In biomimicry, engineers are learning to study organisms for their evolutionary engineering to problems. After all, nature has had billions of years to develop unique solutions to problems we see today without creating more problems. Economically, nature works to maximize its natural currency (energy capture using photosynthesis) through a circular system of energy and mineral transfer through ‘trophic levels’ (see last post). While there are many proponents for building a human circular economy, the global economic system is rigidly attached to its current market-economy mode of capitalism, which is a linear system. This means find new resources, process them with multiple negative side effects and waste materials, manufacture new products, also with multiple negative side effects and waste materials, and then create waste once product-life is complete. (The Story of Stuff video explains this nicely.)
In a circular economy, products and materials are kept in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting – just like a natural system, there is literally no waste. Since 2002, this C2C idea has been talked about, but therein lies the big problem, mostly talked about. Recycling centers are pretty much ubiquitous in most municipalities in the developed world, but recycling markets are not. Overall, globally we are barely recycling 20% of the waste stream, and of that 20% a much smaller fraction is recycled a second time. This link explains the pros and cons of current recycling. We cannot work circularly when the economic system that drives it all is still practiced linearly. The metric used to measure a market driven economy is cost effectiveness and profit.
Two posts back I talked about the metric of using ‘emergy’ to value any product or process. Think about energy for a minute. We need it for life; we need it to do anything and everything. We eat to live from energy via photosynthesis in a trophic system. We use energy from ancient photosynthesis (fossil fuels) to power our modern world. We may start to tap into quantum energy, but that is still theoretical. For now, ultimately, photosynthesis is the only source of energy we have. So, it only makes sense that we measure emergy as our economic metric. It’s real, it’s observable and tangible, unlike money, which ought to be merely a tool of convenience – not an end all. Convenience for what you might ask? For the true metrics of what we are trying to do in this life.
At this point, many of you may be thinking, “This is all very theoretical, so, how is this a practical option for developing sustainability at the local level?” In just the last 3 years, we entered a new world run by Artificial Intelligence Algorithms. I make emphasis of algorithms because, the computers running these programs are adaptive, in that they ‘learn’ as they go along. Currently we are heading to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that are uber-efficient thinking systems, but still controllable by us. I don’t want to debate AI at this point, just to express that measuring emergy would be easy for AI to be programmed to do. If we get to Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI – possibly in the next 6 years?) then AI is a whole different ball-game.
Back to metrics of what is important. We all want to live happy, comfortable lives with people we love and enjoy in peace and prosperity – we want to thrive and have lives of meaning and purpose – to be able to be authentic and self-actualized. What do we currently measure – in essence, how much money we have. This is based on an erroneous belief that money brings us all of that, even though we have no evidence it does. Is a multi-millionaire happy? The illusion is yes; the reality is no. They have excessive materialistic comforts, but rarely are they happy or feeling fulfilled. Their fears are different from those living in poverty, but their lives are still full of fears and self-doubts. I find it interesting how the uber-rich exhibit sociopathic behaviors, with many billionaires being psychopathic.
Yes, they have nearly all the money but they keep the illusion alive by telling us how well we are doing. But then look closely at what they say and reality hits home. I saw a meme the other day that said the average US income is $75,000, which seems pretty good. The key here is the word average. Income disparity in the US is extreme, so using average is almost meaningless. Remove the top 1000 uber-rich-outliers and the average drops to $35,000, and even that is misleading. It is closer to the median, but looking more closely shows how skewed it is really. We like think of normal distributions (e.g., average of (2+3+3+5+8+10+11)/7 = 6), but we exist with extremely skewed distributions (e.g., (2+2+3+3+5+7+8+130+130,000)/9 = 14,462.2). The vast majority of people (the ones below 130,000) are not sociopathic, they are decent, caring, and kind, even if they are ‘conditioned’ to be overly opinionated at this time.
If money (and hence Standard of living) is not what its all about, what do we measure as a sign that we are doing well and are living sustainably? A sustainable future will still have technology and manufacturing, but it will be evaluated differently. Emergy will tell us what the true value is of everything. But what about how we live locally? The metrics from the Bhutanese “Gross National Happiness GNH)’ index are a good start that measures things we value personally and as communities – we measure well-being (quality of life). I’ve covered GNH previously, but the links (1 and 2) explains it all – we focus on the four pillars and nine domains that evaluate quality of life. The main critics of GNH all come from a market-driven economic perspective. Yes, the majority of the Bhutanese people live in what we currently define as poverty, but are they really poor? They do not have the ‘stuff’ (high standard of living) we associate with ‘being developed’ but they do have an excess of well-being quality of life stuff we crave. I hope you see the apparent contradictions here. As the Bhutanese develop more local technology and enhance their life comforts, if they do not get coopted by ‘stuff,’ will quickly surpass the developed world countries in quality of life.
Locally, it makes sense that communities transitioning to sustainable practices have Local Economic Trading Systems (LETS). These LETS keep the economy local such that trading, services, battering, and exchanges that promote the community are transparent and based on cooperation among all the members of the contributing community. In many communities, national currency is exchanged 1:1 for a local currency to ensure that all exchanges remain within the community. The growth of cooperatives and community focused manufacturing (like cottage industries of the past) will blossom again as we gain sovereignty and become more self-reliant.
As we move more into a circular and caring economy, our businesses will by necessity have to transform. As an advanced global and sustainable civilization, we will have manufacturing for things we will always need. The first thing that will change is our values about life. The current corporate greed model is totally incompatible and will quickly crumble away. Localized manufacturing will increase for self-sufficiency, with new corporate models driving larger regional and international manufacturing for things that require larger scale production (e.g., computer system parts).
The aim is not profit per se, but community economic resilience. It should be paramount to understand that local business may not always arise out of the community itself. Who we invite into our communities should also be a decision to be made wisely. Currently, a new way of doing business is with the B-corporation model (https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us). These transformational kinds of businesses promote a new kind of capitalism that promotes goods and services yet establishes new metrics of success focused on community well-being and not profit. All decisions affecting the community are made at the community level without larger outdated state influences dictating policies and procedures.
The creation of a library economy (see 3 and 4 posts back) will release us from burdensome ownership issues as we share more of everything. Our new businesses will by necessity be socially responsible and held to higher standards, much like the B-Corp businesses and transformational businesses as described by the David Thomas typology model for instance (see link in past post about this) where business will itself become transformational. The idea of stockholders will fade as stakeholders become the force for purpose driven businesses that strive to create benefit for life – both human and the natural world. As Rose Marcario, CEO of Patagonia, said, “The B Corp movement is one of the most important of our lifetime, built on the simple fact that business impacts and serves more than just shareholders—it has an equal responsibility to the community and to the planet.” Businesses will see themselves as ‘change agents’ working to improve the lives of people and groups in a specific place they do business.
In closing this post, when we take the reins of how the economy works at the local level, the negative global economic paradigms that are destroying our ecosystems and that continue to create human suffering will fall apart because they cannot exist without misleading us to keep their dominance and control. Dream big and ignore the authorities and hierarchies that insist you toe their line. We may have to see the start of a global economic collapse to get many to see the changes we need to make. The good news is that if we already have these ideas ready to go, then they can be implemented quickly. Focus on what you want the future to look like. Hook up with others that have that similar vision of local sovereignty. Begin to implement what you can where you currently are, and be the best version of yourself as a model for others to follow. Evaluate what is important for quality of life. What we measure is what we focus upon.
0 Comments