|
|
|
|
Economics,
Entropy and the Earth: In any system questions arise that cannot be answered
within that system. Limits are
reached in knowledge, technology, economics, social structures and the myths
that provide the foundations for these systems.
Today we who live in the technologically developed Western world are
beginning to recognize the inadequacy of the reigning myths to carry us forward
into a world that does not carry the seeds of its own destruction.
We are at the brink of breaking into a new awareness of our place within
the universe, an awareness that will challenge every major institution of our
society and create new possibilities for moving forward and celebrating the
wonder of life. In 1962 Thomas Kuhn wrote a classic in the sociology of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago 1962, 1970). Kuhn helped us understand that science operates within a community structure that carries particular understandings of reality. Science is not a unitary institution with an objective reality adequate to answer all challenges. At key points problems arise that the reigning scientific understanding is unable to solve. A shift in consciousness becomes necessary for forward movement. Such a paradigm shift, a shift in allegiance, power and community norms, occurred with the recognition in the 17th century that the earth is not the center of the universe. These shifts challenge the powers that control society. Choices need to be made between incompatible modes of community life like the choice between competing political institutions. Today several elements are flowing together that challenge the reigning models in every sphere of our life. Various kinds of modern technology aid us, just as they did in the early 17th century. The simple telescope provided Galileo with an increased power of observation in his day, allowing him to observe the moons of Jupiter and sunspots, observations that provided key evidence for a new understanding of the motion of the heavens and the place of the earth. Today modern scientific technology provides tools that increase our observational power and challenge our fundamental understandings. Through the images from the Hubble space telescope we now
recognize the extent of the
universe, its expanding nature and the existence of billions of galaxies
containing billions of stars. We
have a reasonable estimate of the age of the universe, the processes of its
beginnings and the birth of stars, galaxies and life on earth. Through Einstein’s theory of special relativity, we
recognize that the operating principles of the earth are the same operating
principles found throughout the universe.
As we unravel the mysteries of the human genome, we recognize our
relationship to all forms of life.
With information technology powered by increasingly powerful microchips
we are rapidly amassing and analyzing huge amounts of information.
Technological advances have outpaced our abilities to absorb and manage,
both challenging and inviting our creativity.
Yet the wonder of the 15 billion years of the universe story is that life
has continued, creating ever more complex organisms.
Throughout that time, the fundamental processes of the universe continue,
largely unchanged, but playing out through a rhythm of necessity, chance and
choice. Today the reign of economics and the global market is similar to the reign of the church in Galileo’s time. Today the tallest buildings are the financial centers or global corporate headquarters. In the 17th century cathedrals dominated the skyline. Today financial markets and the rule of the bottom line and the quarterly statement continue in spite of their roots in beliefs contrary to the nature of the universe. In the time of Galileo, the church officially denounced the Copernican theory that the Sun is the center of the solar system and the earth revolves around it. Through its power, the church hierarchy enforced beliefs contrary to the emerging modern view of the universe which threatened that power. Today institutions run according to mainstream economic theories continue to hold power despite assumptions that are contrary to the operating principles of the universe. Prevailing economics thrives on beliefs in individualism and selfishness, detachment and statistical people, and homogeneity and uniformity. The universe, on the other hand, has thrived for 15 billion years on differentiation and complexity, communion and interrelatedness, and interiority and self-organization. Should we then wonder why global economic capitalism is destroying communities, people and the environment and creating a global monoculture that bears the seeds of its own destruction? UNIVERSE Differentiation,
diversity, complexity, disparity,
multiform nature, heterogeneity, articulation Communion, community, relatedness, interrelatedness Interiority, autopoeisis, self-organizing, inner
capacity, self-manifestation, subjectivity, real people MAINSTREAM
ECONOMICS Monoculture, sameness, homogeneity, uniformity,
similarity Individualism, selfishness, independence, egoism Exteriority, objectivity, detachment, neutrality,
statistical people
Technology and Entropy 1) Technology is the answer assumes that the human
knowledge base is infinite. We can solve any problem that faces us with some
form of technology. Such an
approach views the earth as infinitely available for our creative minds and
holds no inherent limitations. It
does not recognize that any technology we invent is subject to the laws of
entropy, namely that any product or process that makes material more useful
inherently produces waste and has consequences that increase the overall entropy
of the system. Technology is
the answer places faith in human ability to create resources out of things that
were previously not useful, yet fails to appreciate the context of humans in an
evolutionary sequence that has its own dynamics and limitations. 2) Technology is the problem assumes that technology
is the problem because every major environmental problem we face today is the
result of the technological solution to a previous problem.
This attitude often seeks to eliminate the key technologies driving
society, whether they be nuclear technology or genetic engineering or computers.
It is a response often occurring toward the beginning of the introduction
of a new technology. Certain
advocates of a simpler lifestyle and others with traditional religious cultures,
like branches of the Amish, hold this attitude.
A variation of the attitude differentiates between technologies,
affirming smaller, simple technologies but rejecting larger or modern scientific
technologies. 3) The use of technology is the problem assumes that
technology is neutral and can be applied to any situation but needs certain
limitations. Advocates of
this attitude could differentiate, for example, between nuclear technology used
for weapons and nuclear technology used for energy production.
They might also differentiate between genetic technology used for
enhancing the food value of plants and genetic technology used for cloning
humans or animals. Those looking at
use as the problem do not reject any technology for itself but look at the
application of it. 4) Sustainable technology or alternative technology seeks to apply technology within the framework of the limitations of entropy and in accord with other principles by which the universe operates. A typical approach with this attitude considers biomimicry a framework. Biomimicry looks to the natural world as a model, a mentor and a measure and seeks to imitate it. Technology following the guidelines of biomimicry would run on current sunlight, be highly efficient and use only the energy it needs, fit form to function, be a source of cooperation and community building, foster diversity, provide built-in regulation for excesses, have internal limits, fit its context, and provide for future generations. It would also use little or no material that is not renewable in its source or could not be reused or recycled. It would operate in a way that maintains or enhances natural ecosystems, and it would be produced and utilized in a manner that is consistent with equitable and efficient distribution of physical and financial resources. Towards a Paradigm Shift Anytime reigning myths are no longer adequate, the stress within a system guided by that myth increases. Whether on the societal, institutional or personal level, good people work harder and harder to make things work, sticking to old patterns of thinking and acting and not getting the results they want. Increasing activity appears to be a solution but instead, fails. The discontinuity between activity, results and intentions increases often to the point of complete breakdown physically and emotionally. Ultimately the system itself crashes. Clear thinking within such a dysfunctional system is difficult as pressure to perform increases without time or desire to pay attention to the inadequacy of the controlling paradigm. Institutional reaction is often reorganization which in turn produces more stress on all levels with little ultimate return. Like addictive behavior, allegiance to dysfunctional paradigms, is difficult to change. Implementing a new vision means changing the way we act and think, not increasing the activity based on the old vision. Entropy operates in dysfunctional social and economic systems much like it does in physical systems. As the inherent problems of the paradigm create impaired functioning, additional actions based on the old paradigm and meant to address the problems compound the friction and lead to lower efficiency and effectiveness. As the cycle continues, crisis results. The energy
situation in California provides a recent example.
We have become acutely aware of the effects of increasing demand on
natural resources with the incapability of the California electric utilities to
meet power needs. Yet little has been said about decreasing use as a primary way
to deal with the crisis. If
Californians cut peak electric use by 2½% it would mean a 25% rate reduction
because the expensive power (and in recent times often unavailable power) is
power for peak demand times. Such
a solution would form part of a new paradigm in contrast with the old.
Instead, the administration in Washington used the California
crisis to advocate actions like opening new oil fields in sensitive natural
areas, halting actions to limit CO2 emissions from utilities and
walking away from the Kyoto treaty. A look at past changes in social and economic behavior indicates that bold and decisive leadership took action, usually without realization of the full impact of that action. The established powers never embraced the action and marshaled forces to defend their own embedded interests. Religious reformers like Luther, political reformers like those who dumped tea into the Boston harbor, and scientists like Galileo took action or voiced their views as matters of their own integrity, consistent with their insight into systemic problems. Most had little understanding at the time of their action that they were fomenting a revolution that would shake the foundational myths of their society. What is the framework for a new way acting today? I want to suggest seven guidelines to apply to all actions, personal, institutional and social. Action taken within this framework necessarily challenges many reigning paradigms and lays the foundation for moving forward in a new and sustainable way. SEVEN GUIDELINES FOR
ACTION 1. Act in ways that enhance community, foster dialogue, and recognize the interdependency of people and natural systems. 2. Act in ways that affirm the diversity of people, cultures, and resources. 3. Act in ways that encourage self-organization and creativity and increase local decision-making. 4. Act in ways that use less material from the crust of the earth and focus on renewable resources. 5. Act in ways that create less stuff and focus on services needed and delivered. 6. Act in ways that maintain and enhance the health of natural ecosystems. 7.
Act in ways that efficiently use resources and increase social equity. Andy Smith |
