Ecosocialism: The
Post-Marxist Svnthesis
|
Robyn Eckersley
Introduction
The late Raymond Williams once described the
ecology movement as "the strongest organized hesitation before socialism. Ecosocialism--a
position Williams himself defended in his later wntings--represents a concerted
attempt to revise and reformulate the democratic socialist cast in the light of
the ecological challenge. Ecosocialists have also used this opportunity for
thee retical stock-taking to respond to other significant challenges before
social- ism--challenges that form part of, but are not unique : the ecological
cri- tique in an effort to address the concerns of new social movements and
recapture the "high ground" of emancipatory discourse. As Frieder
Otto Wolf has put it, "a socialism without qualiticarion will never again
be able to become a hegemonic force within emancipatory mass movements.
The three most significant challenges before
socialism that ecosocialists have sought to address are (i) the histoncal
legacies of bureaucratization, cen- tralization, and authontananism: (ii) the
problematic role of the woriting class as the agent of revolutionary change:
and (iii) disillusionment with the tradition- al "productivist" and
growth oriented socialist response to the indignities of poverty, which has
usually been to augment the economic power of the State. seek a better mastery
of nature through modem scientific techniques, and step up production. Ecosocialists
have sought to respond to these histoncai legacies by reasserting the pnnciples
of democratic self-management and production for human need. According to
Wiliiams, "this is now our crisis: that we have to find ways of
self-managing nor Just a single enterprise or community but a society.
The ecosocialist theory presented in this
chapter represents the most influ- ential Family of socialist thought in Green
circles. It has emerged from a critical dialogue between Mar.uist orthodoxy,
various currents of Western Marxism and Western social democracy, on the one
hand, and the radical environmental movement, on the other hand. The resulting
body of theory may be described as largely post-;vlarxist insofar as it is
highly critical of orthodox Marxism land much Western tviarxism) but is not
unri-IMarxist. That is, many theorists within this tradition occasionally draw
on Western. Marxist insights alongside other older traditions and contemporary
strands of socialist thought, including utopian socialism, the self-management
ideas of the New Left, and socialist feminism. While ecosocialisn also share
the anti-capiralist and self-management onentauon of ecoanarchists. they
generally argue (contra ecoanarchists) that the State must play a key role in
facilitating the shift toward a more egalitarian, conserver society.
The growing influence of ecosocialist ideas
within the Green movement (most notably in Europe and Australia rather than in
North America) has ren- dered the popular Green slogan "neither left nor
right" somewhat problematic. While this slogan originally served to
publicize the Green movement's efforts to find a distinct, third alternative to
the growth consensus of capitalism and communism, it has since served to
generate a lively and sometimes acrimo- nious debate within the Green movement
concerning the proper political char- acterization of Green politics. Esosocialisrs
argue that "elements of the Left are the natural allies of the
Greens" and that only a new ecosocialism can provide a feasible, third
alternative to existing capitalism and communism. In particular, rcosociaiists
have mounted a challenge to the presumed left-right ideological neutrality of
Green politics by pointing out the various egalitanan and redistri- butional
(and hence "leftist") measures that are needed to ensure an equitable
transition toward a conserver society. Indeed, many such measures--such as the
redistribution of resources irom developed to developing countries, the sharing
of work, and the implementation of a guaranteed minimum income scheme--are
already included in many Green party platforms." With respect to these
kinds of issues, Green political aspirations can indeed be fairly described as
"more left than right."
However, as we saw in pan 1. to approach Green
politics only through the pnsm of the conventional left/right ideological
cleavage is to miss the most dis- tinctive critical edge of Green thought, namely,
the critique of the comucopian and anthropocentric assumptions of modern
political thought. Ecosocialism, as we shall see, has chailenged the former but
has made no substantive inroads Into the latter. This notwithstanding, the
possibility of some theoreucai bridge building between ecosocialism and
ecocentrism remains open at the level of both ecophilosophical orientation and
socioeconomic critique. This does not. however, necessarily extend to the
ecosocialist prescription for change. In par- ticular, there are many Green
theorists who accept the ecosocialist cntique of capitalism but who do not
accept that this cntique necessarily requires the cur- tailment of the market
economy to the degree envisaged by many ecosocialists.
The Ecosocialist Critique
There are many points of convergence between
the democratic socialist cn- tique of pnvate and state capitalism and the
radical ecology movement's cri- rique of industrialism that point toward the
possibility of 3. theoretical synthe- sis of socialism and ecology.' Indeed, it
is this convergence that has prompt- ed the development of ecosocialist theory.
Ecosocialist argue that it is the competitive and expansionary dynamics of the
capitalist system that is large- Ly responsible for the ecology crisis. However,
they are critical of nonsocial- ist Greens for neglecting class politics and
failing to develop "an analysis of power" in their''new ecological
paradigm." Ecosocialists consider that such an analysis is essential if a
fundamental opposition to the present means of production, distribution, and
exchange is to be mounted. For example, Joe Weston has argued that it is the
accumulation of wealth and its concentration into fewer and fewer hands that is
the main cause of both poverty (rnd eco- logical degradation.' He goes on to
insist that';it is rime that greens accepted that it is capitalism rather than
industrialism per se which is at the heart of the problems they address"
(Weston, like most ecosocialisrs, regards Soviet Russia as having practiced
"state capitalism' rather than socialism). Simi- larly. David Pepper is
critical of what he calis ''new paradigm" Greens for focusing on
ecologically degrading methods of production rather than on who owns and shapes
such methods and the sociai relations that stem from them. Indeed, most
ecosocialists regard the ecology crisis as but one, albeit increasingly
significant, item in a much broader agenda. As Gorz puts it:"the
ecological movement not an end in itself, butt a largerstage in the larger
struggle [i.e., to overcome capitalism].
It is undoubtedly the cast that the
expansionary dynamics of capital accumulation have led to widespread ecological
degradation and social hard- ship. One of the most basic reasons for this is
that the profit motive demands that firms "grow or die." This
imperative for continual economic growth does not respect physical limits to
growth or ecological carrying capacity. The upshot is that there are many
situations in which market rationality gives rise to "negative
externaiities such as resource depletion and pollution. which are the
unintended and unwanted side-effects of capital accumulation. These
rxternaiitizs are usually Some by those who do nor produce or ion- sume the
goods or services in question. However, there are some situations, such as the
exploitation of common property or ''free environmental goods," where
market rationality creates outcomes that are worse for ail agents. This is
illustrated in game theory by the Prisoners' Dilemma and by Garrett Hardin's
oft-quoted parable of the ''tragedy of the commons.
Capitalism also generates uneven development
both within and between nations. Capital is now highly mobile, and investment
is governed by absolute profitability rather than national affiliation or a
concern to devel- op mutually advantageous trading arrangements. This
increasing internation- al mobility of capital has led to serious trade
imbalances and external indebt- edness on the pan of Third World nations, which
has generated widespread ecological degradation and poverty.
Finally, market nuonaiity gives pnority to
short-term Interests over long term Interests through the practice of
"discounting the future." This effec tively creates a structural bias
against future generations. Indeed. the goal of profit maximization encourages
the liquidation or depletion of both renew- able and nonrenewable resources and
the movement of the capital thereby gained into new ventures rather than the
sustainable or prudent harvest of resources over rime.
Ecosocilaists argue that the logic of capital
accumulation is fundamen- tally Incompatible with ecological sustainability and
socialjustice. Accord- ingly, they argue that capitalism must be largely
replaced with a nonmarket ailocative system that ensures ecologically benign
production for genuine human need. The real challenoe racing ecosociaiists,
however, is how to develop new, democratic, and noncentralist social
institutions that are able to give expression to ecosocialisr values such as
reif-management, producer democracy, and the protection of civil and political
libenies. These issues will be explored later in this chapter. For the moment,
it will be helpful to to draw together the lessons ecosocialists have learned
from the failures of existing communist regimes and the revisions they have
made to socialist theory in the light of the ecological challenge.
Farewell to Scientific Socialism und the
Economic Growth Consensus
Ecosocialists accept that there are both
ecolo,oicai and social limits to growth and accordingly they reject the
economic growth consensus of conservative, liberal, social democratic/labor,
and communist parties. According to Wiiliams. the central ecoloeical problem
created by market capitalism and the economies of existing communist regimes is
that there is "an effective infinity of expansion in a physically finite
worid. In addition to their rgec- tion oi the indiscriminate commitment to mass
manufacture and increased consumptton. Ecosocialists also share the early
Frankfurt School's rejection of "scientiric socialism" as being
unduly optimistic in believing in the uniim- ited power of scientifte
understanding, technical control, and the mastery of nature. in this respect.
scosociaiists wish to avoid replacing the compulsion of the market with
bureaucratic domination on the ground that both capitalist and communist
economies dominate both people and nonhuman nature. They are generally critical
of large-scale insdtutions and alienating, "inap propriate," or
destructive technolooies and advocate what Ryle has called
:eco-contraction" or ecological restructuring (in Ryle's case. this
entails. inter aiia, the gradual dismantling of majorecologicaily destructive indus-
tries such as the automobile, chemical, and defence industries).
Unlike orthodox eco-Marxists, c.cosocialists
question both the capitalist relations of production ond the capitalist forces
of production. In particular, they argue that the orthodox Marxist prophecy
that conventional socialist strategy had counted on--that the intensification
of the contradictions between the capitalist forces and relations of production
will finally be resolved by the industrial proletariat taking over the forces of
production-- will not end the ecological cnsis or human alienation. This is
because the expanded forces of production are ecologically degrading and, in
any event, do not ]end themselves to collective appropriation insofar as
"there can never be effective self-management of a big factory, an
industrial combine or a bureaucratic department. It will always be defeated by
the rigidity of techni- cal constraints." In short, ecosocialists maintain
that the mere appropriation of the capitalist forces of production would result
in a new ruling class taking over the machinery of domination.
In accepting the early Frankfurt School's
critique of instrumental reason, ecosocialism reveals, in varying degrees, a
pariial return to a pre Marxist/romantic cntique of industrialization. Whereas
human interactions with the natural world under Marxism were always as
Producer, Williams declares that under ecosocialism our interventions must now
proceed
from a broader sense of human need and a closer
sense of the physi- cal world. The old orientation of raw material for
production is rejected, and in its place there is the new orientation of
livelihood of practical, self-managing, self-renewing societies, in which
people care first for each other, in a living world.
This kind of general reorientation away from
instrumental reason is funda- mental according to Wiliiams,"for it is the
ways in which human beings have been seen as raw material. for schemes of
profit or power, that have most radically to be changed."
The Problematic Role of the Working Class
Ecosociailst theorists recognize that the
industrial working class has not only shrunk In size relative to other classes
but has also become increasingly con servative by virtue of its economic
dependency on the capitalist order. Indeed, most ecosocialists accept that the
working class--whatever its histo- ry-is no longer the central agent of
progressive social, cultural, and political change, and they concede that such
change is more likely to emanate from a broad front of allied new social
movements that operate outside the tradition- al labor movement and that are
not easily defined by their class location. Andre Gorz, in parricular, has
argued that the industrial proletariat cannot become the revolutionary force
heralded by Marx since it has turned into a mere replica of capital, exercising
funcrional but not personal power. Indeed, in Farewell ro the Working Class,
Gorz anticipates that the traditional, skilled proletariat will become more
disciplined. conservative. and privileged over time as increased automation
reduces the number of working-class jobs As a result there will be a swelling
in the ranks of what Gorz has called the ''nonclass" or''post-indusuial
neo-proletariat," a "class" that encompasses all those who have
been expelled From manual and intellectual work as a result of automation and
computerization as well as those who are marginally employed and who have no
real class identity o rjob security. Gorz extends this line of argument in
Paths to Parodise where he maintains that increasing automation and the
microelecnonic revolution are reducing the quantity of labor required for most
material production and breaking down the direct contact between worker and
matter. Full employment has become an unreal- izable goal, yet Gorz argues that
it is continually pursued as an ideological tool to''maintain the relations of
domination based on the work ethic."' This leads inevitably to an
increasing split in the active population between on the one hand. acting as a
repository of industrialism's traditional values, an elite of permanent secure,
full-time workers. attached to their work and their social status; on the
other, A mass of unem- ployed and precarious casual workers, without
qualifications or sta- tus, performing menial tasks."
This latter "nonclass" occupies a
pivotal place in Gorz's analysis in that ir is seen as the prefiguration of a
different kind of convivial community-- beyond economic rationality and
-external constraint--that constitutes a ppotentially emancipatory extension of
an already developing process. Indeed, Gorr's ultimate prqiect is to sboiish
wage labor on the ground that there is no dignity to be had in the modern wage
labor relationship. instead be argues that true dignity and self-determination
can only be found in autonomous spheres of production (i.e.. in the
neighborhood rather than in the factory).
However, unlike Gorz, most ecosociaiists see
the potential for social change emanating from a much broader alliance of new
social movements working rogether with the iubor movement. While ecosocialists
concede that the labor movement's "productivist ideology" has
traditionally not rec- ognized the experiences of other disadvantaged groups
and classes e.g.. wei- ;are recipients. women. and ethnic minorities) or
environmental problems beyond the workplace, they nonetheless insist that
effective and lasting change will not come about without the support of the
union movement, indeed, the majority of ordinary `'working people.`' In short.
ecosociaiists point out that although environmental problems go beyond class
issues, they still contain a class dimension, which cannot be g]ossed over.
However, building such an alliance between the
New Middle Class radi- cals that support new social movements. on the one hand,
and the working class, on the other hand, is no easy task. As Williams
observes. the predomi- nantly middle-class membership of new social movements
must confront the fact that the ''effective majority" will remain
committed to the dominant sys- tem so ion as they have no pracricai
alternative. Williams (unlike some ecosocialists), however, dismisses as absurd
the claim that new social move- ments are elitist or that their claims are in
contlicr with the interests of the working class. The reason why the demands of
the New Middle Class differ from those of the working class is primarily a
matter of different social expe- rience and different access to information. As
Williams explains,
the fact that many of the most important
elements of the new move- ments and campaigns are radically dependent on access
to indepen- dent information, typically though not exclusively through higher
education, [means] that some of the most decisive facts cannot be generated
from immediate experience but only from conscious analysis." In this respect, Williams rightly
points out that unless the Green movement can generate ''serious and detailed
alternatives at these everyday points where a central consciousness is
,generated ( i.e., the local, practical, and immediate interactions of the
"effective majority" of working people), then the issues raised by
the Green movement will remain marginalized. Williams argues that an important
task for ecosocialism, then, is a "critical engagement" with the
labor movement in order to prepare the way for a broad Green/labor alliance
that wiil represent the "general interest" as distinct from the
interests of a particular class. Ecosocialists divide, however, on the question
as to whether to pursue this critical engagement through the established social
democratic and labor parties, through the fledgling Green parties and the Green
movement, or through a new grassroots rainbow movement.
As part of the move to widen the narrow,
"productivist" focus of the tra- ditional labor movement, ecosocialists
have also sought to expand the tradi- tionai democratic socialist preoccupation
with class and producer democracy to include cultural renewal and the
revitalization of civil society. This entails the promotion of new attitudes to
work caidzd by job-sharing and a reduction in the length of the working :veek),
health. lifestyle. and szuualitv. However. unlike many rcoanarshists and
ecofeminists, most ecosocialists generally avoid any discussion of the need to
develop a ''new ecological paradigm" (ecocenrric or otherwise), much less
new forms of Western spintuality, and tend to adopt instead a secular approach
that emphasizes the cultivation of public virtue or good citizenship rather
than "inner awakening."
The New Internationalism
In responding to the ecology crisis.
ecosocialists have sought to explore a broader range of contradictions than
those based simply on class. For exam- pie, most share Rudolf Bahros analysis
that the "external" contradiction between humanity and the rest of
nature and between "North" and "South" have become more
pressing than the "internal" contradictions between capi- tal and
labor within the developed countries of the First World. The resolu- tion of
these contradictions is seen to require a "new internationalism" that
accepts that we cannot use the standard of living attained by the average
family in the First World as a model to be pursued for all of humanity since
this would put an intolerable ecological strain on the planet. Ecosocialists
therefore argue that the transition reward a conserver society must begin in
the "affluent society." According to Williams, the deepest changes
must come from the First World not only in the form of conservation and the
pro- duction of more durable commodities "but also in their deep
assumption that the rest of the world is an effectively vacant lot from which
they expact raw materials." Accordingly, ecosocialists argue for the
redistribution of wealth not only within nations but also internationally
between the developed and developing countries in order that all peoples of the
world may pursue a lifestyle that is within the Earth's carrying capacity. A
cornerstone of this "new internationalism" is a redefinition of human
needs that is global in scope. According to Ryle, ultimately, human needs have
to be defined at a level that enables both present and future generations of
humans to enjoy an equivalent measure of health and autonomy. Ryle suggests
that a priority in this exercise should be the establishment of an agreed set
of basic needs (i.e., education, health care, energy, basic infrasrructural
requirements such as sewage and water supply, housing, and transport), so that
steps can then be taken to ensure that everyone has these basic needs met in
both rich and poor countries. LTnlike democratic socialists, however,
ecosocialists address social and economic deprivation by means other than
expanding production. That is, they seek to meet human needs in ecologically
benign and sustain- able ways in order to bring overall resource consumption
down to a level that is compatible with global justice and ecological
integrity. This, of course, is a much more challenging task than simply
stepping up production and pro- viding more commodities and social welfare
services.
Ecosocialists argue that Third World solidarity
can be achieved by pro- moting greater self-reliance in both the North and
South. This strategy requires panially delinking the economies of the North and
South bv reduc- ing the volume of international trade. disarming, and increasing
aid to devel- oping countries. However, as Frankel and Ryle note, ecosocialists
must also encourage international cooperation to ensure control of
transnational corpo- rations and financial institutions, which will require
parallel and reciprocal moves by other nations if it is to be effective."
The major thematic innovations of
ecosocialism--the rejection of the economic growth consensus, the emphasis on
ecologically benign production for human need. the attempt to widen the
productivist outlook of the labor movement and encourage a critical dialogue
between the labor movement and new social movements. and the new
internationalism-together repre- sent a major overhaul of socialist thought. Moreover,
these theoretical revi- sions place ecosocialism squarely within the spectrum
of Green or emancipa- tory political thought.
However, as we shall see, ecosocialism has
self-consciously declined to step across the anthropocentric divide and embrace
an ecocenuic perspec- tive. Instead. most ecosocialists have rejected the need
for a "new ecological paradigm" and have argued that socialist
thought provides a sufficient repos- itory of values for ecological and social
reconstruction.
THE Meaning AND LESSON OF ECOLOGY ACCORDING TO
ECOSOCIAUSM
The heart of the philosophical difference
between ecocentrism and ecosocial- ism concerns the meaning and relevance of
ecology to emancipatory theory. Ecosocialists regard the demands of the
environmental movement for a safe and healthy environment as but a subset of the
modern radical project. In particular, we have seen that many ecosocialists
regard the radical environ- mental movement (by this they mostly have in mind
what I have character- ized as the human welfare ecology stream) as part of a
larger struggle to overcome capitalism. The radical environmental movement is
seen to be part of that larger struggle because it highlights the
incompatibility of market rationality with ecological limits by revealing the
many ways in which the economic "externalities" of private capital
have seriously compro- mised human welfare. health. and survival."
What is at stake, and what is now attainable,
according to ecosocialism, is the full realization of human autonomy within a
safe and healthy physical environment and a democratic and cooperative social
environment. Signifi- cantly, most ecosocialists reject the idea that ecology
can effect a fundamen- tal paradigm shift in political theory along the lines
suggested by many Green theorists. Ecosocialists argue that the preoccupation
with ecological principles leads to an excessive preoccupation with
"nature protection" and deflects attentions away from the social
origins of environmental degrada- tion. What must be grasped, they argue, is
that the "environment" is an essentially izuman context that is
.rociully determined rather than something before which we must humbly
''submit." More generally, ecosocialists argue that if we wish to retain a
commitment to the modem political ideals of justice, equality, and liberty,
then we must look to the lessons of human his- tory las interpreted by the
various tributaries of socialist thought) rather than natural history. Indeed,
Gorz has gone so far as to declare that it is "impossi- ble to derive an
ethic from ecology.
In support of the argument that ecological
principles cannot provide the basis for a new politics, ecosocialist theorists
frequently point out that it is possible to have a society that respects
ecological limits but is undemocratic and authoritarian. As we have seen.
ecosocialists reject the claimed "new- ness" of the Green movement
and the idea that it has transcended old politi- cal rivalries and instead
point out the continuities between Green politics and many strands of
socialism." The only "newness" of the Green movement is seen to
reside in its recognition of "ecological limits"--something that
ecosocialists agree cannot be iSnored.u "The point," argues Gorz, Is
not to deify nature or to 'go back' to It, but to take account of a simple
fact, human activity finds in the natural world its external limits.
Yet the ecosocialist argument that it is
impossible to "derive" an ethic from ecology is misleading and
creates an overdrawn opposition: that eco- centrism represents a naive form of
authoritarian ecological determinism, while ecosocialism recognizes the active
presence of humankind In con- structing and shaping the environment. The
environmental ethics of ecoso- cialism and ecocentnsm are both informed by
ecological insights. but the environmental ethic of ecosocialism Is simply a
different and more limited kind of environmental ethic than that of
ecocentrism. That is. the ecosocialist ethic is a prudential ethic that largely
represents an amalgamation of the resource conservation and human welfare
ecology perspectives explored, both of which are informed by the life sciences
such as ecology but which ultimately rest on anthropocentric norms of human
autonomy, health, and welfare. Ecocenrrism is also informed by the life
sciences, but it, too, finds its ultimate justification in a normative rather
than scientific frame- work. (As we saw , to appeal to nature as known by the
science of ecology rather than to ethics as the ultimate arbiter of a Green
political theory is misguided and does not in itself amount to a justification
for a par- ticular political posture.) This ecocentric normative framework
subsumes the human-centred ecosocialists' norms ot autonomy, health, and
welfare in a broader ecological framework that seeks the mutual flourishing of
all life- forms. Such a perspective does not seek to downerade human creativity
nor deny the extent to which humans influence ecological and evolutionary pro-
cesses. Rather, it asks that we employ our creativity to develop technologies
and lifestyles that allow for the continuation of a rich and diverse human and
nonhuman world. Ecosociaiism. in contrast, may be seen as merelv fusing human
welfare ecology with democratic socialism, but transcending neither.
To return to the ecosocialist critique, if the
only "lesson" provided by ecology is one of physical limits to
growth, then it is indeed possible to have a range of different political
regimes--including authoritarian and fascist ones--that observe such limits. Roben
Heilbroner's iln Inyuiry into the Human Prospect which is essentially concerned
with human survival, is a clear case in point. Of course, an authoritarian
regime might be success- ful--at least in the short term--in ensuring human
survival (or, more likely, the survival of certain privileged classes of
humans) and quite possibly the (indirect) survival of many nonhuman life-forms.
However. it would achieve this by severely resrricting opportunities for
democratic participation and self-determination-a route that is Incompatible
with the general ecocentric norm of mutual unfolding of horh the human and
nonhuman worlds. For ecosocialists to reject ecocentnsm on the ground that it
does not rule out fas- cism Is to miss die inclurive nature of the ecocentric
norm of "emancipation writ large."
The ecosocialist rejection of the idea of a
"paradigm shift" in Green political theory is generally correct
insofar as it applies to inter-human srmg- gles. When viewed from the
perspective of the traditional political spectrum. ecocennism is, and must
continue to be, genenlly ''more left than right" in contending with old
political rivalries based on differentials in wealth, power, and social
privilege. However, ecocentric theory is most certainly new in the way it seeks
to reorient humanity's relationship to the rest of nature. In this respect, it
represents a new consteilation of ideas that chal- lenges the anthropocentric
assumptions of post-Enlightenment political thouohr and rnllr f,, , more
radical reassessment of human needs, technolo- oies, and lifestyles than
ecosocialism.
To be sure, we have seen that ecosocialism has
itself travelled some dis- tance down this new path insofar as it has
acknowledged the many ways in which capitalism objectifies and commodifies both
people and nonhuman nature.Js However, the ecosocialist critique of
instrumental reason, like that of the Frankfurt School, ultimately comes to
rest on the human-centered argu- ment that it is wrong to dominate nature.
because it gives rise to the domina- rion of people. For example. Gorz, in
noting ihat the disregard of ecological limits will often set off an unwelcome
ecological backlash, argues that
it is better to leave nature to work itself out
than to seek to correct it at the cost of a growing submission of individuals
to institutions, to the domination of others. For the ecologist's objection to
system engineering is not that it violates nature (which is not sacred), but
that it substitutes new forms of domination for existing natural pro- cesses.
Of course, this ecosocialist concern for human
autonomv is laudable in and of itself. From an ecocentric perspective, however,
it means that the case for the recognition and protection of nonhuman species
Is activated only when it can be shown to facilitate human emancipation. As
Rodman has observed, Gorz has an intuition that we should "let nature
be" not because it Is sacred or has its own relative autonomy but because
its makes us freer. While such an argument has a place within ecocentric theory
(indeed, it serves to bolster ecocentric theory in that it shows that the
flourishing of human and nonhuman life need not be a zero-sum game), it
provides no defence for threatened nonhuman species in those cases where there
is no appreciable link with human domination and where such species appear to
provide no present or potential use or interest to humankind. Moreover, as we
saw In our critique of the human welfare ecology perspective such an argument
also serves to reinforce anthropocentric attitudes. As John Livingston has
aptly put it, at best, wildlife might "emerge as a second- generation
beneficiary" from human welfare ecology reiorms.s' in this respect. Raymond
Williams's views on wildlife preservation are telling.
we are not going to be the people...who simply
say "keep this piece clear, keep this threatened species alive. at ail
costs." The case of a threatened species is a good general illustration. You
can have a kind of animal which is damaging to local cultivation, and then you
have the son of problem that occurs again and again in environmen- tal ossies. You
will get the eminences of the world flying in and saying: "you must save
this beautiful wild creature." That it may kill the occasional villager,
that it tramples their crops. is unfortu- nate. But it is a beautiful creature
and it must be saved. Such people are the friends of nobody, and to think that
they are allies in the eco- logical movement is an extraordinary delusion.
This, of course, is consistent with my
identification of wilderness or wildlife preservation as one of the `'litmus
tests:' that enables us to distinguish eco- centric from anthropocentric Green
theorists. That is, wherever there is an apparent conflict between human
interests and the interests of nonhuman species (in this case the protection of
wildlife) that appear to be of no use to humankind, ecosocialisrs consisrenrly
dismiss nonhuman interests.
Similarly, to the extent that ecosocialists
have contributed to the human population debate (the other "litmus
test" issue), it is usually by way of a cri- tique of what are seen as the
"neo-Malthusian" arguments of population con- trol advocates such as
Paul Ehrlich--a critique that follows the spirit, if not the letter, of
Marx"s critique of Malthus. According to this argument, the real causes of
resource scarcity. famine, and environmental degradation are not the existence
of too many people or the limited carrying capacity of the Earth but rather
social factors such as the maldistribution of resources and inappropriate
technology, which arise under the capitalist mode of produc- tion. The
ecosocialist solution. then, is not population control but the replacement of
capitalism with a cooperative social order that uses ecologi- cally appropriate
technologies for the satisfaction of human need.
From an ecocennic perspective, the ecosocialist
response goes only pan of the way toward addressing the population problem. First.
it fails to consid- zr the many ways in which growing absolute numbers of
humans can magni- fy environmental degradation and therefore impair the overall
quality of human life. Second, it fails to consider the impact of growing
absolute num- bers of humans on the nonhuman community--a limitation that
arises from the exclusive ecosocialist preoccupation with human welfare. The
environ- mental impact of humans is a function not only of technology and
affluence (i.e. level of consumption), but also absolute numbers of humans. From
an ecocennic perspective, it is not enough simply to wait for the
"demographic transition" (i.e., the lower birth and death rates that
usually follow improved living standards) to achieve a stable and well-fed
human population, because the price of such a transition is funher widespread
ecological degradation and species extinction. To minimize ecological
degradation dunng this tran- sition period. rcocentric theorists argue that it
is necessary to bring about, in oddirion to technological and distributional
reforms and a.lowering of resource consumption, a wide range of humane family
planning measures with a view to stabilizing and then reducing human
population. "Humane family planning measures" include free
conuaceptives and free birth control information and counseiing; affirmative
action to improve the status and social opportunities of women, and ecological
education campaigns that explain, inter alia. the impact of human population
growth on ecosystems and the need to reduce the size of families to one or two
children. The syner- getic effect of introducing ecologically benign
technologies and lowering energy and resource consumption as well as lowering
the birth rate would have a much more dramatic result in terms of lessening
environmental degra- dation and protecting biotic diversity than would the more
limited ecosocial- ist solution.
The foregoing critique of the anthropocentric
premises of ecosocialist thought does not require a rejection of either the
entirely defensible socialist concem to find an allocative system that ensures
production for genuine human need or the more general and equally defensible
concern to seek the mutual self-realization of all humans. Quite the contrary,
both of these con- cerns fail naturally into the orbit of the ecocentric
perspective defended in this inquiry. indeed, there is already a strong
resonance between ecocennic social goals and key ecosocialist goals such as the
new internationalism, democratic participation, and ecologically sustainable
production for human need. Moreover, both ecocentrism and ecosocialism reject
an atomistic model of reality in favor of a reciprocal model of internal
relations (albeit with different ethical horizons and implications). These
resonances open up the possibility of theoretical bridge building between
ecocentrism and ecoso- cialism. That is, many ecosocialist principles and
arguments can be selective- ly incorporated into the broader theoretical
framework of ecocentrism once they are divested ofrheir unrhropocenme
limirarions.
The upshot of such theoretical bridge building
for ecosocialism would be a widening of its field of moral considerability so
that it reaches beyond the human community to include all of the myriad
life-forms in the biotic community. In particular, this would mean a broadening
of the ecosocialist approach to wilderness protection and human population
growth in accor- dance with ecocentric goals. More generally, it would mean a
broadening of the context of political, economic, and technological decision
making so that human interests are pursued, wherever practicable, in ways that
also enable other life-forms to flourish.
The upshot for ecocenuism would be a
strengthening and broadening of its political and economic analysis that would
make it better equipped to determine the kinds of institutional changes and
redistributive measures that would be required to ensure tin equitable
transition toward a sustainable and more cooperative society. It would also
enable ecocentrism to anticipate and address in a more concerted way the various
forms of opposition that are like- ly to be encountered in the attempt to give
practical expression to ecocennic emancipatory goals. In this respect,
ecosocialists are right to argue that capital will not be placed at the service
of emancipatory goals without increasing government intervention in the market
and without a. gradual democratization of the economy. As we shall see in the
following chapter, the ecosocialist dis- cussion of the potential
"enabling role" of the State in facilitating the realiza- tion of
emancipatory goals provides an informative and pragmatic counter- point to the
anti-statism and excessive idealism of many ecoanarchist theorists,
notwithstanding the stronger ecocentric orientation of the latter.
THE ECOSOCIALIST AGENDA
Having identified the areas of concern shared
by ecosocialism and ecocen- trism, it now remains to explore the challenging
problem of how to provide feasible alternatives to modern capitalism and
communism. As we have seen, ecosocialists emphasize the need to develop long
term socioeconomic solu- tions that will bring the economy under more
democratic control to enable ecologically sustainable production for human
need. Williams, for example, looks forward to a redefinition of socialism that
entails positive redemp- tion of the central socialist idea of production for
equitable use rather than for either profit or power." This entails the
long and difficult move away from the market economy: a shift in
"production towards new governing standards of durability, quality and
economy in the use of non-renewable resources"; and "as a condition
of either of the former, we have to move towards new kinds of monetary
institutions, placing capital at the service of these new ends.
However, there is no unanimity among ecosocialists
on the matter of detailed alternatives. All that can be safely generalized is
that ecosocialists argue that the fulfilment of basic needs and the provision
of social services should be in some way funded by the wealth produced by
society as a whole. Although many ecosociaiists acknowledge that a market
economy has cer- tain advantages over a planned economy in terms of efficiency
and flexibility in the satisfaction of consumer wants, they argue that these
advantages are overshadowed by the serious contradictions between market logic
and eco- logical imperatives. As Ryle explains:
While market-like mechanisms might continue to
play an important role--providing consumer choice and flexibility in the supply
of commodities--in an ecologically planned economy, these central economic
functions would need to be planned in Ea] directly politi- cal fashion.
Indeed, most ecosocialists tend to argue that
if we are to avoid both the "tragedy of the commons" and extreme
wealth differentials, then we need to move toward a planned economy, provided
such planning is of a kind that provides for full community participation. To
this end, most ecosocialists advocate a combination of state and local
community economic planning. democratically controlled public znterprises;
state regulation of the financial sector, self-managing worker cooperatives;
and an informal "convivial sec- tor." Some ecosocialists also support
a small business sector, although protit accumulation and size are to be
closely controlled.
Ecosocialists regard the State as playing a
vital role in controlling the operation of market forces and in laying down the
framework for a socially just and ecologically sustainable society. According
to Ryle:
If one is honest,...about the objectives which
an ecologically enlightened society would set for itself, it is difficult to
avoid con- eluding that the srate, as the agent of the collective will, would
have to take an active law-making and enforcing role in imposing a range of
environmental and resource constraints.
This entails giving up, in the name of the
"common good," a range of West- ern freedoms concerning the use of
private capital as part of the process of ecolooical restructuring. As Ryle
argues:
Above all, it calls into being a collective
subject, a ''we," able to make political and cultural decisions directly,
and this implies the transcendence of the atomised individualism of the
marketplace as ultimate arbiter.
The ecosocialist case stands in stark contrast
to the strongly anti-statist position of ecoanarchists. That is, ecoanarchists
would argue that the collective "we" is the local community rather
than the State and that society is best transformed through popular struggles,
exemplary action. and local self-help initiatives. Indeed, manv ecoanarchists
wish to see the abolition irather than just the shrinking) of the modem nation
State on the grounds that it is inherently hierarchical in usurping the
decision-making power of the local community.
Although ecosocialists support the goal of community
empowerment, they argue that this goal would be facilitated rather than
thwarted by the State by means of protecting civil liberties, providing
long-term economic planning, redistributing resources between classes und
regions, and providing international diplomacy. Indeed. Frankel has argued
that''democracy would not survive the abolition of srare institutions."
,Moreover, ecosocialists argue that some degree of bureaucratic administration
is inevitable if eco- nomic and ecological planning is to proceed. They argue
Further that the potential for bureaucratic domination or political abuse in an
expanded State would be offset by parallel moves that extend the opportunity
for democratic participation in all tiers of government.
For example, the ecosocialist discussion paper
New Economic Directions ior Australia envisages that the increased planning
powers of the State would be counterbalanced by "a radical restructuring
of administrative and political Institutions to minimise bureaucratic structures
and processes and maximise public participation in pianning and decision-making
at all levels." This would be facilitated by the establishment of consumer
and citizen initiative councils at the state level and a federal warehdog
commission to investigate public administration. The responsibility for
directing and coordinating all public instrumentalities engaged in productive
activity would be assumed by a National Enterprise Commission, which would be
representative, publicly accountable, and subject to public review every three
years.
Andre Gorz has defended a more controversial
"dual economy" based on a fusion of the ideas of the young Marx and
Ivan Iilich. This dualeconomy is to be constituted by (i) the "sphere of
heteronomy," which deals with the social production of necessities and the
material reproduction of society and corresponds to the realm ofnecessity"
(to be planned and managed by the State); and (ii) the "sphere of
autonomy," which provides the space for cre- ativer and convivial activity
and corresponds to the "realm of freedom" (and civil societyj. The
purpose of the heteronomous sphere-socially adminis- tered production--is to
secure. and where possible enlarge, the autonomous sphere--local convivial
activity. Accordingly, Gor. argues that the het- eronomous sphere would need to
take maximum advantage of automation, specialization. division oflabor,
economies of scale, and computerization in order to minimize socially necessary
labor and maximize autonomous activity (where economic logic need not apply). Gorz,
envisages that socially neces- sary labor would be ecologically benign and
would produce only necessary, durable commodities. Everyone would be required
to perform necessary labor !which would provide the source of a guaranteed
income for all), but such labor would be reduced to a minimum and accordingly
would no longer be the center of everyone's life. The guaranteed
income,oenerated by socially neces- sary labor would represent an equitable
distribution of the wealth created by society's productive forces considered as
a whole--which individuals have combined to produce through their shared,
intermittent work.
According to Gorz, both Illich and Marx
envisaged a reduction of work- ing time and hence "the utmost expansion of
the sphere of autonomy. However, whereas ,Marx foresaw the withering away of
the State under com- munism. Gorz rnvisages the continuation of the State as
the centerpiece of a post-industrial political economy that will make possible
the flourishing of an ecologically benign,''convivial society."
A crucial distinction in Gorz's dual economy is
that between the system- atic and collective needs of society and the ethical
norms of individuals and small communities. On the basis of this distinction,
he envisages that the sphere of heteronomy would be planned by the State and
governed by techni- cai imperatives; these imperatives are regarded as simply
the function of "external necessity" rather than as ethical norms of
a kind chosen by self- determining individuals. As Gorz explains:
In the same way that economics is concerned
with the external con- straints that individual activities give rise to when
they generate unwanted collecrive results. ecology is concerned with the
external constraints which economic activity gives rise to when it produces
environmental alterations which upset the calculation of costs and benefits.
The upshot is that both economics and ecology
are seen as scientific tools that measure different levels of efficiency; these
are considered to be "tech- nical matters;' that properly belong to the
heteronomous sphere." This pre- sumably means that environmental matters
such as energy budgets. resource use, pollution control, nature conservation,
recycling, and workers' safety would fall within the province of the State and
need not concern ciuzens, at least in their autonomous activities (although
Gor. envisages that citizens would use durable, convivial tools in their
free-time activity).
Yet Gorz's own brand of ecosocialism is
politically problematic in naive ty defining the activities of the State--most
notably, the provision of basic needs, the determination of socially necessary
labor. and environmental pro- tection-as mere technical administration that
lies outside the realm of ethics or normative discourse. Here, the insights of
the Frankfurt School seem to have been forgotten. Indeed, Gorz provides an
active endorsement of what Habermas has described as the "scientization of
politics.'' As we saw in chap- ter this process has led to the gradual ascendancy
of a technocratic elite and the withering of the public sphere. This approach
stands in stark contrast to the project of the Frankfurt School and the
community self-management approach of ecoanarchism, both of which seek full
democratic participation in political, economic, technological, and ecological
decision making.
Not surprisingly, Gorz's particular
post-industrial utopia has attracted a number of criticisms from zcoanarchists
and other ecosocialists. According to Murray Bookchin. Gorz's technocratic
post-industrial utopia is riddled with paradoxes in attempting to combine
central planning with neighborhood self-help initiatives and worker
self-management. In particular, Bookchin argues that Gor. promises the
imnoossbbee-centnl planning without bureau- cracy--but "tells us virtually
nothing about the administrative structures around which his utopia will be
organized."- In a similar vein. Richard Swift asks, what will prevent the
hereronomous sphere or State from becom- ing a Center for the Centralization of
power? The tools for political abuse remain here." Moreover, Gorz does not
specify what role, if any, the mar- ket would play in his dual economy.
Other ecosocialists, however, are much clearer
on the question of administrative structures and the role of the market. Cenerally
speaking. most ecosocialists have embraced political pluralism, public
accountability, and widespread public participation in economic planning. Moreover,
they argue that democratic social planning would serve as the predominant
resource allocation mechanism with markets playing a subsidiary role !e.g.. In
the small business sector). These general outlines of an ecosocialisr econo-
my, should not, however, be confused with "market socialism"--a
predomi- nantiy market system of exchange accompanied by social and/or State
(as distinct from private) ownership of the means of production. Indeed, Boris
Frankel has rejected "market socialism" (at least the kind advocated
by Alec Nove in The Economics of Feasible Socialism) on the grounds that
ecologi- cal and social justice objectives would be continually compromised by
national and international market forces.
EVALUATION: More DEMOCRACY OR MORE BUREAUCRACY?
The claimed superiority of the general
ecosocialist economic program is that the State would no longer be fiscally
parasitic on private capital accumula- tion to fund its social and ecological
reforms. The upshot is that the contra- dictions of the market would be. for
the most part, eliminated rather than simply "managed." The central
question arises. however, as to whether the ecosocialist alternative can avoid
the kinds of problems that have beset exist- ing command economies. These
problems include bureaucratic corruption and bribery; underemployment of labor;
gross economic inefficiencies; one- party dictatorships; intolerance toward
political dissent; widespread political Intimidation and oppression; economic
stagnation, and ecological devasta- tion. In this new post-Cold War era,
ecosocialists must convince an increas- ingly skeptical public that it is
possible to deliver economic planning that is at once democratic. ecologically
responsible, coherent. and responsive to consumer demand.
Now a theoretical case might still be made that
a democratically planned economy is superior to a market economy In that it
should be better able to (i) provide,ooods and services on the basis of need
rather than purchasing power; (ii) avoid or minimize the''negative
exrernalities" of a market econo- my; (iii) iron out excessive social and
regional inequalities; (iv) ensure that the scale of the macro-economy respects
the carrying capacity of ecosystems iuniike a market economy. a planned economy
has no inbllilt imperative to grow); and (v) generally take a broader and more
long-term view of the col- lective needs of present and future generations of
both humans and nonhu- mans (i.e., unhampered by the need to appease the
immediate interests of pri- vate capital).
If could be further argued that the ecological
and social problems that have beset existing command economies can be
attributed to a range of inter- related factors that are neither necessary nor
desirable aspects of a democrat- ically planned economy. These include rigid
centralized control, single party bureaucratic rule, the absence of a free flow
of information, the absence of an informed citizenry and popular participation,
a commitment to industrial- ization and high growth rates. and a determination
to "catch up" with the West in terms of technical development and
military might as part of a per- ceived need to bolster "national
security." As O'Connor explains,"in all socialist countries the major
means of production are nationalized although not yet socialized, i.e., there
is no strong tradition of democratic control of the means of life.
According to this argument, twentieth century
communism must be seen as an aberration rather than as an example of the
inherent tendencies or "logic" of a planned economy, if we remove all
the repugnant features of these economies (as identified above) and ensure that
production is properly "socialized" rather than simply
"nationalized" then, so the argument runs, democratic self-management
can emerge as a reasonably feasible option. As previously noted, a planned
economy does not need to grow in the way that a market economy does. Moreover,
we have seen that ecosocialists have explicitly rejected the path of
indiscriminate economic growth and have embraced political pluralism, public
accountability, freedom of information. and widespread public participation in
economic planning.
Yet even if we confine our attention to this
appealing theoretical case for a democratically planned economy, we can
identify a number of other prob- lems that might considerably undermine its
apparent advantages. Just as the theoretical defence of the marker is based on
the extremely restrictive and unreal set of assumptions of perfect competition,
the theoretical defence of a democratically planned economy is based on the
unreal assumptions of, inter alia, full information and complete trust between
principal and agent. As Jon Elster and Karl Ove Moene observe. "central
planning would be a perfect system, supenor to any market economy, if these two
resources [full infer- mation and complete trust] were available in unlimited
quantities."
It is the lack of these two important
"resources' that accounts for much of the interagency competition,
corruption and bribery, displacement of responsibility, and political
intimidation that have characterized the state agencies of existing centrally
planned economies. Of course, these problems are not unique to bureaucracies in
centrally planned societies. They are. how- ever, magnified by virtue of the
expanded role played by state agencies in a planned economy. The theoretical
defence of democratic economic planning also assumes that it is possible to
coordinate successfully a range of different public agen- cies in accordance
with a ''common" economic plan. This, in turn, presup- poses (i) that it
is possible to arrive at a social consensus on a common eco- nomic plan: and
iii) that each agency charged with implementing aspects of the plan will
interpret it in a uniform way. As John Dryzek points out, a tele- ological or
goal directed social and economic system requires not just a con- sensus on
values, but a continuing consensus on values if it is to produce, consistently
and effectively, the desired common good. This arises from the fact that
"the administered structure cannot waver in its commitment, for it is only
that commitment which can keep the system on course. This tells against the
feasibility of a well functioning and democratic planned econo- my, it also
sheds considerable light on the propensity of communist regimes to regularly
intimidate--and. from rimeto time, eliminate-opposition to the planning
dictates of the State.
Yet if participatory democracy, political
pluralism, and the protection of civil liberties are to remain nonne riabie
elements of ecosociaiism, then how can a popular consensus for a common
economic plan be achieved, let alone maintained. Classical liberal theorists,
of course, have never had to wrestle with this dilemma, in that they have
generally been more concerned with procedural fairness than with end-srare
fairness.) Moreover, even if we assume perfect information and perfect trust
(two unlikely assumptions), how can economic information be Processed and how
can a coherent eco- nomic plan be successfullv implemented and coordinated in
the absence of a shared ecosocialist morality or, falling that, a controlling
managerial elite?
The great strength of the pnce mechanism as a
method of resource allo- sation, despite its many problems. is that it provides
a relatively decentral- ized and depoliricized method ofinformation processing
and resource alloca- tion that is responsive to consumer preference iat least
in competitive markets). Its very invisibility that is, the absence of a
deliberative steering system or coordinating center) has helped to maintain its
political legitimacy to the extent that it obviates the need for ongoing social
debate and consen- sus as to the merits or demerits of resource allocation
decisions. This recog- nition should not be taken as an endorsement of
deregulation. Indeed, I have already outlined some of the more obvious
ecological and social problems generated by market economies and accepted, at a
very minimum, the need for State intervention to prevent or redress such
problems. What is at issue here is the extent and character of intervention
(whether by way of regulation or planning) and the implications this has for
economic efficiency and democracy.
By comparison to predominantly market
economies. predominantly planned economies are more visible. discretionary, and
therefore more con- testable than the impersonal, self-adjusting price signals
of the market. In short, democratic collective planning necessarily attracts
more criticism and debate as to the desirobilin, of alternative courses of
action. This is not nec- essarily a bad thing-indeed, it is precisely the kind
of debate that ecosocial- ists wish to substitute for the impersonal and
ethically blind signals of the market. Nonetheless. ecosocialists are unlikely
to achieve the kind of contin- uinp social consensus around a common plan that
would be needed for a well functioning, planned economy. Of course. these sorts
of problems are not lost on ecosocialists. For example, the authors of New
Economic Directions for Australia ask themselves and their readers the
pertinent question: ''How would the new planning processes and institutions
form part of a coherent whole--more particularly how would they enshrine
democratic principles and achieve the necessary balance between local. regional
and national responsibilities? They also note that capital is likely "to
move offshore the instant an Austraiian government begins to give the
implementation of these proposals serious consideration. Moreover, Ryle goes 50
far as to concede that the idea that the economy can be brought under
democratic political con- troi has "not been on the mainstream political
agenda, and hence...[has] not been part of most people's sense of the possible,
for many years now."
The urgent task facing ecosocialists is to find
ways of resolving the ten- sion between their quest for participatory
democracy, on the one hand, and coherent and efficient economic and ecological
planning, on the other hand. That is, ecosocialists accept that the more the
State intervenes in social and economic life, the more it needs to facilitate
wide-ranging community consul- tation and consensus to maintain legitimacy. Yet
the more the State replaces the market with a series of coherent economic and
ecological plans, the more it also needs a central coordinating agency to
ensure the successful implemen- tation of such plans (and the more reluctant
will be that central coordinating agency to encourage genuine democratic
participation that might dispute the appropriateness, and block the smooth
implementation. of such plans).
There are several ways in which this tension
might be eased. if not resolved. For example, democratic planning would be
considerably facilitat- ed by a politically active. educated, and ecologically
informed citizenry. Moreover, the move toward democratic economic planning
would need to be implemented in gradual stages to allow for the discovery of,
and adjustment to, unanticipated problems. This could be further faciliated by
a multilayered political decision-making structure to enable a balanced
democratic represen- tation of local, regional/provincial, and national
interests.
Yet the more practical question still arises:
do we have enough time, wisdom, and collective will to overcome the above
tensions and move toward a predominantly planned economy ro the degree proposed
by ecoso- cialists in view of widespread public rkepticism toward economic
planninp in the post-cold War era and in view of the urgency of the ecological
crisis?
An Alternative Green Market ECONOMY
A more feasible alternative might be to draw
back from the idea of a pre- dominantly planned economv in favor of the idea of
a greater range of macroeconomic controls on market activity that are designed
to ensure that market activity remain subservient to social and ecological
considerations. Here, the emphasis would be more on managing, containing, and
disciplining rather than largely replacing the market economy, although some
economic planning would still have a role to play. In suggesting that there
might be at least the outline of such an alternative, I will be drawing on the
ideas devel- oped by a small yet growing circle of economists associated with
the New Economics Foundation and TOES (The Other Economic Summit), who shall be
referred to for convenience simply as "Green economists" (although
strictly speaking, ecosocialist political economists represent one particular
school of Green economic thought).
Although both ecosociaiists and Green
economists enlist the values of participatory democracy, ecological
responsibility, social justice, decentral- ization. and the dispersal of
economic and political power, they differ over how these values are to be
interpreted and applied. Whereas ecosocialists tend to emphasize the evils of
the market economy and seek to democratize and'ecologize" Stare and local
economic planning institutions, Green economists tend to emphasize the evils of
central planning and seek to democratize and "ecologize" the
institutions of the market economy. Howev- er, both of these approaches look to
the State !albeit in varying degrees and for different purposes) to play a
necessary coordinating, redistributive, and planning role. Moreover, unlike the
ecoanarchist current in Green political thought. both of these approaches are
decidedly post-liberal rather than anti- liberal. insofar as they accept the
Western liberal Institutions of representa- tive democracy, tolerance of
political diversity, the rule of law and due pro- cess, and the protection of
human rights (such as freedom of speech, assembly, and organization).
Although Green economists are trenchant critics
of corporate capitalism, they are equally critical of the concentration of
economic power in the hands of the State. Accordingiy, Green economists have
tended to place greater emphasis on the need to develop small business, local
cooperatives, and local economic self-reliance. Nonetheless, thev also advocate
increasing govern- ment economic management through .'transformed-market
conforming plan- ning." that is, new institutional, fiscal, monetary, and
pricing policies designed to ensure that "the market has as Intrinsic
tendency to move in directions that conform with the society's social and
environmental goals." As Hermann Daiy explains, the general economic
framework seeks
to combine micro freedom and variability with
macro stability and control. This means, in practice, relying on market
allocation of an aggregate resource throughput whose total is not set by the
market, but rather fixed collectively on the basis of ecological criteria of
sustainability and ethical criteria of stewardship. This approach aims to avoid
both the Scylla of centralized planning and the Charybdis of the tragedy of the
commons.
Rather than seeking a predominantly planned
economy with a small private sector Green economists seek to ''bend and
stretch" the "historically given conditions currently prevailing.l97
In other words, they envisage a market economy with a reasonably large private
sector. However, they argue that all market activity (whether carried out by
the public or private sector) should be more heavily circumscribed, scaled down
(in terms of material-energy throughput), and made more responsive to
ecological considerations and informed consumer preferences. This is consistent
with the Schumacher inspired Green emphasis on human-scale institutions.
decentralization, and appropriate technology. As Daly and Cobb argue:
If one favors independence, participation.
decentralized decision making, and small- or human-scale enterprises, then one
has to accept the category of profit as a legitimate and necessary source of
income. There is plenty of room to complain about monopoly profits, but that is
a complaint against monopoly, not against profits per se.... If one dislikes
centralized bureaucratic decision making then one must accept the market and
the profit motive, if not as a positive good then as the lesser of two
evils.... We have no hesitation in opt- ing for the market as the basic
institution of resource allocation.
However, in defending the advantages of a
market economy, Green economists have no illusions about the present lack of
consumer sovereignty and the many contradictions, inequities, and negative
externalities generated by market rationality. Indeed, they have pioneered many
aspects of the eco- logical critique of private and state capitalism,
particularly the issues of the scale of material and energy throughput and
ecological carrying capacity. Moreover. Green economists are highly critical of
the New Right's case for a "free" or thoroughly deregulated market. According
to Paul Ekins, advocates of the free market do not really want a free market;
what they want is gov- ernment protection of, and absence of interference with,
existing private property rights. In contrast, the acceptance of the price
mechanism by Green economists does not carry with it an endorsement of the
existing pat tern of ownership, control. and wealth distribution nor the scale
and reach of market penetration in everyday life. In this respect. it is instructive
to bear in mind the observations of Karl Polanyi on the different scale and
role of the market in different historical epoches. According to Poianyi,
"at no time poor to the second quarter of the nineteenth century were
markets more than a subordinate feature of society." In other words, it
has only been rince the industrial revolution that market relations havegrown
to dominate social life (rather than being mere accessories of social life). According
to Polanyi, the most decisive changes occurred when land and labor became
commodities ichanges that were insrirured by the liberal State). This served to
transform property relations which, in turn, facilitated a transformation of
social and zco1ogical relations. Green economists are concerned to develop new
com- munity initiatives and new institutional frameworks that will see a
gradual replacement of the traditional notion of private ownership and control
of land with the notion of communitv trusteeship and stewardship through, for
example, the development of conservation and community land trusts).
At the macroeconomic level, most Green
economists look to the State to play a key role in reversing the privatization
of beneiits and socialization of costs that characterize the market economy. This
includes breaking down monopolies and''rxcessive bigness"; providing those
public goods and ser- vices that are not provided by the market; avoiding or
redressing negative externalities; redressing regional and macroeconomic
imbalances; redis- tributing wealth via a guaranteed income scheme; and
ensuring an appropri- ate scale of macroeconomic activitv relative to the
ecosystem and biosphere. .-\s Daly and Cobb have zmphasizeh, the price
mechanism merely ensures an optimal allocation of scarce resources (an efficiency
issue--and even this is considerably undermined by the lack of perfect
competition in the real world), not an optimal distriburion of resources (a
social/ethical issue) or an optimal scale of resource use lan
ecological/ethical issue)." .Moreover, eco- centric Greens argue that the
question of appropriate scale and carrying capacity must be determined with
reference to the needs of present and future generations of both the human and
nonhuman world.
Most Green economists have tackled the problem
of scale (i.e., the pro- tection of ecological carrying capacity) by advocating
(i) a range of new fis- cal measures isuch as resource depletion quotas and
higher resource taxes and pollution charges) designed to control resource
depletion and reduce material-energy throughput; (ii) more comprehensive, and
longer-range, environmental Impact assessment and technology assessment;w and
(iii) the replacement of indiscriminate GDP statistics with ;In alternative
index of economic progress designed to provide a more meaningful yardstick by
which to measure economic well-being.,More generally, Green economists are
seeking to shift the burden of taxation away from labor (an increasingly
abundant "resource") and toward what are becoming increasingly scarce
fac- tors of production, namely, land, natural resources, and fossil fuel
energy. This will not only encourage greater efficiency in the use of these
scarce fac- ton but also encourage a greater use of human skills and thereby
slow down the rate of substitution of labor by capital-Intensive machinery.
One convenient way of drawing together some of
the major features of a Green market economy is to identify the kinds of
changes that are sought in respect of the major links in the money cycle (i.e..
savings, investment, and consumption). The major Green initiatives relating to
savings and investment are the development of local credit and banking
facilities, "ethical" invest- ment funds, and self-managing local
enterprises. Green economists also sup- port the use of market-based incentives
(such as pollution standards, charges or taxes, and in some cases marketable
permits) that will ensure that prices reflect the true cost of production and
consumption. Ideally, this means ensuring that there is no divergence between
the private costs of production and consumption and the social and
environmental costs of production and consumption."
Some Green economists have also developed
proposals for the reform of corporations to enable greater worker and community
participation in invest- ment decisions and more extensive worker and community
ownership of capital assets. For example, Shann Turnbuil has developed a range
of new institutional reforms (including Ownership Transfer Corporations,
Coapera- tive Land Banks, and Producer-Consumer Go-operatives) that will enable
the development of "social capitalism." Instead of relying on the
public sector to redistribute wealth, social capitalism provides for the
redistribution of the ownership of capital assets and the payment of a
"social dividend" that would provide a guaranteed minimum income to
all."
The restoration of "consumer
sovereignty" (through the cultivation of the well-informed, discerning
Green consumer) provides a key plank in the strategy for a scaled-down, Green
market economy." In order to transform the countless individual acts of
consumption into conscious "economic votes" that will influence
investment decisions, Green economists argue for the development of independent
consumer organizations that can keep consumers informed not only with regard to
such matters as the price, quality, origin, and safety of products but also the
social and environmental costs. Other propos als include stricter controls on
labelling and advertising and, in some cases, the development of an independent
ecological certification system.
Alongside the "formal economy," Green
economists also stress the importance of nonmarket exchanges such as local
barter. voluntary commu- nity services, and neighborhood reciprocity, all of
which meet many needs that are unfulfilled by the State or the market. One of
the purposes of the guaranteed minimum income scheme is to reduce peoples'
dependence on paid work and increase the opportunity for people to engage in
nonmarket exchanges and perform what James Robertson has referred to as
`'Ownwork" (i.e, self-organized work)." To be sure. the Green
economic program is not without its problems. the most challenging of which is
the attempt to zealously pursue a policy of redistributive justice while
simultaneously encouraging a contraction in the scale and rate of material
throughput in a predominantly market economy. The success of such a program
will 1argely turn on the extent to which a "Green State" will be able
to facilitate a shift away from growth in material and energy throughput and
toward qualitative or.'posr-material" growth in accordance with a new
Green index of economic welfare. Moreover, although Green economists seek to
retain and discipline rather than replace the price mechanism and private
profit, they nonetheless conier on the State a considerably expanded range of
economic powers, many of which are indistinguishable from those to be conferred
on the ecosocialist State. This means that the democracy/efficiency tension
will also be encountered, although less so than it would in an ecosocialist
economy. A case might also be made that Green economistshave underestimate the
cunning of market rationality in finding ways of circumventing their pro- posed
new range of macro-economic controls. To this respect, Green economists would
do well to direct to more systematic attention to matters dear the heart of
ecosocialists, such as the reorganization of finance. credit, production,
corporations, and work. Pursuing policies that are designed to achieve a more
equitable distribution of the ownership and control of capital assets alongside
a more democratic management of such assets would cer- tainly relieve the
redistributive burden (and size) of the State while also attracting the likely
support of organized labor.
Finally, there are few material (as distinct
from moral) incentives for exemplary ecological action--whether on the parr of
transnationai corpora- tions or nation States--in the competitive environment
of global capitalism. Without concerted ecodiplomacy resulting in a
comprehensive array of treaties providing for macro-ecological controls and
standards at the inrerna- rional level. Green economists will remain hard
pressed to convince an effec- tive majority of voters within theirown nation
that they must become eco- logical saints while individuals and corporations in
other countries continue to engage in ecologically irresponsible practices.
Green Power's Home Page
<http://user.hk.linkage.net/~greenpow/index.html> | E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| HK EcoNet
<http://www.hk.super.net/~hkie_env/hkeconet.htm>
Last update: April 1996 Lucia Siu
<mailto:[email protected]> and Keith
Chau <mailto:[email protected]>.
This is chapter 7 of the "The Macroscope" <default.html>
by Joël de Rosnay
<http://www.cite-sciences.fr/derosnay/e-index.html>
·
SEVEN. SCENARIO FOR A WORLD
·
TRAVEL NOTES IN ECOSOCIALISM(AUGUST 12 TO OCTOBER 15, 8 A.C.)
·
NOTES
·
INTRODUCTION: THE MACROSCOPE
·
ONE. THROUGH THE MACROSCOPE
·
TWO. THE SYSTEMIC REVOLUTION: A NEW CULTURE
·
THREE. ENERGY AND SURVIVAL
·
FOUR. INFORMATION AND THE INTERACTIVE SOCIETY
·
FIVE. TIME AND EVOLUTION
·
SIX. VALUES AND EDUCATION
·
SEVEN. SCENARIO FOR A WORLD
·
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SEVEN
SCENARIO FOR A WORLD
I should like this final chapter of the book to
be an opening onto the future, not a conclusion. Every criticism, every
thorough examination of one type of society and its scale of values ought to
lead us toward a new design for society. How can we discern the major features
of this society through the gropings of social innovation--the experiments, the
successes, the failures that we witness? From what point of view can we
formulate and represent such a design?
I propose to reassemble in condensed form the
principal themes of the preceding chapters. There are several ways of doing
this. One can apply classical methods of forecasting and then try to describe
in detail one aspect of the future society. One might, for example, project a
small number of tendencies from among the most marked. Or one might adopt the
"prospective" attitude, studying the present from the viewpoint of a
desirable future in order to determine the meaningful events of today.
One can also try to confront the principal
themes of the main currents of contemporary thought that I have presented by
adopting a descriptive attitude, the most objective possible. Or, on the other
hand, one might choose a normative attitude and orient the proposition in terms
of a personal position or an ideology.
Beyond the normative and the objective there
are also the expedients of science fiction, political fiction, and utopian
writing. All these methods are well known to planners and futurologists and are
widely used.
In terms of my own objective, however, the one
method that appears to combine them advantageously is the method of
"scenarios." The principle of that method is that the future is never
given in its totality; it can be determined only through choices made by people
devoted to building their future. Thus there is an infinite number of possible
"futures," and a scenario is nothing but a more or less detailed
description of some of them. A scenario clarifies decisions and facilitates
choices.
But a scenario does not describe what is
probable or even what is possible. For between the probable and the possible
there is political will as much as there is chance, catastrophe, global crisis,
or revolution. A scenario describes situations as they might be, situations
that are plausible in a given context and in terms of what one knows of the
evolutionary tendencies of the principal elements of the system under study. In
this respect the scenario is quite like a game; one acts as though the
description were possible and one had some relation to it.
Every scenario is a bit biased, as is the case
with the present one. First because it is unique, whereas usually the rule
insists that one compare several scenarios (for example, the pursuit of
unrestrained growth; the slowing of economic growth while the present pursuit
continues; catastrophes; the global crises of the economies; wars and other
conflicts but such a comparison would take too long. Secondly because one again
encounters several of the ideas, suggestions, and theses that I propose and
defend in this book. (It will be easy for you to pick them out, recognize them,
and criticize them.) My purpose, I recall, is to stimulate thought and
reflection, not to attempt to impose my opinions. In order that you may use
your imagination as you will, this scenario voluntarily assumes the somewhat
dry form of an outline: I have conceived it in the form of notes sent by a
reporter to a large weekly news- magazine. The details are left to you to
invent.
When will the scenario take place? Does it
refer to a particular country or to a composite of several countries? It is
neither possible nor even necessary to be precise. Some of the situations
described in the scenario could exist in the 1980s, others not before the end
of the century--and only in the so-called developed countries.
TRAVEL NOTES IN ECOSOCIALISM(AUGUST 12 TO OCTOBER 15, 8 A.C.)[1]
Ecosocialism, ecosociety, ecocitizen,
ecocommunications, ecohealth, ecocongress.... This is not a new
"ecocult"! The prefix "eco" symbolizes here the close
relationship between economy and ecology; it puts the accent on relationships
among men and between men and what they call their "home," the
ecosphere.
At the time of the first electronic referendum
taken on individual terminals the ecocitizens preferred, instead of a national
anthem, a quotation from Dennis Meadows, an American university professor who
in 1971 had called attention to the need for limiting growth ( see notes
<chap7.html>).
After two centuries of growth, we are now
burdened, in the natural and social sciences, with blind decisions and
obligations. At the present time, there is no economic theory of a society
founded on technology where the rules of interest lead to zero, where the
productive capital does not lead to accumulation, and where the main concern is
about equality rather than growth. There is no sociology of balance which is
interested in the social problems of a stabilized society where men and women
of an older age are in the majority. There is no political science of
equilibrium capable of enlightening us on the means of exercising the
democratic choice in a society where short-term material gain would cease to be
the criterion of political success. There is no technology of balance which
gives absolute priority to the recycling of all forms of material; to the use
of solar energy which is not a pollutant; to the minimization of flows of
material as well as energy. There is no psychology of the state of stability
which lets man find a new image of himself or allows him to find other means of
motivation in a system where material production would be constant and balanced
according to the limited resources of the earth.
This would be the great challenge to each of
our traditional disciplines: to elaborate on the project of a society which
finds its material motives and its attractiveness in a state of equilibrium. The
task would be heavy with technical difficulties and concepts. The solutions
would not only be more satisfactory to the spirit but would also be an immense
advantage to society in general.
The coming of ecosociety took place in three
main stages, each founded on a type of economy that corresponds to a given
environment: the economy of survival (primitive society), the economy of growth
(industrial society), and the economy of equilibrium (postindustrial society or
ecosociety).
The economy of equilibrium (or stationary
economy) that characterizes ecosociety today does not imply--as some believed
in the late 1970s-- a "zero growth." The limiting of choice to two
alternatives, "growth at any price" and "halting growth,"
was probably the result of the preponderant use of a logic of exclusion
peculiar to that period, a type of logic that eliminated any nuance of meaning,
any complementarity. It was obvious that the real question was not one of
growing or not growing but rather the problem of how to reorient the
economy to serve better at the same time human needs, the maintenance
and evolution of the social system, and the pursuit of true cooperation with
nature.
The economy of equilibrium that characterizes
ecosociety is thus a "controlled" economy in the cybernetic sense of
the term. Some sectors can pass through phases of growth, others are kept in
dynamic equilibrium, and still others maintain a "negative" rate of
growth. The "equilibrium" of the economy results from the harmony of
the whole. As in life, this stationary state is a controlled disequilibrium.
One model of society proposed during the 1970s
came close to ecosociety; this was the convivial society of Ivan Illich ( see notes
<chap7.html>). But this model was also far from it when
one considers certain aspects that I shall describe. First we must recall the
meanings according to Illich of the two fundamental concepts of conviviality
and radical monopoly.
A society in which modern technologies serve
politically interrelated individuals rather than managers, I will call
"convivial." . . . I have chosen "convivial" as a technical
term to designate a modern society of responsibly limited tools.
The man who finds his pleasure and sense of
balance in the use of the convivial operation is austere. Austerity does
not have the connotation of isolating nor of enclosing oneself. Austerity
according to Aristotle and to Saint Thomas Aquinas was founded on friendship.
The establishment of radical monopoly happens
when people give up their native ability to do what they can do for themselves
and for each other, in exchange for something "better" that can be
done for them only by a major tool.... This domination assures obligatory
consumption and subsequently restrains the autonomy of each individual. It is a
particular type of social control reinforced by the obligatory consumption of
mass production that only the heavy industries can provide.
Illich in his model appears to have
underestimated certain technologies whose development was slowed neither by
crises nor by changes of government: the telecommunications explosion, the
miniaturization and decentralization of data processing, and mankind's mastery
of certain natural processes, particularly in biology and ecology. Telecommunications
and microcomputers have thus permitted the creation of decentralized networks
of "distributed knowledge" controlled by the users themselves. This
progress had been made possible by a closer association between the human brain
and the computer. This association, founded on voice recognition, handwriting
recognition, pattern recognition, and a verbal dialogue with the computer, has
gradually changed the computer into a veritable intellectual assistant.
The mastery and the imitation of some natural
processes were achieved at the industrial level through the use of
microorganisms and enzymes in the production of food, medicines, and chemical
substances useful to society, and at the ecological level through the control
and regulation of natural cycles with the objective of increasing agricultural
production or eliminating more efficiently the wastes of social metabolism. These
techniques of bioengineering and ecoengineering opened the way to new
industrial processes that are less polluting, that use less energy, and that
are easier to control and decentralize than were the old procedures of mass
production.
Lenin used to say, "Communism is the
Soviet people plus electricity." By the same token, ecosociety is
conviviality plus telecommunications! For the great economic crises and the
technological breakthroughs transformed the classical industrial society by
means of a double movement: a decentralization (or differentiation) leading to
the mastery and control of modern tools and a refocusing (or integration)
resulting principally from progress in telecommunications and microcomputers.
This double movement fostered an increase in
the effectiveness of community management at the base level (and consequently
the progressive disappearance of certain "radical monopolies") and an
increase in each individual's participation at all levels of the social system.
Decentralization is based on individual
responsibilities, while participation allows a regulation of the metabolism of
society (from the decentralized level to that of the great macroscopic feedback
control loops). Clearly this reestablishment of the balance of powers is
accompanied by deep modifications in the political, economic, and social
structures.
Contrary to the industrial societies of the
classical type, structured "from top to bottom," ecosociety is
structured from "bottom to top," from the individual and his sphere
of responsibilities through the organization of communities of consumers who
guarantee the decentralized management of the principal organs of the life of
the society--notably the energy transformation systems, the educational
systems, and the electronic systems for communication, participation,
information processing, and (in certain sectors of industry) production.
Ecosociety acknowledges the coexistence of
private ownership and state ownership of production systems. In the extension
of the liberal regime ecosociety favors innovation and the ability of free
enterprise and free competition to adapt. However, it submits businesses to
strict control by the communities of consumers and users. These communities
work closely with political leaders at the national level through a
participatory planning system that allows the selection of the major objectives
and the determination of the principal deadlines.
"Social feedback," which takes place
at all hierarchical levels of society allows the control and the application of
participatory planning as well as the adaptation to new conditions of
evolution.
The main feedback controls apply for the most
part to energy consumption, the investment rate, the population growth rate,
and the principal cycles corresponding to the functions of supply, production,
consumption and recycling.
Energy consumption is maintained at the level
that existed at the beginning of the 1980s. This is not monastic austerity; the
energy is better distributed, better conserved, and more efficiently used.
Investments in new production capacity serve to
balance the obsolescence of machines and buildings and to open up new areas
according to social needs.
The birth rate is maintained at a level that
equals the death rate of the population; this guarantees a stationary state.
The cycles of supply, production, consumption,
and recycling were completely reorganized. The creation of channels of recovery
and decentralized systems for sorting materials have enabled the metabolic
cycles of the social organism to be connected again with the natural cycles of
the ecosystem.
Ecosociety is decentralized, community-minded,
participative; individual responsibility and initiative really exist. Ecosociety
rests on the pluralism of ideas, styles, and ways of life. As a result equality
and social justice are making progress, and there are changes in customs, ways
of thinking, and morality. People have invented a different life-style in a
society in equilibrium. They have realized that the maintenance of a state of
equilibrium is more delicate than the maintenance of a state of continued
growth.
With the help of a new vision, a new logic of
complementarity, and new values, the people of ecosociety invented an economic
doctrine, a political science, a sociology, a technology, and a psychology of
the state of controlled equilibrium.
This other way of life is expressed in all
social activities, especially in the organization of cities, work, human
relationships, culture, customs, and manners. (The total integration of
telecommunications in everyday life is significant here.)
The cities of ecosociety have been thoroughly
reorganized. The oldest sections were restored to the people, free of
automobiles. There the air is again fit to breathe and silence is respected. Pedestrian
ways are numerous; on the streets and in the parks the people take their time.
The new cities are broken into multiple
communities made up of interconnected villages. It is a "rural"
society, one that is integrated through an extraordinary communications network
that does away with needless travel and enables many people to work at home.
In business and industry many employees are no
longer required to spend long hours at rigorous work. The extension of methods
for managing working time has brought about a veritable liberation of time. The
breaking up of individual hours and the synchronization of activities that
results from it were balanced by the accountability of a "collective
time" that permits a better distribution of work both in industry and in
society. The management of time also affects other periods of life: vacation
time, education, professional training, careers, and retirement.
Ecosociety catalyzes the appearance of service
activities--the almost total dematerialization of the economy. A large
percentage of social activities is based on mutual services and the exchange of
services. The matching of people and ideas is facilitated by the new
communications networks--intellectual endeavor through decentralized computer
systems.
Industrial societies formerly were unable to
support the exorbitant increase in the costs of education and health, and the
quality of these services deteriorated. Ecosociety started again from the nodes
of the human network. Mutual instruction and mutual medical assistance were
achieved on a grand scale. Whereas the mastery of the megamachine of the
industrial societies required an advanced education, specialized instruction in
ecosociety is considerably reduced. It is now more global, more practical, and
more meaningful. Meanwhile, people consume less drugs, call their doctors less
often, and go to hospitals only in exceptional cases. Living is healthier, the
methods of preventing illnesses more effective. More time is devoted to
stimulating natural immunities than to controlling diseases by means of
"outside" chemical agents. Balanced nutrition and exercise are key
factors in self-management of health.
Oil and energy are still widely used in
ecosociety, but their use has been stabilized at a level that permits an
equitable distribution of resources. This has led to deep modifications. Programs
for putting into operation new nuclear power centers have been dropped. The
decentralization of energy transformation plants has led to the exploitation of
new energy sources. Above all, energy conservation and the general struggle
against waste have made it possible to stabilize energy consumption. Society
has learned to use the internal energy of social systems, energy that was
formerly expended only in periods of crisis--war or revolution.
Motivation that leads to action used to be
inspired by self-interest (money, honors), by constraint (regimentation, fear
of fines), and occasionally by the comprehension of the usefulness of one's
action and a sense of social responsibility. The "transparency" of
ecosociety, better information, and more effective participation have led
gradually to the bringing into play of the two latter motivations, without
which there is no real social cohesion.
In industry and farming the energy-intensive
procedures were replaced by soft technologies and natural processes. In some
transformation industries, such as petrochemistry, activities that had high
energy costs were abandoned. The recycling of calories and raw materials is
practiced on a wide scale. Manufactured products are more durable and easier to
repair; thus maintenance and repair have become revitalized activities. Craftsmanship
has been reborn, and objects are personalized rather than standardized.
The biotechnological revolution radically
modified agriculture and the food processing industry. New bacterial species have
become man's allies in production and recycling. Artificial enzymes are used to
produce fertilizers and foods. But there are still restrictions because of the
thoughtless waste of the previous industrial society.
Ecosociety is an explosion of quality and
feeling, the exploration and conquest of inner space. Less preoccupied with
economic growth, and producing and consuming less, people have again found time
for themselves and for others. Human relationships are richer and less
competitive; people respect the choices and freedoms of others. Everyone is
free to pursue pleasure in all its forms: sexual, aesthetic, intellectual,
athletic. Individual creativity and personal accomplishment play an important
role in the community. People admire the unique and irreplaceable character of
a work of art, a scientific discovery, or an athletic achievement.
Scientific progress was marked by the
prodigious development of biology. Yet more than ever there are problems in the
relationships between science and politics, science and religion, science and
ethics. A "bioethic" reinforces the new morality of ecosociety. It is
founded on respect for the human person; it orients and guides one's choices. For
the people of ecosociety have amazing power at their disposal: hormonal and
electronic manipulations of the brain, genetic manipulations, syntheses of the
genes, chemical actions on the embryo, in vitro culture of the embryo,
choice of sex, and control of the processes of aging.
The relationship between man and death has
evolved; death is accepted and reintegrated into life. The aged participate in
social activities, and they are the object of respect and consideration.
A religious feeling (an emergent religion, not
merely a revealed religion) enriches all activities of ecosociety. It supports
and validates action; it offers the hope that something can be saved because
there exists in every one of us a unique power of creation and because the
outcome of society rests in collective creation.
This is one scenario from among many, for one
world among many. Is it a dream for the most part? Perhaps. But it is important
to dream. And why cannot dreams be taken for realities . . . long enough to
build a new world?
Paris, September 1978
NOTES
Works that served as basic documentation or
that would allow the reader to pursue a subject further are grouped immediately
following the section title. The author (and date) listings refer the reader to
the Bibliography, where the references are given in full.
All the diagrams are original except for those
on pages 32(top), l01, l09, 189, which were adapted from Wolman (1965); National
Geographic Magazine, November 1972, Energy; Time-Life Collection,
"The World of Science" Lehninger, 1969.
INTRODUCTION: THE
MACROSCOPE
The term "megaloscope" was used by
Lewis Carroll.
Macroscope is the title of a science fiction novel by
Piers Anthony published in 1969. Howard T. Odum (1971) also used the term
"macroscope" in ecology.
ONE. THROUGH THE
MACROSCOPE
Aguesse (1971), Clapham (1973), Ramade (1974).
Albertini (1971), Attali and Guillaume (1974),
Perroux (1973).
13 The quotation from L. Robbins appears in
Attali and Guillaume (1974), p. 9 13 Passet (1974), p. 232.
14 Attali and Guillaume (1974), p. 10. Sjoberg
(1965), Laborit (1972), Forrester (1969).
31 The figures on metabolism in cities come
from Wolman (1965) and Lowry (1967).
33 The term "megamachine" was used by
Lewis Mumford (1974). The first definition is from Albertini (1971), p. 37; the
second from Attali and Guillaume (1974), p. 27.
Nourse (1965), Laborit (1963) and (1968).
38 Schlanger (1971).
43 Walter Cannon (1929) and (1939). The
comparison of plasma with the primitive ocean is from Laborit (1963).
Laborit (1963), J. de Rosnay (1965), Lehninger
(1969), Watson (1972).
53 The symbolic representations of hemoglobin
are from Perutz (1971). See also J. de Rosnay, "The function of
hemoglobin," La Recherche, 14, 677, 1971.
TWO. THE SYSTEMIC
REVOLUTION: A NEW CULTURE
General Systems Yearbook, beginning 1954; Young (1956),
Ashby (1956), Ackoff (1960), Churchman (1968), Berrien (1968), von Bertalanffy
(1968), Buckley (1968), Emery (1969), Barel (1971) and (1973).
58 The definition of the word ' system,' which
occurs again on p. 65 is from Hall and Fagen (1956).
58 Wiener (1948), von Bertalanffy (1954) and
(1968).
62 Shannon and Weaver (l949).
63-64 The first references to industrial
dynamics are in Forrester (1958) and (1961).
64 Couffignal (1963), p. 23. The references to
Plato and Ampere are in Guillaumaud (1965); see also Guillaumaud (1971).
69 The symbols of the structural and functional
elements of a system are derived from those used by Forrester (1961). See also
Meadows (1972).
73 The essential role of the flow variables and
state variables was stressed by Forrester (1961), pp. 67-69.
77 A study of "world models" was made
by Cole (1974); see also Mesarovic and Pestel (1974).
82-83 There is an excellent study of the
advantages and the dangers of simulation in Popper (1973), pp. 40ff.
83 The allusion to "mental models" is
in Meadows (1974).
87 On counterintuitive behavior of complex
systems, see Forrester (1971).
87 The law of requisite variety was proposed by
Ashby (1956); see also Ashby (1958).
90-91 The example of solid wastes is from
Jorgan Randers (1973).
92 "To evolve, allow aggression." See
also the role of "events" in the evolution of a complex system in
Morin (1972).
95 An excellent critique of the systemic
approach and its fecundity appears in Morin (1977).
95 Letter from Engels to Lavrov in Marx and
Engels (1973), p. 83.
96 The term "noosphere" is from
Teilhard de Chardin (1957).
THREE. ENERGY AND
SURVIVAL
97 On the relationship between bioenergetics
and ecoenergetics, see J. de Rosnay (1974).
Puiseux (1973) (who quotes from the works of A.
Varagnac), Illich (1973), Leroi-Gourhan (1972).
104 The law of "maximum energy" was
proposed by Lotka (1956).
105 The examples that illustrate the law of
optimum yield are from Odum (1955).
105 The school of "thermodynamics of
irreversible processes" includes Onsager, de Groot, de Donder, Prigogine
(1969) and (1972). See also Katchalsky (1971) on network thermodynamics.
Matthews et al. (1971). 108-110 The statistics
are from several publications, among them Cook (1971), Ramade (1974).
112 The observations of the Bulletin of the
World Meteorological Organization are cited by Kukla (1974). The effects of
atmospheric dusts are studied in detail in Hobbs et al. (1974) and Bryson
(1974).
114 The table of values in kilocalories was
compiled from several sources, among them Slesser (1973), Odum (1971), Hannon
(1974).
114 On the energy equivalent of the
kilocalorie, see Odum (1974), p. 46.
115 On energy analysis, see Slesser (1973),
Berry (1974), Hannon (1974).
116 The estimate of energy costs in producing a
car is from Berry (1974).
117 On the expenditure of energy to feed the
United States, see Hirst (1974).
118 Application of energy analysis to
agriculture: Pimentel (1973), Steinhart (1974).
120 Competition between energy and work: Bezdek
and Hannon (1974).
124 On the manufacture of fertilizers through
using nitrogen, see J. de Rosnay, "Toward a bioindustry of ammonia," La
Recherche, 32, 278, 1973.
126 On immobilized enzymes, see Zaborsky
(1973).
129 The expression "postindustrial
society" is used by Touraine (1969) and Bell (1973).
FOUR. INFORMATION
AND THE INTERACTIVE SOCIETY
132 The "theory of information" was
principally the result of the work of Hartley (1928), Szilard (1929), Gabor
(1946), Shannon and Weaver (1949), Brillouin (1959).
132 The example of the card game was suggested
by examples in Brillouin (1959) and Costa de Beauregard (1963), p. 63.
134 The example of the reading of a printed
page was suggested by Tribus (1971).
137 The expressions "planetary
village" and "global village" are from McLuhan (1965).
138 The expression "society in real
time" was proposed by the author in J. de Rosnay (1972).
141 The expression "left out of
power" was used by J. Attali in a report to the Group of Ten on social
malaise. The report has not been published.
142 The data used in the preparation of the
section on communications hardware were taken chiefly from Sprague (1969),
Parker (1969) and (1972), Martin (1971), Dickson (1973).
144 The examples of services in real time came
from studies made in the United States by the author and from Goldmark (1969),
Dickson (1973), Martin (1971), National Academy of English Report (1971),
Walker (1971), Day (1973).
147 On substituting communications for travel,
see Goldmark (1971) Dickson (1971), Day (1973), National Academy of English
Report (1971), Attali (1974).
149 Friedman (1974). Leonard and Etzioni
(1971), Stevens (1971) and (1972), de Sola Pool (1971) and (1974), Singer
(1973) Carroll (1974).
149 The term "social feedback" is
proposed to emphasize the cybernetic nature of information feedback loops. Several
authors use the terms "citizen feedback" (Stevens, 1971)
"instant democracy," and "participatory democracy." See
also the excellent examples of participative democracy in Jungk (1974), pp.
157ff.
156 These instruments are sold commercially by
Applied Futures Inc., Greenwich, Conn., or used at MIT by Prof. Thomas B.
Sheridan.
FIVE. TIME AND
EVOLUTION
Gold (1965), Blum (1962), Costa de Beauregard
(1963b), Berger (1964).
163 Bergson (1948), Teilhard de Chardin (1957).
164 Costa de Beauregard (1963a) Grunbaum (1962)
and (1963) Reichenbach (1956), Gal-Or (1972).
164 On the relationship between information and
entropy, see also Atlan (1973), Laborit (1974).
166 The distinction between time that
"spreads out" and time that "adds on" is from
Saint-Exupéry.
170 Grunbaum (1962), Costa de Beauregard (1963).
The main elements of this chapter appeared in
J. de Rosnay (1965).
172 Teilhard de Chardin (1955) Monod (1970).
174 The term "integron" is from Jacob
(1970); "holon" is from Koestler.
177 Bergson (1948). The story of the
"train of the second principle" appears in J. de Rosnay (1965).
On the general mechanisms of evolution, see Von
Foerster (1960), Prigogine (1972), Eigen (1971), Monod (1970), Atlan (1972),
Morin (1973).
182 The relationship between autocatalysis and
biological reproduction was stressed by Calvin (1956).
185 The note refers to works in prebiotic
chemistry; see J. de Rosnay (1966).
186 On acceleration, see also Meyer (1974).
187 Darwin (1959), p. 120, the correspondence
between Marx and Engels is in Marx and Engels (1973).
188 Le Châtelier (1888).
189 The term "stationary economy" is
from Daly (1973) and Boulding (1966).
189 Dupuy (1975).
189-190 The definition of a deadline with
respect to the temporal dimension of the goal is from Idatte (1969).
190 On psychological time, see Lecomte du Noüy
(1936).
SIX. VALUES AND
EDUCATION
195 On acceleration, see Meyer (1974).
204 Reich (1970).
204 Garaudy (1971).
209 The quotations "a carbon copy of
reality," "operative process," and "another verbalization
of a picture" are from Piaget (1969), pp. 107, 110.
214 The definition of a game is from Abt
(1970).
SEVEN. SCENARIO FOR
A WORLD
223 Meadows (1974), pp. 63-64.
224 Illich (1973), pp. xiv-xv, 54.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abt, Clark C., Serious Games, New York:
Viking Press, 1970.
Ackoff, R. L., "Systems, organizations and
interdisciplinary research," General Systems Yearbook, 5, 1960.
Aguesse, P., Keys to Ecology, Paris:
Seghers, 1971.
Albertini, J. M., The Wheels of the National
Economy, Paris: Workers' Edition, 1971.
Ashby, W. R., "General systems theory as a
new discipline," General Systems Yearbook, 3, 1958.
--, "Requisite variety and its
implications for the control of complex systems," Cybernetica, 1,
2, 83, Namur, 1958.
--, Introduction to Cybernetics, Paris:
Dunod, 1958.
Atlan, H., Biological Organization and the
Theory of Information, Paris: Hermann, 1972.
Attali, J., "A substitute for energy:
communications," Le Monde, February 22, 1974.
--, The Word and the Tool, Paris:
University Presses of France, 1975.
--, and Guillaume, M., Antieconomics,
Paris: University Presses of France, 1974.
Barel, Y., "Prospective and systems
analysis," La Documentation française, Paris, 1971.
--, Social Reproduction, Paris:
Anthropos, 1973.
Bell, D., The Coming of Post-industrial
Society, New York: Basic Books, 1973
Berger, G., Modern Man and His Education,
Paris: University Presses of France, 1962.
--, Phenomenology of Time and Prospective,
Paris: University Presses of France, 1964.
Bergson, H., Creative Evolution, Paris:
University Presses of France, 1948.
Berrien, F. Kenneth, General and Social
Systems, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1968.
Berry, R. S., and Makino, Hiro, "Energy
thrift in packaging and marketing," Technology Revlew, 76, 32,
1974.
Bertalanffy, L. von, General System Theory,
New York: Braziller, 1968.
Bezdek, R., and Hannon, B., "Energy,
manpower, and the highway trust fund," Science, 185, 669,1974.
Boulding, K. E., "Toward a general theory
of growth," General Systems Yearbook, 1, 1956.
--, "The economics of the spaceship
earth," in Henry Jarret, ed., Environmental Quality in a Growing
Economy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1966.
Brillouin, L., Science and the Theory of
Information, Paris: Masson, 1959.
Bryson, R. A., "A perspective on climatic
change," Science,184, 753, 1974.
Buckley, W., Modern Systems Research for the
Behavioral Scientist, Chicago: Aldine, 1968.
Calvin, M., American Scientist, 44, 248,
1956.
Cannon, W. B, "Organization for
physiological homeostasis," Physiological Review, 9, 1929.
--, The Wisdom of the Body, New York:
Norton, 1939.
Carroll, J. M., and Tague, J., "The
people's computer, an aid to participatory democracy," IFIPS conference
proceedings, Human choice and computers, Vienna, 1974.
Le Châtelier, H., "Experimental and
theoretical research on chemical equilibriums," Annals of Mines,
Paris: Dumond, 1888.
Churchman, C. W., The Systems Approach,
New York: Dell, 1968.
Clapham, W. B. Jr., Natural Ecosystems,
New York: Macmillan, 1973.
Cole, S., "World models, their progress
and applicability," Futures, 201, June 1974.
Cook, E., "The flow of energy in an
industrial society," Scientific American, 224, 134, 1971.
Costa de Beauregard, O., The Concept of Time,
Paris: Hermann 1963.
--, The Second Principle of the Science of
Time, Paris: Seuil, 1963.
Couffignal, L., Cybernetics, "What
do I know?" series, Paris: University Presses of France, 1963.
Daly, H. E., Toward a Steady State Economy,
San Francisco: Freeman, 1973.
Darwin, C., The Autobiography of Charles
Darwin, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959.
Darwin, F., The Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin, New York: Basic Books, 1959.
Day, L. H., "An assessment of
travel/communications substitutability," Futures, 559, December
1973.
Dickson, E. M., and Bowers, R., The Video
Telephone, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 1973.
Dupuy, J.-P., Social Value and Congestion of
Time, Paris: CNRS, 1975.
Eigen, M., "Self-organization of matter
and the evolution of biological macromolecules," Die
Naturwissenschaften, 58, October 10, 1971.
Emery, F. E., Systems Thinking, London:
Penguin, 1969.
Von Foerster, H., "On self-organizing
systems and their environments," in Yovitz and Cameron, Self-organizing
Systems, London: Pergamon Press, 1960.
Forrester, J. W., "Industrial dynamics: a
major breakthrough for decision makers," Harvard Business Review,
July-August 1958.
--, Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1961.
--, Urban Dynamics, Cambridge Mass.: MIT
Press, 1969.
--, World Dynamics, Cambridge Mass.: MIT
Press, 1970.
--, "Counterintuitive behavior of social
systems," Technology Review, 73, 52, 1971.
Friedman, Y., How to Live with Others
without Being Chief or Slave, Paris: Pauvert, 1974.
Gal-Or, B., "The crisis about the origin
of irreversibility and time anisotropy," Science, 176, 11 , 1972.
Garaudy, R., The Alternative, Paris: Laffont,
1971.
Georgescu-Roegen, N., The Entropy Law and
the Economic Process, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Gold, T., "The arrow of time," in Time:
Selected Lectures, London: Pergamon, 1965.
Goldmark, P. C., "Telecommunications for
enhanced metropolitan function and form," Report to the director of
telecommunications management under contract no. OEP-SE-69-101, National
Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 1969.
--, "New applications of communications. Technology
for realizing the new rural society," World Future Society Conference,
1971.
Grunbaum, A., "Temporally asymmetric
principles," Philosophy of Science, 29, 1962.
--, Philosophical Problems of Space and Time,
New York: Knopf, 1963.
Guillaumaud, J., Cybernetics and Dialectical
Materialism, Paris: Social Editions, 1965.
--, Norbert Wiener and Cybernetics,
Paris: Seghers, 1971.
Hall, A. D., and Fagen, R. E., "Definition
of a system," General Systems Yearbook, 1, 18, 1956.
Hannon, B., "Options for energy
conservation," Technology Review, 76, 24, 1974.
Hirst, E., "Food-related energy
requirements," Science, 184, 134, 1974.
Hobbs, P. V., Harrison, H., and Robinson, E.,
"Atmospheric effects of pollutants," Science, 183, 1974.
Idatte, P., Keys to Cybernetics, Paris:
Seghers, 1969.
Illich, I., Deschooling Society, New
York: Harper & Row, 1971.
--, Tools for Conviviality, New York:
Harper & Row, 1973.
Jacob, F., Living Logic, Paris:
Gallimard, 1970.
Jungk, R., A Wager on Man, Paris:
Laffont, 1974.
Katchalsky, A., "Network thermodynamics,"
Nature, 234, 393, 1971.
Kukla, G. J., and Kukla, H. J., "Increased
surface albedo in the northern hemisphere," Science, 183, 709,
1974.
Laborit, H., Biology and Structure,
"Ideas" series, Paris: Gallimard, 1968.
--, Man and the City, Paris: Flammarion,
1972.
--, The New Grid, Paris: Laffont, 1974.
Lecomte du Noüy, Time and Life, Paris:
Gallimard, 1936.
Lehninger, A. L., Bioenergetics, Paris:
Ediscience, 1969.
Leonard, E., Etzioni, A., et al.,
"Minerva: a participatory system," Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, November 1971.
Leontieff, V., "The structure of the U.S.
economy," Scientific American, 212, 25, 1965.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., Actions and Words,
Paris: Albin Michel, 1972.
Lotka, A. J., Elements of Physical Biology,
New York: Dover, 1956.
Lowry, W. P., "The climate of
cities," Scientifc American, 217, 15, 1967.
McLuhan, M., Understanding Media: The
Extensions of Man, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Marcuse, H., The One-dimensional Man,
Paris: Minuit, 1968.
Martin, J., Future Developments in Telecommunications,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Marx, K., and Engels, F., Letters on the
Natural Sciences, Paris: Social Editions, 1973.
Matthews, W. H., et al., Man's Impact on the
Global Environment, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971.
Mead, M., Culture and Commitment: a Study of
the Generation Gap, New York: Doubleday, 1970.
Meadows, D. L., et al., The Limits to Growth,
Potomac Associates, New York: Universe Books, 1972.
--, What Limits? Paris: Seuil, 1974
Mesarovic, M., and Pestel, E., Strategy for
Tomorrow, Paris: Seuil, 1974.
Meyer, F, An Overheating of Growth,
Paris: Fayard, 1974.
Monod, J., Chance and Necessity, New
York: Knopf, 1971.
Morin, E., "The event," Communications,
18, Paris: Seuil, 1972.
--, The Lost Paradigm: Human Nature,
Paris: Seuil, 1973.
--, The Method, I: The Nature of
Nature, Paris: Seuil, 1977.
Mumford, L., The Myth of the Machine,
Paris: Fayard, 1974.
National Academy of Engineering, Washington,
D.C., "Communication technology for urban improvement," June 1971.
Nourse, A. E., The Body, "The World
of Science" series, New York: Time-Life, 1965.
Odum, H. T., "Trophic structure and
productivity of Silver Springs, Florida," Ecological Monograms, 27,
55, 1957.
--, Environment, Power and Society, New
York: Wiley, 1971.
--, and Pinkerton, R. C., "Time's speed
regulator: the optimum efficiency for maximum power output in physical and
biological systems," American Scientist, 43, 331, 1955.
Parker E. B., "Some political implications
of information utilities," Conference on information Utilities and
Social Choice, University of Chicago, December 2-3, 1969.
--, and Dunn, D. A., "Information
technology: its social potential," Science, 176, 1392, 1972.
Passet, R., Economics and the Living,
Paris: Melanges Garrigou-Lagrange, 1974.
Perroux, F., Power and the Economy,
Pans: Bordas, 1973.
Perutz, M., "Hemoglobin: the molecular
lung," New Scientist and Science Journal, 676. June 1971.
Piaget, J., Psychology and Pedagogy,
Paris: Denoël, 1969.
Pimentel, D., "Food production and the
energy crisis," Science, 182, 443, 1973.
Popper, J., System Dynamics, Paris:
Organization Editions, 1973.
Prigogine, I., "Structure, dissipation and
life," in Marois, ed., Theoretical Physics and Biology, Amsterdam:
North Holland, 1969.
--, "The thermodynamics of life," Research,
24, 547, 1972.
Puiseux, L., Energy and Confusion,
Paris: Hachette, 1973.
Ramade, F., Elements of Applied Ecology,
Paris: Ediscience, 1974.
Randers, J., "The dynamics of solid waste
generation." in D. Meadows, ed., Toward Global Equilibrium,
Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen, 1973.
Reich, Charles A., The Greening of America,
New York: Bantam, 1970.
Reichenbach, H., The Direction of Time. University
of California Press, 1956.
Revel, J.-F., Neither Marx nor Jesus,
Paris: Laffont, 1970.
Rosnay, J. de, "Evolution and time," Main
Currents in Modern Thought, 27, 2, November 1970.
--, The Origins of Life, Paris: Seuil,
1966.
--, "Social systems in real time," Proceedings
of the Sixth International Congress on Cybernetics, International
Association of Cybernetics, 1972.
--, "From bioenergetics to
ecoenergetics," Communications, 22, Paris: Seuil, 1974.
Schlanger, J. E., Metaphors of the Organism,
Paris: Philosophical Library, 1971.
Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W., The Mathematical
Theory of Communication, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
Singer, B. D., Feedback in Society,
Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books 1973.
Sjoberg, G., "The origin and evoiution of
cities," Scientific American, 213, 54, 1965.
Slesser, M., "Energy analysis in policy
making," New Scientist, 328, November 1973.
Sola-Pool, I. de, Talking Back: Citizen
Feedback and Cable Technology, Cambridge, Mass.: MlT Press, 1974.
Steinhart, J. S., and Steinhart, C. E.,
"Energy use in the U.S. food system," Science, 184, 307, 1974.
Stevens, C. H., "Citizen feedback and
societal systems," Technology Review, 73, 38, 1971.
--, "Towards a network of community
information exchanges," in P. C. Ritterbush, ed., Let the Entire
Community Become Our University, Washington, D.C.: Acropolis, 1972.
Teilhard de Chardin, P., The Phenomenon of
Man, Paris: Seuil, 1955.
--, The Vision of the Past, Paris:
Seuil, 1957.
Toffler, A., Future Shock, New York:
Random House, 1970.
Touraine, A., The Postindustrial Society,
Mediations Library Paris: Denoël, 1969.
Tribus, M., and McIrvine, E C., "Energy
and information," Scientific American, 224, 179, 1971.
Vasse, Denis, The Time of Desire, Paris:
Seuil, 1974.
Volterra, V., Lessons on the Mathematical
Theory of the Struggle for Existence, Paris: Villars, 1931.
Watson, J., Molecular Biology of the Gene,
Paris: Ediscience, 1972.
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, Paris: Hermann,
1948.
--, Cybernetics and Society, Paris:
Union Generale d'Editions, 1962.
Wolman, A., "The metabolism of
cities," Scientific American, 213, 178, 1965.
Zaborsky, O., Immobilized Enzymes,
Cleveland: CRC Press, 1973.
[1] A.C., after the crisis, or followiog the great
worldwide criis of the economies.
