From A Competitive-Capitalist-Growth-Economy To An Eco-Economy
By Lionel Anet
28 September, 2014
Countercurrents.org
We must go from the present system to an Eco-economy that functions as a part of the ecosystem with its people interacting in a cooperative way. Life’s total interactions are reflected in the slight variations of the biosphere’s chemical composition, affecting the temperature, which fluctuates within life’s narrow limits. That has worked in a sustainable way ever since life controlled the earth’s climate; the climate remained benign because no species had overwhelming power, until people used fossil fuels. Unfortunately the civilised system that needed and used that fuel didn’t see itself as a part of life, but perceived that every things on the planet belonging to whoever has the power to possess it. With little to no responsibility and control, but the power to dominate all living things and able to exploit whatever gives the greatest benefit to the dominant individual or group. That’s capitalism; it has given us the ability and we are in the process of unintentionally exterminating ourselves and maybe all living things as well.
An eco-economy would indicate what we can or what we mustn’t do. How people functioned within those parameters is a political problem, which can be easily solved with accurate information and a population whose education is centred on understanding rather than just knowing by being indoctrinated. The big problem is how to go from present system to an eco-economy, which requires a different attitude and a way of thinking.
An eco-economy would be a secure and fulfilling life, but that’s not what will inspire us to strive for it, because living as a parasite based on perpetual growth, is presumed to be the only possibility of a better life. However the time is coming when our host won’t be able to support us any longer and the sooner we can revert to a cooperative relation with nature and between ourselves the better our chance of survival will be.
So how can we stop our parasitic ways?
That’s a psychological question. The thousands of years of civilisation has produced the way we think and feel, basically it’s all we socially know. We still refer back to the ancient Greeks, Romans, and the theology based on those times, mixed with the science, which was inspired by the steam engine. What we contribute back to nature is miniscule compare to our destruction of it. To be a contributor and repair some of the damage is the easy part, the difficult part is changing our attitudes, that’s to a new culture, based on universal cooperation. It’s a long way from where we are at now. Our attitude is largely a reflection of what we do and how we do it. Hence if we change what we do and how we do it, our thinking will tend to follow, this even if it’s a small effect on our thinking, which can snowball.
Just using wind turbine and solar collectors may only allow us to produce more and that’s processing too much stuff, one of our problems. Also the situation we’re in is far too dire to be techno fixed; we will need a social change and that can only start with a small step. It will be necessary to gradually reduce the wasted energy and materials; and there’s no greater waste than military equipment and its use.
The reason we have military built up and the conflicts is twofold, it’s part of the economy and it’s the competitive quest for dominance. That need for dominance is what spurs growth in the economy, its purpose is self-rewarding. That’s capitalism and we are close to its end, the question is whether we stick with that rat-race and die, or abandon the rat-race and survive?
Nevertheless, the leading and the most difficult obstacle for our survival arises from the very selective knowledge, which the educational institutions and media has given us about our social and natural history. The information we receive is largely to fulfil the needs of a growth economy and maintain or attain a competitive advantage for nation in a global economy. The outcome of that competition is that ‘the 1%’ now controls the economy, that’s now their economy. Nevertheless the lives of the 1% are as vulnerable as everyone else this century if they don’t see and act on the fret they and we face very soon. The longer we continue the ideology of competitiveness the less will be left for the future and less chance people have to survive global warming. But without competition there’s no “élan-vital” for capitalism.
Survival for those belonging to wealthiest families may be the only thing of concern that might be a fraction more important than their wealth and their dynasty. To keep on course means the end of their wealth and dynasty and their lives. To choose life it means the gradual end of the dynasty and the wealth they robed from their fellows and future generations. We will all go together to live or die. That is the message we must give the 1% and we must help them to survive so that we can survive to live a better life.
We don’t need to convince every one of those wealthy people, all we need to do is start a conversation on their vulnerability and what to do. They have such wealth because that’s their concern, to create or maintain an empire. So when islanders and Bangladeshis drown, it just bad luck for them. We must see those 1% as people that are doing what is mainly working the system, they may have no feeling for anyone, but that’s not their fault. It’s the system that’s our foe. A good system must be able to accommodate everyone fairly. Psychopaths can be useful people or a parasite depending in the main what sort of relationships the society has. If we attack the1% because they are directing the economy in a way that will make our planet unliveable for the poorer ones, they have ignored that and see the danger to be a fret to their wealth. Their wealth is more important than other people, but their life may be more important than wealth.
Lionel Anet is a member of Sydney U3A University of the Third Age, of 20 years standing and now a life member
Comments are moderated