, please tell me. If the goals are important, in your mind, please speak up. Thank you.