One of the main features I talk about with living sustainably is that everyone will need to live more localized. This then raises the question whether the governing systems will also need to be more localized as well. There has been a growing trend globally in the last 130 years for people to leave rural living (agricultural communities) for more urban living. And after the nationalistically based wars of the 20th century there is also a modern trend to more centralized governments that has bring countries under ‘group’ umbrellas. Indeed, a major result of globalization since 1981 has been the consolidation of governments under regional unions, for example, the European Union (‘common market’). The increase of global trade pacts fostered by economic entities like the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has accelerated this kind of consolidation of trading processes. The result is a world were everything is moved around within huge shipping systems. This is of course all managed by global corporations that have no allegiance to anyone except shareholders and investors. There are two terms used in business theory that are of pertinence to my discussion, Horizontal and Vertical Integration. A simple way to think about this is horizontal integration is the merging (or take-over) of corporations at a similar level in the business chain that are direct competitors. (One consequence is also the acquisition of smaller competitive businesses along the way). Vertical integration is the acquisition of businesses that are part of the supply chain, ultimately from beginning to end of the system). And a subsequent action of this is the inevitable move towards monopolism and elimination of all competition, beginning especially with local competition – The Walmart effect. (Investopedia – The Walmart Effect is a term used to refer to the economic impact felt by local businesses when a large company like Walmart opens a location in the area. The Walmart Effect usually manifests itself by forcing smaller retail firms out of business and reducing wages for competitors’ employees who now have few options for employment.)
Now think about how most of the developed world lives within this corporate system – most everything you buy comes from somewhere else, usually many hundreds, if not thousands of miles away. If any part of the supply system fails then we have a problem (see my much earlier post Relocalization and Community). The corporate goal of course is to have everyone, all 7.7 billion and growing, live within the same system. The more people that live in the same ‘delivery’ area the more efficient and profitable the system. And never forget that this system is built on a continual economic growth paradigm. It is here that the ultimate corporate bosses and the Cabal become schizoid – more people means more buyers for stuff, but more people makes control harder. The trend since the start of the industrial revolution (around the latter part of the 1700s in Britain) has been growth of larger industries and less ‘cottage’ industry. A direct consequence was, and still is, the loss of local jobs and the need of people to move into areas where industrial jobs could be gained – the move to towns and cities from rural communities. Consider that in 1890, the USA (and similar in much of the developing world then and now) was about 35% urban and 65% rural. This has been growing steadily such that all over the planet, in 2007, the percentage of urban to rural living was 50-50%. In 2019, it is 55% urban, and expected to be 68% by 2050. This means more and more people living in towns and cities with subsequent overcrowding.
In affluent countries living space is currently about average 400 square feet per person in multi dwelling homes and 925 square feet per person in single homes. While apartments and flats (multi-dwelling homes) are more common in Europe, Japan, and out of necessity, large cities everywhere, in North America especially, the move to larger and larger individual homes seems more the norm – the consequence of this is urban sprawl with all its attendant problems (more about this in next post). Interestingly, Hong Kong, with some of the highest density living in the world, has an average living space of 1700 square feet per living unit (includes single and large family units). This means that at the current living density of Hong Kong, all of current humanity could live in a single area about the size of France. Outside of a science fiction movie this is not going to happen, but it illustrates how rethinking about how we live can give us alternative solutions to the apparent living space crunch we seemingly face.
Now resources for all the people on Earth is another problem. In my classes I often had students from other countries in Asia and Europe. When I would have them calculate their ‘Ecological footprint’ the students from the USA inevitably scored 4-7 planets needed if everyone on Earth had their lifestyle. Even the most ardent environmental U.S. students could not score less than 2 planets, the system is so costly in energy in getting everything to the markets. Environmental students from Europe might be able to get between 1-2 planets with a concerted effort. Asian students, especially from countries like Thailand found they could get to less than one planet if they decided to live a little more frugally in these countries – much of their lifestyle used locally obtained products or came from much closer to home. The point I am making is that living sustainably can occur but not with the kind of lifestyle and the corporate system that is expected in much of the developed world and especially North America.
So, do we need a more centralized control or decentralized control of resources? To Be Continued……..
0 Comments