John B. Cobb, Jr.
Founder/Co-director
Center for Process Studies
Website: http://www.ctr4process.org
Professor emeritus
Claremont Graduate University I
*This is the text of Prof. Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr.'s lecture at The
X. IPO which was held at The United Nations University in Tokyo,
May 13-15, 2002-TN.
There is a tension between
short-term goals and long-term goals. This tension is felt particularly
by youth. There is great pressure toward gaining the approval of
those of one's own age, and this often means acting in ways that
will not support future success. Parents and teachers, on the other
hand, emphasize the importance of considering the long-term future.
Most of you, who have come here, have found a way to balance these
and are concerned about the future. You also have concern not only
for your personal future success but also for the future of humanity
and, indeed, the whole world. People like you are the hope of the
world.
The same tension, in
other ways, affects our adult leaders in many fields. They may be
aware of what is needed for the long-term, but they are under great
pressure to deal with immediate issues. For example, in our highly
competitive global economy, CEOs are expected to take those actions
that will increase the value of the corporation's stock. They may
know that in the long run other policies would be better for the
corporation, for example, spending more money on research and development,
or developing worker loyalty by maintaining their employment through
thick and thin. But showing a larger profit in the immediate future
is what those who hold their stock demand. Also, they themselves
profit most from these short-term gains. Since most CEOs move on
after a few years, the strength of the corporation ten or twenty
years in the future is not likely to be their primary goal.
An extreme case of this
focus on short-term gains in the value of stock on the New York
Stock exchange is Enron. This corporation adopted policies that
persuaded investors that it was very profitable. No doubt they went
much further than most corporations in outright deceit, but they
represent only an extreme case of widespread corporate policies.
The officers of the company sold out while they were able to persuade
others that the corporation was still growing and increasing its
profits. Apart from the current threat of legal suits against them,
their policies paid off well. Obviously, in the long-term - not
a very long long-term - they destroyed the corporation.
There have been exceptions
to this focus on the price of the stock in the short term. In both
Germany and Japan after World War II, governments and corporations
worked together for the recovery of their national economies with
much longer time-horizons. They became great success stories. I
personally regret that these models are not now promoted for developing
countries. Now these long-term oriented policies are losing out
even in Germany and Japan.
National leaders face
similar tensions. They have an obvious and proper interest in maintaining
power. That requires adjustment to immediate pressures. They may
know that in the long run what they do to satisfy these pressures
will be harmful to the nation, but to act on this knowledge would
lead to loss of office.
Consider a particularly
difficult, almost insoluble, problem, that of Israel-Palestine.
No Israeli leader can retain power without responding strongly to
the Palestinian threats to the personal security of Israeli citizens.
Israelis are, like the rest of us, extremely concerned about the
personal security of their families and friends, and no expectation
of their government is stronger than securing this. Also, when security
is violently threatened, a government is expected to respond violently,
just as the United States responded to the attack on New York and
Washington. Those who attack us are felt to be villains, and our
violent response is felt to be morally justified. No leader could
survive whose response was perceived to be too moderate.
On the other side, the
Palestinians understand themselves to be the victim of an alien
conquest. They cannot resist the conqueror on the field of battle.
Their only weapon is what we now call "terrorism". The
more violent the Israeli response, the more hatred is engendered
against their oppression. No Palestinian leader could survive who
ceased to resist in whatever way is possible. The cycle is a vicious
one.
Of course, there are
Israelis and Palestinians who know that this cycle is a vicious
one, destructive of both peoples and leading nowhere. They know
that there are long-term solutions that will be better for both
peoples. These solutions cannot please either party. Both must yield
on major points. There is a question whether a leader of either
side who made the necessary concessions could retain leadership.
But for the sake of both peoples we must hope that, somehow, concern
for long-term well being will triumph over the short-term pressures.
The issue of long-term
versus short-term is basically the question of sustainability. A
youth who continues to take drugs so as to become addicted is behaving
in an unsustainable way. A corporation that for immediate profit
takes actions that will weaken it in the future is behaving in an
unsustainable way. Political leaders who respond to immediate pressures
in ways that damage the long-term future possibilities for their
people are acting in an unsustainable way.
II
However, the term "sustainability"
is used especially in reference to how human actions affect the
health of the natural environment. The primary meaning, in contemporary
discourse, is ecological sustainability. This is because the degradation
of our environment is the most comprehensive form of unsustainable
human activity.
Here, too, there is
a great gap between what many leaders know is needed and what they
can do. Consider the case of Albert Gore, the unsuccessful Democratic
candidate for president. A few years ago he published an excellent
book on the topic of sustainability. He made wise proposals about
steps the United States could take to become a less unsustainable
society. Everyone who has investigated the matter knows that our
present use of petroleum is unsustainable. Slowing this use would
slow global warming and give us more time to make the inevitable
transition to a society not based on petroleum. In a market economy
like the United States, the best way to reduce the use of petroleum
is to tax it heavily. Other industrial countries do so. Gore proposed
that we follow suit. Clinton was willing to take a small step in
this direction.
But Gore discovered
that Americans are addicted to cheap gas. Some who depend on their
cars for their livelihood may be seriously hurt by high taxes. Most
could afford to pay more, but just do not want to do so. Also the
oil companies, for reasons I have explained, are more concerned
to sell more gas now, than to support policies that would prolong
the life of the petroleum-based society. The oil companies are extremely
powerful politically in the United States. The result has been that
we continue to have cheap gas and to use it at drastically unsustainable
rates. In his campaign for the presidency, Gore downplayed his environmental
interests. Through the election of Bush and Cheney, the oil companies
virtually took over the administration of the country pressing for
policies that are in no way sustainable. As a citizen of the United
States of America, I regret to report that our administration no
longer makes any serious pretense that it is interested in policies
geared to slowing the degradation of the environment.
This victory of short-term
thinking over the concern for sustainability is, I trust, temporary.
There are many in the United States who do not support it. I hope
that our voice will be heard again. Meanwhile, we can think more
clearly about what is required for sustainability.
III
I have put the issue
in terms of that between the desire for immediate satisfaction and
the concern for long-term well being. I believe this is, indeed,
the question before us.
But those who seek immediate gain have on their side a theory that
argues that there is no opposition between these two goals. This
is the free market ideology called neo-liberal economics. In the
United States and in much of the rest of the world this theory is
in the ascendancy. It is the alliance of this theory with corporate,
short-term interests, and the desire of many citizens to make no
sacrifices that undergird the current unsustainable global system.
The commitment of corporations
to short-term profits and of ordinary people to get ahead economically
are facts of life with which those of us concerned with the sustainability
of human society must contend. This is largely a moral issue, but
not entirely so. Many are convinced by neo-liberal economic theory
that the pursuit of corporate and individual profit also benefits
the whole community. If the weakness of this ideology became apparent,
moral concerns about the future would have some effect on individual
behavior and even on that of corporations. Hence the reigning ideology
is the most important point of engagement.
That beliefs can affect
actions even on the part of persons of great wealth and power has
recently been suggested by the change of climate in the annual meetings
of world economic leaders that have been held in Davos, Switzerland,
until this year, when the group met in New York
For many years these
meetings simply celebrated the growth of the global economy. Recently,
they have been open to discussion of the weakness and failure of
the global system. Economic globalization has been extremely profitable
for major transnational corporations, and it has also generated
great wealth for some citizens of developing countries. Others in
those countries, generally the middle class, have also benefited.
But globalization was also supposed to benefit the global poor,
and it is now widely acknowledged that it has not done so. This
leads to the admission that some change is needed. There is some
recognition also that the global economy is stressing the Earth's
natural systems.
Unfortunately, at the
same time that many world leaders are recognizing the limitations
of the neo-liberal economic system, the United States government
is even more fully committed to this than in the past. Through the
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas it is forcing on the whole
of Latin America an economic system that gives free reign to corporations
to expand their quest for short-term profits at whatever cost to
the people and resources of these countries. The argument in favor
of this is that it will speed economic growth and thereby benefit
all. The question of whether this argument is valid is crucial for
the sustainability of human society.
I am sure you have understood
that I think this argument is not valid. However, before attacking
it, I would like to explain it, so that we may understand its power.
If the argument lacked convincing power, there would be no need
to give so much attention to it.
IV
In eighteenth century
Europe, for the first time in history, people discovered that it
was possible for the economy to grow continuously. Prior to that
time, technological developments had in fact led to increased production
per person from time to time. But these developments were occasional.
In the eighteenth century Europeans found that production could
increase steadily and indefinitely. This took place because of the
industrial revolution.
There were two main
features of the industrial revolution that made possible this continuous
growth. One was the organization of labor. In industrial production,
each person performs a single repetitive function instead of working
as a craftsman. Second was the use of machinery powered by fossil
fuel.
Making these changes
required investment. The incentive to invest is profit. It turned
out that the desire for profit increased not only the wealth of
the investor but also that of society as a whole. Goods became cheaper,
and what before that only a few rich people could enjoy, came to
be available to most of the people.
The system worked better
as the markets grew larger. Factories produced more goods than could
be consumed locally. In any case, if there were only one manufacturer
of a particular produce, such as shoes, the owner would keep the
price high. Competition was crucial to make the system work for
the common good. Hence the region served must be able to support
several shoe factories. Later, for goods such as automobiles and
elevators, a much larger market was required. It was concluded that
the larger the market the better balance could be achieved between
competition among producers and economies of scale for each one.
This logic leads to a single global market.
It was also found that
any effort on the part of the government to set prices or otherwise
control market operations was an impediment to the efficient functioning
of the market. Of course, government was needed to provide law and
order, to enforce contracts, and to require honesty on the part
of the market actors. Also, where the nature of the business was
such that competition could not be effective, the government should
either operate the needed services or supervise the monopoly that
did so. Until recently this applied almost universally to utilities,
postal services, and roads. But the main point was that, wherever
possible, corporations should be free to act for the sake of maximum
profit. In this way, it was seen, the economy grows fastest and
there are the most goods and services to go around.
Most people like the
idea of the increasing availability of goods and services. But they
have other concerns as well. One of these has to do with the poor.
Observers of the market in the eighteenth century saw that the lot
of the poor was very bad. They were paid barely enough to live on
and for a long time benefited very little from the increased supply
of goods. Meanwhile, they were forced to work longer hours at less
satisfying work under less healthful circumstances than before.
Even young children were put to work in the factories. In the new
global economy much of global production is taking place in similar
circumstances.
Those who celebrate
the market point out that over the generations the lot of factory
workers has greatly improved. In the First world, they now take
for granted much that even the rich did not possess in the eighteenth
century. This is certainly true, and no doubt it could not have
occurred apart from the great increase in production. But it occurred
also because of government laws protecting workers from extreme
exploitation and from the organizing work of the employees themselves.
In the United States, as government control has been relaxed and
labor unions have been weakened, wages have fallen. The market by
itself does not maintain the standards that have been attained.
Thus far, where the global market has been given free reign, wages
have sunk to extremely low levels and working conditions are very
poor. Unfortunately, there is no global government to enforce standards,
and when labor organizes successfully in one place, capital typically
moves to another.
V
It may be the case that
when the economy of the planet becomes sufficiently large, prosperity
will filter down to the poor. We do not know. But when we raise
that kind of hope, we come up against the question of limits. Let's
consider two types of limits. One is social, the other ecological.
A world in which the
rich grow vastly richer while the poor barely subsist may not be
a sustainable one. As long as the poor have real hope that they
will soon share in the new affluence, they may endure their poverty
and work hard for the good of the whole society. But will they accept
continuing, degrading poverty for generations? As the promise of
participation in the new wealth loses credibility, the sustainability
of such a society becomes more and more doubtful.
VI
Second, what about the
limits of the natural environment? The economists whose thought
was shaped by the industrial revolution argue that there are no
limits or, at least, that any limits there may be are so remote
as to be irrelevant. They point out that when one natural resource
is exhausted, technology comes up with ways to use the scarce resources
far more efficiently. It also produces substitutes. Today, for example,
there is concern about the exhaustion of petroleum resources within
a few decades. But already we know that we can accomplish our purposes
with far less energy than we now use and that other means of fueling
cars and heating homes are being developed. Most economists encourage
us not be particularly concerned about shortages. When the scarcity
of petroleum causes its price to rise, the market will respond by
more efficient use and with substitute sources. Hence, the free
market will generate a sustainable economy.
This is where the great
debate about sustainability takes place. It is clear that the optimistic
economists have much evidence on their side. Environmental alarmists
have often been proven wrong. Malthus, for example, believed that
food supply could not keep up with a growing population. In fact
for two hundred years food production has increased faster that
population. As certain minerals have grown scarce and expensive,
plastics have been developed to take their place. More recently,
the ecologist, Paul Ehrlich, wagered the economist, Julian Simon,
that the prices of natural resources would rise. In fact, they dropped.
Nevertheless, those
who observe what is happening to the natural environment are not
persuaded by the economists' arguments. They continue to believe
that we are coming to limits, and that already some limits have
been crossed, locally, and even globally. Continued economic growth
of the sort now taking place only hastens the crossing of these
limits.
VII
Limits are of two kinds.
One kind is the limit of sustainable use. For example, how many
trees can we cut down without reducing the forest resources of the
world? We are already exceeding limits in this respect since global
forests are receding. But that does not create an absolute shortage
of forest products. We can continue to use our forests to supply
our needs for some time before we reach another limit, that is,
the actual shortage of forest products globally. Our present practices
can be sustained until we have exhausted global forests.
Those who think in economic
terms tend to mean sustainability in this latter sense. When forests
and their products become absolutely scarce, then prices of their
products will rise rapidly. Technology will find ways to grow forest
products more rapidly and to use them more efficiently. More use
will be made of wastes from sawmills, and used lumber and used paper
will be recycled to a much greater degree. Many present uses of
forest products will end with substitutes used for buildings. In
short the market will adjust to the scarcity of what is now plentiful.
The unsustainability of the present rate of use of forest products
is not important.
Actually the sustainability
to which many people shaped by economic thinking are committed is
sustainable growth. There is now more recognition than in the past
that shortages and pollution pose an obstacle to the continued growth
of the global economy. Accordingly, more attention is now given
to reducing pollution and slowing down the exhaustion of resources.
VIII
Those who think in ecological
terms view matters quite differently. They want to see us live sustainably
in the first sense. They would like to see us leave to future generations
a world that has resources comparable to those with which it is
now endowed. This cannot be true of nonrenewable resources, where
the goal can only be to use them as frugally and efficiently as
possible. But it is possible in principle with renewable resources
such as forests.
People who think in this
way see forests as having many functions other than supplying the
market with cheap products. They are habitats for many species of
animals, so that biodiversity will be drastically reduced as we
reduce forest cover. They see forests as having a beneficial effect
on weather and agriculture, the value of which can hardly be estimated.
Forests play in important role in preserving our supplies of fresh
water. Forests are also essential to the way of life of many fourth
world peoples. Their recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual values
for human beings are of great importance.
IX
The example of forests
can be used to illustrate another very important point. What we
now call economic growth is becoming increasingly costly. Our present
calculations count as growth all the money expended on cutting down
trees, transporting them, turning them into lumber and paper, and
selling the products. But when we speak of growth of Gross Domestic
Product we do not subtract the negative effects on weather and water
supply or the loss of recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual values.
Indeed, if we spend additional money to counter the effects of changing
weather and loss of water supplies or erosion of agricultural land,
all this expenditure is added to the GDP. In other words, the part
of the cost of growth for which we pay is considered to make us
more prosperous! It should be subtracted if we have any interest
in actual economic improvement. If we subtracted also the losses
about which nothing is done, we would find that the costs of many
of our unsustainable forestry operations are nearly as great as
the benefits! Of course, the benefits accrue to forestry industries
and the costs to the general public.
Economists are more
ready to recognize that the costs of pollution should be included
in their calculations, even though thus far they are not. Thus far,
if industrial pollutants blacken buildings, the cost of cleaning
them is counted as part of growth. If the rising ocean levels caused
by global warming force us to build dikes and relocate people away
from delta regions, that, too will add to what we measure as Gross
Domestic Product. Economists know that that is not right. But the
advice given by leading economists to the United States government
has been to emphasize policies that lead to economic growth so that
we will be in position to pay the costs of global warming as they
arise. Our current administration is clearly following this advice.
It refuses to accept any agreement that would reduce the profits
of the corporations or curtail economic growth.
Those oriented to ecological
concerns, of course, view matters quite differently. Rapid global
warming will have complex effects on plant and animal life that
cannot be predicted in detail. The anticipated increase in frequency
and ferocity of storms cannot simply be valued in terms of physical
damage inflicted. The delta regions, from which people will have
to be moved, are densely populated and many of them are in countries
where alternative habitat is scarce indeed. The loss to the inhabitants
of islands that will be flooded can hardly be valued in dollars.
And the uncertainties are still greater. There is the possibility
of a change in the Gulf Stream that could dramatically alter the
climate of Europe, for example. To argue that we should proceed
with the economic growth that hastens the global warming in order
to pay the costs of response rings completely hollow in ecological
perspective.
Those who advocate sustainability
in the sense of using renewable resources only at the rate at which
they can be reproduced are not necessarily opposed to economic growth.
They are opposed, however, to measuring growth as we now do by Gross
Domestic Product. As noted above, many expenditures in GDP are actually
costs of the present system of economic activity. Some of us have
shown that in recent decades in the United States, when all the
costs of growth are subtracted, there has been little or no real
improvement in the sustainable economic well being of the nation.
To pursue policies that impoverish the Earth without real benefit
to its human inhabitants seems foolish. To export these policies
all over the planet seems immoral.
X
You will understand
by now that I consider the shift from our present, unsustainable,
economy to a sustainable one of the greatest importance. Unfortunately,
it is not clear how that shift is to be achieved. Those of us who
want a sustainable human society rather than sustained economic
growth have much work to do to show how humanity can move in this
direction. If your generation does not make this shift, it may well
be too late.
You do not need to begin
at zero. I commend the many publications of World Watch Institute
to your attention. They identify hopeful trends whenever they can,
but on the whole they are forced to report continuing decline in
the condition of the planet. Again and again they indicate the kind
of policies that could move us in the right direction.
The first step, I believe,
is to stop the expansion of the present system. This system owes
its inception to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the early
1980s. The United States government greatly influences the policies
of the World Bank and in the International Monetary Fund, and together
with these it formulated the Washington Consensus. The main point
was that whereas, prior to this, governments and international organizations
bore the main burden of economic development, from then on the responsibility
would be shifted to the private sector, specifically, to transnational
corporations. In other words, the new policy was to put an end to
national economic development in favor of a global economy. This
was the beginning of the shift from an international economy to
a global one. In general, we may say, the eighties paved the way,
and in the nineties, the goal was achieved.
XI
Let me explain the nature
of a national economy and the changes required to make it into a
part of a global economy. In a national economy, most of the businesses
are owned and operated by citizens. The government protects local
production and services from external competition at least until
they are well established. Money for development is borrowed by
the government chiefly from other governments or from international
organizations like the World Bank. The government may itself own
and operate a good many businesses. It sets minimum wages and working
conditions and is free to protect natural resources from excessive
exploitation. A national economy engages in trade, but the government
can influence what is exported and what is imported. Trade is primarily
designed to acquire what cannot be produced locally.
I have described this
in somewhat ideal terms. In fact, most national economies have been
more or less corrupt. Governments have favored their friends and
punished their enemies. Those in power have deposited much of their
money in banks outside the country as insurance against local problems.
Money borrowed by governments has been spent on unproductive projects.
Nevertheless, many national
economies grew at satisfactory rates during the period from 1950
to 1980 when they were in vogue. In many countries the lot of the
poor improved somewhat. The heavy indebtedness that became a crisis
around 1980 was due, not so much to the failure of the system as
to the rapid increase in the cost of oil and the abrupt rise in
interest rates. Those national economies that were more independent
and self-sufficient suffered less.
The global economy is
based on the mobility of capital. The owners of capital invest where
national policies and situations make such investment most attractive.
This requires that nations open themselves to ownership of their
business and resources by transnational corporations. They also
compete with one another to attract investment by keeping wages
low and workers docile. They do not enforce environmental standards
that might make investments by outsiders less profitable. Typically
they privatize publicly-owned businesses, making them available
for purchase by foreign capital. They abolish tariffs and other
means of controlling what comes into the country and emphasize the
production of whatever can be produced most competitively. They
become increasingly dependent on imports for necessities.
XII
You may wonder what
persuaded most of the nations of the world to abandon their national
economies in favor of becoming part of the one global economy. The
answer is twofold. First, there were the theoretical arguments of
neo-liberal economics. Second, there were the pressures of the Washington
Consensus. These pressures were exercised chiefly by the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The policies of these institutions
changed from supporting national economies to insisting that nations
liberalize and open up their economies.
Specifically, the change
was implemented through Structural Adjustment Policies. Most developing
nations were heavily indebted and unable to pay for the petroleum
they needed to import at the high interest rates brought about by
U.S. policies at the end of the seventies. The World Bank and the
IMF required debtor nations to open up their economies to transnational
corporations as a condition of assisting them to avoid bankruptcy.
These policies were also supported by a series of General Agreements
on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization that grew
out of them.
As it now functions,
this global economy encourages the intensification of socially and
ecologically unsustainable practices. Those who are committed to
sustainability in the strong sense have two choices. We can try
to modify the global economy. We can oppose it altogether.
XIII
The effort to modify
the global economy and the problems with this approach can be illustrated
in the history of the World Bank. Prior to the nineteen seventies
it paid little of no attention to environmental issues and little
to social ones. But this changed dramatically. It began to consider
the environmental effects of the projects it supported. This was
particularly important with respect to large damns, and the Bank
listened more and more to its critics. By 1990 its standards were
quite high, and it pulled out of the more damaging projects it had
once supported or for which it had been asked for help.
However, by 1990 the
policies adopted through the Washington Consensus made the Bank's
high standards largely irrelevant. These policies opened the doors
to the investments of transnational corporations. These corporations
were not inhibited in supporting projects by their environmental
destructiveness. No international organization was in position to
influence their investments.
Those who want to move
toward sustainability within the global economy urge either that
existing organizations be required to accept responsibility in this
regard or that a new global organization be created with some power
of enforcement. The latter is quite difficult to envisage. Currently
the one global organization with effective enforcement power is
the World Trade Organization. Thus far its role has been to overturn
laws designed to protect the environment when these are seen to
be in restraint of trade. But the WTO might be given a new mandate
- or so it is hoped. Skeptics, and I am one, doubt that this will
work. The WTO was created to promote the increase of trade and to
punish nations that undertake to protect themselves against the
ravages of the global market. Its bureaucracy and the whole pattern
of its life are set up with indifference to the consequences to
society or to the environment of the trade it promotes. Even those
in the WTO who recognize that ecological sustainability is important
do not want responsibility for it. Nevertheless, this is an important
direction to explore.
XIV
Those who believe that
the global economy as such should be abandoned are typically ridiculed
as wanting to turn the clock back in impossible ways. It is often
argued that the advance in technology necessitates a global economy.
A global economy is, many argue, a given. Our task is to make it
work.
If the point is only
that no part of the world can exist without relations to other parts
of the world, this is, of course, true. We all live together on
a single planet. Global warming, the loss of forest cover, the decrease
of biodiversity, and many other things affect the entire planet.
The airplane and the internet have brought us close together. Only
catastrophe of unimaginable proportions could reverse these developments.
We live in one world.
But the global economy
is only one way in which economic life can be organized. Many persons
shaped by ecological ideas favor a bottom-up economy rather than
the present top-down variety. The goal would be that people would
be self-sufficient in as many of their needs as possible at a local
level. That means especially that essential food supplies be produced
as near as possible to where people live. Of course, there are many
foods that cannot be produced everywhere. There would be no objection
to Scandinavians importing oranges from Mediterranean nations and
Italians importing herring from the Scandinavians. But Italy could
produce most of what Italians really need to survive, and the same
is true of regions within Italy.
This would reverse the
trend to huge monoculture plantations producing for export. It could
encourage the renewal of family farming where that has drastically
declined. It would make possible the strong encouragement of ecologically
sound farming methods and increasing freedom from petroleum products.
XV
There are two major
objections raised against moving in this direction. First, food
would become more expensive, and second, the variety available would
be reduced. These objections must be considered seriously. If one
supposes that the present direction in the global economy can continue
indefinitely, one may well regard these objections as decisive.
If one believes that present policies are leading us to catastrophe,
then the price paid for the sustainable alternative will seem quite
small.
Consider first the question
of cost. In the United States food in the grocery store is cheap
in terms of dollar costs. But this is because agriculture is heavily
subsidized by the government. What we pay for chiefly is the petroleum
that goes into the production and distribution of food, and the
price of petroleum is kept low. If petroleum were priced in terms
of its total cost in pollution and with its scarcity in view, food
prices would soar. We know that this system cannot continue indefinitely.
Our method of growing food is also exhausting our aquifers and salting
our irrigated lands. These are also unsustainable practices. Finally,
we are using up our topsoil. Our natural resources are still great,
and if we shifted now to sustainable patterns, we could feed ourselves
indefinitely. The longer we wait, the more difficult a transition
will be. Hence, the argument that food would cost more is not convincing.
To make sure that all are fed, we would need to develop policies
for the alleviation of poverty that are not now in place, but that
is another matter.
Consider next the question
of variety. We have become accustomed to getting all kinds of food
in all seasons. When they cannot be grown in the Northern Hemisphere,
they can be imported from the Southern Hemisphere. Depending on
local production would greatly reduce this. We could do more than
we now do with hothouse production, but the point remains that the
luxuries to which we have become accustomed would be reduced. The
issue is only how important this sacrifice is to be considered when
set against the costs of the present system. There may even be some
gains in becoming once again more sensitive to the seasons and the
weather and the specific nature of our local environment.
Of course, food is not
the only commodity that should be produced locally. The same is
true of building materials and clothing. This would change construction
practices in some areas, but with respect to home construction it
would not be of great importance. It is important that new home
construction take into account the use of fossil fuels for heating
and cooling. We now know that homes can be efficiently built in
such a way that passive solar energy alone can meet all their requirements.
The more difficult issues
arise when we consider the steel needed for large-scale construction.
Clearly that cannot be produced in every town! But that does not
mean that we need a global market in order to produce steel efficiently.
Actually, most industrial countries even now protect their own steel
mills against the competition of imports. They recognize the importance
of steel for their national interests. They are willing to pay more
for steel for this purpose. In larger countries such as the United
States, steel production could be more decentralized than it now
is.
Automobiles are another
necessity in our world. They are also a major problem from the perspective
of sustainability. This is not only because of their use of petroleum,
but also their demand for space for roads and parking and the overall
costs of their production and disposition. As we move toward a sustainable
society, we need to envision a world in which private automobiles
are not needed and could become scarce without impoverishing the
quality of life.
This is not difficult.
There are many cities now in which public transportation is so effective
that most people do not use private cars most of the time. New cities
could be even better constructed to reduce the need for public transportation
as well. Paolo Soleri has envisioned three-dimensional cities in
which transportation needs are so reduced that they could all be
operated by passive solar energy.
If automobiles become luxuries, then the question of local production
becomes less important. Obviously it would be very inefficient to
try to produce automobiles in every city. As economists have pointed
out, we need more than one producer in every market to maintain
effective competition. It takes a fairly large population to support
several carmakers. But it does not take a global market. Perhaps
quality would suffer somewhat if competition is reduced by smaller
markets, but the decline would be slight in comparison with the
ecological advantages of increased localism.
I will not pursue the
details of what would be involved in shifting to a bottom-up economy.
It would make possible bringing production under the control of
governments representative of the people. The people could decide
how to balance wages and costs. Are they willing to pay more for
goods so that the workers who produce them can be better paid? Are
they willing to pay more if that will insure clean air and water?
Those concerned for sustainability hope that the answers will be
affirmative.
XVII
Obviously there are
many issues to be worked out in order to envision a bottom-up economy.
How will the various localities, now with more self-determination,
be related to one another? How will they deal with issues that are
global in scope? My own hope is that we may order our world into
a community of communities of communities. The Catholic church has
long taught the principle of subsidiarity. What can be decided locally
should be decided there. But clearly much can be dealt with only
at regional and global levels. We need political structures to deal
with these issues as well. That requires some kind of global government
with enforcement powers. It also requires that these powers be limited
and checked by the powers of regional and local bodies.
Although this may sound
utopian, it is not totally disconnected from patterns of government
that now exist. Some European countries still have strong partly
autonomous regions with them. They are then organized together as
the European Community. Beyond this is the United Nations. Much
work would be required to achieve the ideal balance of power at
these various levels, and the ideal relationships between them.
But even in their present form they point the way for much of the
rest of the world.
XVI
The great problem today
is that the global economy disempowers governments at all levels.
A government that has little influence on the economic life of its
people is very inadequate. However democratic the government may
be, the people cannot use it to deal with many of the issues that
are most crucial to them. Also, the extreme power of the corporations
means that they have undue influence on governments at all levels.
The public grows cynical about politics. In the United States, most
people do not bother to vote. Democracy and citizenship in general
is seriously eroded.
A sustainable society
will have to reverse this tendency toward alienation from the political
processes. It will need to create institutions that can draw forth
the highest ideals of its people, their commitment to the common
good. It will need also to help people understand the importance
of developing sustainable practices even while the continuation
of unsustainable ones is possible and convenient.
My generation has envisioned
the sustainable society but has failed to implement it. On the contrary,
we leave to you a world that is madly heading for catastrophe. Your
generation may well be the last that has the possibility of averting
such catastrophe. The need for change will become yearly more apparent.
That fact is both frightening and hopeful. Perhaps it will open
masses of people to the urgency of change. May you succeed in implementing
the needed changes where we have failed!
Prepared for International
Philosophy Olympiad Conference in Tokyo, May 13-15, 2002. |